66

refers to the respect paid to the missionaries in Caffreland, and to the kindness and protection they received even when their countrymen were harassing the natives with patrols and commandoes; to the places of worship and schools built by the Caffres; to the trade, amounting to £30,000 per annum, carried on by 200 British traders residing far beyond the boundaries of the colony, protected only by the integrity and humanity of the uncivilized natives." He adds, with irresistible force, that "to such a people, the character of 'irreclaimable savages' cannot with justice be assigned: nor, indeed, even if well founded, would this reproach come with a good grace from us, unless it can be asserted that we have, as a government, fairly brought to the test of experiment, whether they can or cannot be reclaimed."

With respect to the sentiments of the missionaries, Lord Glenelg opposes to their opinion, that there is no other remedy but the sword, that if the missionaries of the London and Glasgow Societies, who "instead of regarding the invasion as a wanton and unprovoked act, considered it as a natural re-action, on the part of the Caffres, against a series of extreme and intolerable oppressions; so far are they from thinking the sword the only remedy, that, on the contrary, they insist, even with importunity, on the certain efficacy of other methods, of which kindness, conciliation, and justice should form the basis." Of the address of the Wesleyan missionaries, he says, whatever might be his opinion of its tone and character, "and of the topics selected," after reading the recommendation of Mr. Shrewsbury, his lordship observes, he cannot attach the slightest value to that gentleman's judgment on the present occasion; and he hopes that the opinions he has recorded, and the counsels he has given, will be promptly disavowed by the Society, and, on mature reflection, retracted by their author.

Having thus relieved the Caffres from the responsibility of the late hostilities, and confessing that "the result is very far from favourable to the character of British policy," the noble Secretary considers the manner in which the war was carried on and its incidents; and, quoting the language of the despatches, which speak of the slaughter amongst the undisciplined hordes, with no reference to the capture of any prisoners;” of the hundreds of huts burnt; of the corn in every direction destroyed; of the cattle of all kinds carried off; Lord Glenelg expresses himself thus:

Reading these statements, at this distance from the scene of action, I must own that I am affected by them in a manner the most remote from that which the writer contemplated. In the civilized warfare of Europe, this desolation of an enemy's country, not in aid of any military operations, nor for the security of the invading force, but simply and confessedly as an act of vengeance, has rarely occurred, and the occurrence of it has been invariably followed by universal reprobation. I doubt, indeed, whether the history of modern Europe affords an example even of a single case in which, without some better pretext than that of mere retribution, any invaded people were ever subjected to the calamities which Colonel Smith here describes: the loss of their food, the spoiling of their cattle, the burning of their dwellings, the expulsion of their wives and families from their homes, the confiscation of their property, and the forfeiture of their native country. I am, of course, aware that the laws of civilized nations cannot be rigidly applied in our contests with barbarous men; for those laws presuppose a reciprocity, which cannot subsist between parties of whom the one is ignorant of the usages, maxims, and religion of the other. But the great principles of morality are of immutable and universal obligation, and from them are deduced the laws of war. Of these laws, the first and cardinal rule relating to a state of hostility is, that the belligerent must inflict no injury on his enemy which is not indispensably requisite to insure the safety of him by whom it is inflicted, or to pro

mote the attainment of the legitimate ends of the warfare. Whether we contend with a civilized or a barbarous enemy, the gratuitous aggravation of the horrors of war, on the plea of vengeance or retribution, or on any similar grounds, is alike indefensible. Now I must profess my inability to discover what danger could be averted, or what useful object could be attained, by the desolation of the Caffre country, which Colonel Smith has described. The inhabitants had been taught the utter hopelessness of a contest with the British force. They had learnt that, for their injuries, whatever they might be, the redress was not in their own power. As the conviction of their helplessness was thus forced upon them, forbearance in the use of our irresistible means of destruction became still more clearly the paramount duty of the leaders of his Majesty's forces.*

On the subject of Hintza, his lordship avows that he is not satisfied either that that chieftain was the legitimate object of our military operations, or that his death admits of justification. He observes that, though his tribe is charged with supporting the others, the Governor had no evidence of the fact; that neutrality was the wise and justifiable policy of Hintza; yet even previous to March, hostilities against him were meditated. The presumptions and probabilities of the case were, in Lord Glenelg's opinion, adverse to the conclusion that Hintza had either instigated or countenanced the war. His interest, of which he had sagacity enough to take a very distinct view, prompted him to keep up an alliance with us; on the other hand, his fertile country was an object of cupidity, far more tempting than the lands of the border chiefs.

