Chapter 4 - In search of Justice; Gumede in England, 1919-21

‘The laws of Queen Victoria had been hidden. Natives should fight to regain them’. Gumede - Harris, 8 November 1923.

INTRODUCTION

The mission with which Gumede and Plaatje was entrusted on their deputation to England constituted a major challenge, especially in view of Jabavu’s warning that the SANNC would be wasting money as did the deputation of 1909. This chapter outlines Gumede’s experiences in England in 1919 -1921 as part of the SANNC deputation to have their grievances heard and addressed by the British Crown. While abroad Gumede addressed several audiences on Africans’ position under the Union government. In addition to the official SANNC petition, Gumede also drafted two comprehensive letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Prime Minister Lloyd George. What was the content and significance of Gumede’s letters? Who were the audiences and politicians who assisted the SANNC abroad? How successful was their deputation and what did Gumede himself derive from his two years in Britain? These issues will be addressed in this chapter.

LOYALTY TO THE BRITISH CROWN

Eighteen days after departing from Cape Town harbour, the Kenilworth Castle called in at Plymouth on 29 June 1919.275 Gumede and Plaatje, in the course of the voyage, had built up a sound relationship. Both men’s careers were closely linked to the teaching and legal professions, both were newspaper editors, both had held the position of secretary of their respective organisations. In one of his first letters from abroad, Plaatje gave an indication of their good relationship. Acknowledging Gumede’s role in securring their accommodation, Plaatje wrote to Mrs Colenso on 17 July 1919: I am glad to have heard before of the family of Gebuza (Ernest Colenso) through my friend Mr. Gumede who came with me. Although our apartments at Highbury Terrace were not so good, the location was very convenient.

The Colonial Office received the deputation with distinct misgivings and antagonism. The APS, which prided itself on being the “friends of the natives” was no source of encouragement either and ultimately gave the deputation no real support. Their assistance was restricted to some financial aid and arranging meetings. Plaatje and Gumede’s first important meeting took place on the evening of 15 July at the House of Commons. Having listened to the ill-treatment of Africans in the Union, the British members present assured the deputation of their eagerness to raise their case when the Colonial Office vote came before the House of Commons for debate on 30 July 1919.

Gumede remained committed to introduce the case to as many members of parliament as possible and to solicit their support for the hearing. London’s Black organisations rendered vital support to the delegates. On 18 July the SANNC delegates attended an “Africans’ Dinner”, celebrating the incorporation of the African Progress Union and the Society of Peoples of African Origin into the Union of African People. Both organisations, formed by Africans, who were permanently residing in London, had identical missions, namely the salvation of Africans abroad and the issue of Black Empowerment through Black industry, business and commercial ventures. The Union of African People appealed to African sentiment and solidarity in the pursuit of African economic self-reliance. Members of the organisations availed themselves to accommodate and assist fellow-Africans who visited England on business or other ventures. After the speech of the chairman, a toast was also proposed to the SANNC delegates. One speaker, Mr Piper, stated that “the mere fact that the delegates were here was a proof that Africa was awake, and in coming to England, they did not find the African in England asleep”.

Gumede appears to be impressed with the way their Black hosts looked upon themselves as one people and rallied together on socio-economic and political matters which directly affected the African people abroad. When asked to respond to the toast, Gumede commenced by stating how pleased they were to be present and to see so many Africans from all parts of the world. Gumede delivered a strong speech against British colonial rule and elaborated upon the Africans’ invidious position in their native country: There is a great hope and a bright future for Africans. The time would come when Africans from all parts of the world would thank their mother country and would go back and live there, and not leave the work to the White people alone. The Africans were present in this country because, since the last nine years, the Union Jack in South Africa had been lent out to strangers, and they had grossly abused it and had made things terribly painful for Blacks. In 1909 South Africa was granted self-government, and in that self-government (sic) 5? million natives had no voice, except in the Cape Colony.

Gumede accused White South Africans of suppressing the grievances and demands of the Africans. They had come to ask the British Government to“ remove this blot from the British Constitution”.280 The meeting resolved to address the wrongs which Africans had to suffer as a result of the activities of a few prejudiced minds attaching exaggerated importance to the “accident of colour, which was the fault of no man, and over which no man, whether White or Black could exercise control”.281 Gumede must have been encouraged by the attitude of London’s Black community.

“A Many-millioned Cry For Justice”, was the main theme of the reception which `The Coterie of Friends’, another African organisation, held in honour of the South African and other Afro-American delegates in Britain. Expressing support for the visitors’ cause, Judge McCants Stewart of Liberia, warned that “Britain of today is not what Britain was in the days of Wilberforce, of Clarkson, of John Bright, of Lord Chief Justice Mansfield... all who have made Britain a moral power”. Referring to the plight of Blacks in South Africa, Judge Stewart continued: Britain today is in danger of coming under the rule of the spirit of South Africa ..., the majority of whose people regard dark-skinned men as their inferiors, being entitled to no other sphere in life than “hewers of wood and drawers of water”.

