The great question of Sir Bartle Frere's native and Zulu policy is easily narrowed. His Excellency believes in abolishing the power of chiefs, and in obtaining after defensive war adequate territorial guarantees. The opposite policy has, undoubtedly, caused the wars of 1845, 1852, and 1877. The relinquishment of the province of Queen Adelaide by Lord Glenelg necessitated its reconquest, and the system of endeavouring to rule through the medium of chiefs has resulted in disastrous failure. A chief is necessarily antagonistic to civilization: all his power, influence, and means are obtained from savagery, and it is this latter system it is his interest to foster and to continue. But for the astuteness and ability of Sir George Grey Kreli would undoubtedly have thrown us into a serious war in 1857. This great chief ordered cattle to be slaughtered in such a manner as to prove that he had even determined to "burn his ships." Emissaries were despatched to Moshesh, to Taku, and to the Tambookies. A witch-doctor was used as a tool in the usual manner, so as to stir up the people by means of superstition, and the system, whose continuance is advocated by a party, only failed because of the checkmate movements of the Governor. Subsequently, it was purely the continuance of the system of the chiefs that led us into the war of 1877. If their power had been abolished, as it should have been, great calamities would have been averted from their own people and from the Cape Colony. A careful honest study of colonial history is all that is necessary to prove to demonstration that weak half-measures with Kafirs are as irrational and absurd as they are cruel. When we conquer we are bound to take away entirely the pernicious powers of the chiefs, as well as to retain such land guarantees as are really necessary for future safety. Those who advocate this sound, wise policy are real philanthropists, substituting justice and sound ideas for theoretical ideas, founded for the most part upon that worst description of ignorance which is founded upon prejudice and pre-conceived ideas.
One argument brought forward against Confederation is based upon the lowest possible motives. It is the pockets, not the heads or hearts, to which this earnest appeal is made. One great Government in South Africa with provincial administrations will really be too expensive! Besides, an objection is taken to the removal of the liability under which the British Government labours at present. Let the Home country continue to lose its best blood and treasure rather than we should lose our money. A great strong Confederation would put an end to Kafir wars by putting an end to the possibility of their success, but lest we should have to pay a few more taxes the British ratepayers' purses and the British soldiers' bodies must continue to bleed. This infamous policy is not worthy of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. We have attained our majority as children of the Empire, and we must be prepared to resume our own responsibilities. These, unquestionably, include self-defence, and to make that efficient the fable of the bundle of sticks must be exemplified in the close union of all our states and colonies. Nothing is more clear than the fact that all South Africa is like a draughtboard--the blacks are on one side, the whites on the other. There is no separating the interests of either combatants, so that when Cetywayo fights against Natal, he fights against this colony as well as against the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. But real economy is always attended by a sound and statesmanlike system of Government. There would be no recurrence of native wars under Confederation, and this alone would be a source of great economy and great prosperity. South Africa, not Downing Street, would conduct its own native policy, and there would be then no fear of the recurrence of such a policy as that of Lord Glenelg. At present we are not safe, and the sooner such a period of incertitude and danger is terminated the better for the taxpayers here and in England. Are the people of this country not able to govern themselves in a Confederation? The history of the separate states and colonies proves the contrary. If we are able we ought to be willing, as such a union means against the natives invincible strength, and consequently both peace and economy. Above all things we ought to relieve ourselves from the curse of being perpetually exposed to the meddling and muddling of our native policy. Fatuous incompetency, such as that of Lord Glenelg, is quite enough to ruin half a dozen colonies, and we really can never be quite sure that it will not be renewed.