I will not pause (he says) to inquire whether Hintza was justly detained in your camp as a prisoner, or whether he was really liable to pay with his life the penalty of attempting to escape from the detachment which accompanied him. All this being conceded, there yet remains the question, not hitherto solved, nor, as far as I can perceive, even discussed. He was slain when he had no longer the means of resistance, but covered with wounds, and vainly attempting to conceal his person in the water into which he had plunged as a refuge from his pursuers. Why the last wound was inflicted, and why this unhappy man, regarded with an attachment almost idolatrous by his people, was not seized by the numerous armed men who had reached his place of concealment, has never yet been explained. The case assumes a peculiar importance, from the circumstance that Mr. Southey, who gave the death-wound, appears to have been subsequently twice commended in general orders, though not, indeed, with any express reference to his conduct in this affair. It is said, that Hintza refused to surrender. But if the fact be so, of what importance was the refusal of a wounded, helpless, isolated man? It is stated to me, bowever, on evidence which it is impossible to receive without serious attention, that Hintza repeatedly cried for mercy; that the Hottentots present granted the boon, and abstained from killing him; that this office was then undertaken by Mr. Southey, and that then the dead body of the fallen chief was basely and inhumanly mutilated. I express no opinion on this subject, but advert to it because the honour of the British name demands that the case should undergo a full investigation, which it is my purpose to institute.

Lord Glenelg then lays down the general principles by which the British policy towards the aborigines of Southern Africa should be governed: "The extension of his Majesty's dominions in that quarter of the globe, by conquest or cession, is diligently and anxiously to be avoided. Hostilities with the tribes in our vicinity may occasionally be inevitable for the protection of the King's subjects; but on every other ground they cannot too earnestly be

In his despatch of the 7th November, the Governor states that it had been ascertained that the tribes of Gaika and T'Slambie had lost 4,000 of their warriors, including many captains; about 60,000 head of cattle, almost all their goats, "their habitations everywhere destroyed, and their gardens and corn-fields laid waste."

deprecated. In our relations with those tribes, it yet remains to try the efficacy of a systematic and persevering adherence to justice, conciliation, forbearance, and the honest arts by which civilization may be advanced, and Christianity diffused amongst them; and such a system must be immediately established and rigidly enforced."

Assuming that he does not labour under any cardinal error as to the facts of the case (otherwise, the Governor has the responsibility of suspending the instructions), Lord Glenelg declares and directs; 1st, that the British sovereignty over the country between the Fish River and the Keishkamma does not rest on any solid foundation of international law or justice; yet its relinquishment is surrounded by so many difficulties, as to forbid its surrender. 2d. The claim of sovereignty over the new province must be renounced, as resting on a conquest resulting from a war in which the original justice was on the side of the conquered, not the victorious party: and he fixes the period for the relinquishment of the territory at the end of 1836. Having recognized the injustice of the acquisition, his lordship points out an additional, though subordinate, motive in its impolicy, the great evil of the Cape colony being its magnitude, and this acquisition bringing us into immediate contact with tribes numerous and warlike, which would lead to new contests, new conquests, and the necessity of a new frontier. The liberation of the Fingoes, he considers unjustifiable; but the act being done, it became irreversible, and he recommends their settlement to the westward of the Keishkamma, whence the Caffres were expelled.

His lordship announces that, for the due regulation of the future relations between the Caffres and the colonists, as well as for other purposes, his Majesty proposed to appoint a lieutenant-governor of the eastern districts,* on whom will be devolved the administration of the executive government within his assigned boundaries; and that it is also proposed to appoint a civil commissioner, or protector of the native tribes, to whom will be entrusted the duty of protecting the borderers on either side against mutual aggressions, and government agent to reside in Caffreland, to guard the rights of natives and European traders. His lordship lays down rules for the guidance of the lieut.governor and civil commissioner, and suggests that a law shall be submitted to Parliament, to enable our colonial tribunals to take cognizance of and punish offences committed by British subjects within the Caffre territory.

We are convinced that the sentiments contained in this despatch, however painful to those individuals upon whom it casts a censure, will be approved by all whose judgment has not been warped by the influence of excited feelings, prejudice, or provocation.

It is due to Sir B. D'Urban to mention, that it appears from the addresses presented to him from different parts of the colony, from resolutions passed at public meetings, and from memorials to the King in Council from the districts of Albany and Graaff Reinet, that his conduct and policy gave the colonists the utmost satisfaction, and that his benevolence and humanity are recorded as conspicuously as his energy, promptitude, and skill.

We may rapidly conclude the detail of occurrences by stating, that by the month of September, hostilities had ceased, and treaties of peace had been concluded by the Governor of the colony with the chiefs of various Caffre

In a despatch of the 5th February, Lord Glenelg announces to Captain A. Stockenstrom, that he is appointed lieutenant-governor of the eastern division of the colony, and the principles which are to govern his conduct, and which are a development of those laid down in the despatch of the 26th December.

tribes, including several of the hostile tribes, who stipulated thereby to become subjects of the King of Great Britain. The despatch (17th February 1836), in which Lord Glenelg replies to the communications of Governor D'Urban on this subject, declares that "his Majesty is not disposed to accept the allegiance of the Caffres or the dominion of their country;" it prohibits the Governor from making, under any circumstances, a single grant or license of occupation of any part of the Adelaide province to Europeans, and it censures very strongly the passage in General D'Urban's despatch, recording the slaughter amongst the tribes of Gaika and T'Slambie (two of those who had sued to be admitted subjects of Britain), which has been cited in a note in a preceding page.