The meeting urged Britain to secure Africans’ freedom from injustices and racial discrimination. Outside the circles of the above-mentioned organisations, moral support was also forthcoming from individuals with strong liberal viewpoints, many of whom had firsthand knowledge and experience of South Africa. Dr. Charles Garnett of the League of Universal Brotherhood, whom the delegates had come to know through Gumede, was a well-known champion of Africans’ rights. Dr. Garnett had assisted Gumede on his visit to England in 1907. Influential women supporters included Georgina Solomon, Alice Werner, Sophie Colenso, and Olive Schreiner.283 Certainly from a gender perspective, these British women were instrumental in opening many doors for the SANNC delegates and their being women was an advantage to the cause of the SANNC.284

Evidence for this claim is based on their sustained political campaigns. At the end of July Georgiana arranged a meeting at her London residence, which Plaatje claimed was attended by a large number of people.285 The meeting was presided over by Dr. G. Clarke, an ex-member of Parliament.

Both Olive Schreiner and Sophie Colenso were impressed by the informative talks given by all the SANNC delegates. The following resolution was passed unanimously:

That this representative meeting welcomes the deputation and having heard from them of the growing wretchedness and misery of the millions of loyal and patriotic people for whom they are authorised to speak, owing to the serious injustice and cruel oppression from which they have suffered so long, would most earnestly appeal to His Majesty the King, to the Prime Minister and the Imperial Government, and to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to bring influence and pressure to bear upon the Government and Parliament of South Africa ... to introduce legislation in order for the Bantu to make the progress which they ardently desire.

The lessons learnt from the political role of these women were not lost. The SANNC delegates realised that African women needed to be included in South African politics. On 30 July 1919, the delegates called at the Houses of Parliament to listen to the important debate on the Colonial Office vote. The deputation witnessed increased support for their mission. Mr Spoor, a Labour front-bencher, pleaded with the British government to “exercise every power they have in order to restore to the natives the conditions which existed before the Act of Union”. Similar appeals were made by Henry Cavendish Bentinck, Captain Ormsby Gore and Colonel Wedgewood.

But all those arguments were in vain. The Colonial Office’s response was that they adhere to a policy of non-interference in the affairs of colonies which enjoyed Responsible Government. Colonel Amery, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, however, admitted that: “Gandhi, by his own personality, his persistence and his courage got much further in the solution of the problem of the Indians in the Transvaal than any other official representative could have done”.289 Plaatje was quick to use Amery’s own opinions to secure another meeting on the 20 August. Plaatje and Gumede warned Amery: The young men (Africans) could not be kept quiet if the British Government was not prepared to do something to help them. There might be an uprising against the White people.

Amery’s response was most discouraging. Amery impressed upon the two men that they must work to improve their position by constitutional means within the framework of the Union. Amery, according to Gumede, “requested them to return to South Africa and make representations there”.292 Gumede, however, found it impossible to follow Amery’s advice; to do so would jeopardise their cause. Having listened to Amery’s verdict, Gumede wanted to “raise some points about the loss of privileges which Natal natives had enjoyed before the Union”.

Amery told Gumede to put his case in writing. In consequence, Gumede took the liberty of drafting a personal letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson on 25 August 1919: I have the honour to take the liberty to address this letter to you with a humble request, that you may be pleased to allow me with a number of my colleagues to wait upon you, with a view to lay (sic) our case before you. We are a deputation sent by the SANNC to this country. The matters on which we desire to see your Grace are as follows:

• 1. The removal of the Colour Bar from the South Africa Act.
• 2. The repeal of the Native Lands Act of 1913.
• 3. The self-determination of the Bantu and other Coloured Races that South Africa should be purely under the British Rule unmingled with the Boer Rule which is very harsh and oppressive to all men of colour,
• especially the natives.
• 4. Zulus claim on land subject to Royal Proclamation and Zululand Land Annexation Act of 1897.
• 5. That the Native Protectorates in South Africa - viz., Swaziland, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Rhodesia including German South West Africa not be handed over to the Union.

Having learnt about Gumede’s letter, Harris also wrote to the Archbishop asking him to “see them in order that they may tell him the grievances which they are suffering”. Referring to the introduction of the delegates, Harris suggested that it should be done by an Anglican clergyman.295 Harris’s actions and writings thus far had shown that, contrary to the 1914 deputation,his loyalty to the latest SANNC cause appeared to be genuine. Harris arranged a meeting with Gumede to discuss their proposed interview with the Archbishop.