The definitive arrangements, with respect to the newly-acquired territory, have not yet been made public.

It only remains for us to state that, as soon as the Committee of the Wesleyan Missionary Society were apprized of the contents of the paper sent by Mr. Shrewsbury to Colonel Smith, they unanimously resolved (after receiving a paper of explanations from Mr. Shrewsbury) to record "their most entire and unqualified disapprobation of the step unhappily taken by him;" that the advice given by him, if understood in its obvious and literal meaning (which Mr. Shrewsbury endeavours to modify), was, in various particulars, "most unwarrantable and revolting to the principles and feelings of humanity and religion;" that, if it were possible to suppose that any circumstances could have justified such recommendations, "it was still highly unbecoming the station and character of a minister of the Gospel of Peace, and contrary to the standing instructions which this Society gives to all its missionaries, that he should interfere at all, even though requested by the military authorities, in the discussion of questions of this nature."

THE ANCIENT MONUMENTS OF EGYPT.

THE Pasha of Egypt, it is well known, has prohibited the demolition of ancient monuments, and the exportation of antiquities, in Upper Egypt, and has given directions for the formation of a museum in the country, where such objects are to be preserved. The preamble of his proclamation is curious:

"Whereas, the surprising edifices and astonishing constructions scattered about in Upper Egypt, being monuments of ancient times, attract to this country a great number of European travellers, the articles, which they term antiquities (¿ë, antika), being much in request with them; it happens that these foreigners destroy the ancient edifices, for the sake of getting the stones and other articles, and export them to foreign countries. If these proceedings continue, it is evident, that in a very little time, there will be nothing remaining of these ancient monuments in Egypt, and that all will be carried off to other countries. On the other hand, it is well known, that Europeans never permit articles of antiquity and curiosity found in their countries to be carried away; but, on the contrary, they send into countries, which abound in ancient monuments, skilful persons, to purchase those articles from those who know not their value, and who, incited by avarice, sell them for a few pieces of gold or silver. It is also well known, that Europeans have buildings appropriated to the reception of articles of antiquity;-stones covered with paintings and inscriptions, and other similar articles, are preserved there with care, and shown to the people of the country as well as travellers. Such establishments impart a great celebrity to the countries which possess them; independently of which, the inscriptions and figures represented on such articles of antiquity, contribute much to the augmentation of knowledge amongst European scholars, who attach much value to them."

Asi at. Journ. N.S. VOL. 21. No.84.

2 Q

SKETCHES OF THE LATER HISTORY OF BRITISH INDIA.

No. IX.-DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PEISHWA AND THE GUICOWar.

WHEN Lord Moira undertook the reins of Government in India, the elements of commotion were almost every where prepared, and some favourable opportunity, or casual act of provocation, was only wanting to call them into operation. Among the causes which were likely to disturb the peace of the country, were certain differences between the Peishwa and the Guicowar, for the settlement of which the former prince manifested a most extraordinary anxiety. This, however, was in perfect correspondence with the usual practices of native states, of taking advantage of any change in the British Government to press, with unwonted earnestness and pertinacity, every claim which they have, or pretend to have, either upon that government or upon the native states under its protection.

The discussions between the Peishwar and the Guicowar arose partly out of the former connexion between those states; and the British Government, by the treaties concluded with both, was bound to arbitrate upon their claims. A further ground of dispute was furnished by the circumstances of Ahmedabad. This district was divided between the Peishwa and Guicowar; the former prince had granted a lease of his share to the latter, and arrangements had been made, under the sanction and influence of the British Government, calculated to promote the advancement of the country in prosperity and happiness. The success of those arrangements was, however, endangered by a desire expressed by the Peishwa to resume his portion of the territory. This was a result alike to be deprecated by the Guicowar, the British Government, and the inhabitants of the district in question; and it became necessary that endeavours should be made to avert it. With these questions were mixed up others, connected with the Peishwa's interests in Kattywar; and altogether, the disputes were involved in great intricacy, while the objects to which they related were of great delicacy and importance. At this critical period, it was fortunate that the representatives of the British Government at the two hostile courts were men qualified alike by talent, firmness, and local knowledge, to meet the difficulties of their situation. At Poona, the Hon. Mr. Elphinstone was the resident. That post at Baroda was filled by Captain Carnac, now Sir James Carnac, Chairman of the East-India Company.

Although the British Government possessed the power of arbitration, it was obviously desirable that this authority should not be exercised except in case of absolute necessity; and that, before calling it into operation, every opportunity should be afforded to the native powers of settling their differences by negociations between themselves. Some attempts to effect this object were made by the Guicowar's vakeel at Poona, but they were counteracted by the intrigues of a person named Trimbuckjee Dainglia, who enjoyed the confidence of the Peishwa, and had a personal interest in the determination of one of the questions at issue,-the resumption of the