Gumede agreed to the replacement of Dr. Garnett with Dr Meyer, an Anglican clergyman, whom Harris claimed, “was acquainted with Native Affairs in South Africa”.297 Contrary to Harris and Gumede’s expectations, Archbishop Davidson was not in the least bit eager to grant the delegates an interview. Writing to Harris on 13 October, he explained:

I have been a good deal perplexed as to the suggestion that I should receive the South African Natives now in England on a political delegation or mission. I find it so often the case that action which I take to show personal interest is interpreted in a political way, and I cannot help supposing it to be possible that however quietly I receive these men and however little I commit myself to opinions on a matter which I do not thoroughly understand, I might be represented as having thrown myself into their cause in a manner which would give rise to misunderstanding both in the Colonial Office and in South Africa. On the other hand I should be very sorry to seem to fail in friendliness towards men whose interests, speaking in the large sense, I have so very much at heart. I imagine that it is not by any means impossible that friction may arise between the Colonial Office and the self-governing Colonies in South Africa as to the arrangements made for the Native Race. What suggestions can you make for securing us against misunderstanding if I receive these men? Obviously I cannot control or censor what may be said by them in print about an interview at Lambeth. I have privately consulted Selborne as a real friend of the Native Races, and he urges me to be exceedingly cautious.

Harris gave his assurance that the Archbishop “only needs to listen to their (the delegates) story and was not expected to comment upon their statements in any way whatever”. The interview was to be granted on the explicit understanding that it be private, that it would not be quoted in any way, and that it had to be limited to a few minutes. In conclusion, Harris impressed upon the Archbishop the fact that “it does seem to us important and that if it is all possible your Grace should see the men”.299 Davidson was forced to agree. On the 23 October Harris received the long awaited reply from Lambeth Palace. Davidson wrote: I am willing to see the South African representatives if you are able to accompany them when they come here to make a statement to me. I should wish it, however, to be perfectly clear that the interview has no official character, that it must be regarded as absolutely private, and that no account of it must appear in print. This is essential in order to avoid misunderstanding my position in such matters. Further, I should like them to be told that while I shall be ready to hear what they have to say and shall be glad to listen to it with a view to my better understanding of their side of the questions at issue, I must not be expected to give an answer of any formal kind whatever. My time is terrible overpressed, (sic) and I am afraid the interview must of necessity be a brief one. But I could receive them if they could come to Lambeth at 12 o’clock on Saturday, 25 October.

For the South African visitors, the meeting was a failure. Besides an entry of the meeting in his personal diary, the archbishop ensured that no record of the interview appeared in the local press.301 Gumede and those with him must have been disillusioned with the outcome of their interview. Meanwhile, in September 1919, Gumede, in response to Amery’s request for a written report on the plight of Africans in Natal, forwarded his pamphlet,“ A Cry for Freedom, Liberty, Justice and Fair Play”.302 Unlike the SANNC report, which was an official document addressed to the British Government, his three and a half page manifesto was an appeal to the British people at large: There is a deputation at present in London, sent with a Memorial to his Most Gracious Majesty, the King, by the SANNC, praying to get Freedom, Liberty, Justice and Fair Play for the five and a half million of natives who are in the Union of South Africa, a British Dominion, and for the natives of Rhodesia under the Government of the British Chartered Company.

In 1909, at the Convention in South Africa the two White races – the British and the Boer agreed to form the Union of South Africa and came over to this country with a draft of the South Africa Act, which they submitted to the Imperial government and Parliament. This draft Act had a Colour Bar in it, and the same was strongly opposed by the natives of South Africa, who, in addition, sent a deputation to oppose its passage and adoption by the British Parliament. At the same time, the Imperial Government was the sole Trustee for the Bantu Races and other coloured subjects in South Africa.

The Colour Bar was agreed to by the British Parliament for the first time known in the history of England. This was an infringement and repudiation of the Royal Letters Patent dated May 1843 to Natal. After that preamble, Gumede gave a brief outline of the unsuccessful attempts of the 1907, 1909 and 1914 African deputations to Britain. With reference to the injustices caused by the Native Land Act, the Native Affairs Administration Act of 1917, the Native Urban Areas Bill of 1918, Gumede stressed that “this proves that the Black or coloured man in the Union of South Africa has no freedom, liberty, justice and fair play to enjoy because of his Colour, Race, Language and Origin”. Referring to Amery’s viewpoint concerning intervention in the Union’s affairs, Gumede drew special attention to the Imperial Government’s earlier interference in Belgium following the Belgian Congo atrocities, as well as interference in the case of the Indians in South Africa. Hence, Gumede asked, whether a self-governing Colony would be permitted to trample down five and a half million human beings? Turning to the duty of the Imperial Government towards their subjects in the colonies, Gumede raised some thought-provoking questions:

What about a British Dominion which disrespects the claims of the British Flag and the holy traditions of the British people? Why shall veiled slavery be permitted in a British Dominion, under the British Flag? Will you allow your flag to be soiled? The Colour Bar in South Africa should be removed without delay as it is responsible for all other cruel laws made on the colour of the natives of South Africa such as the Pass Laws, Curfew Bells and others.

Gumede concluded by applauding the works done by great Englishmen like Bishops Colenso, Bartle Frere, and others who “stood for the principles of Freedom, Liberty, Justice and Fair Play”. “Had they lived, we should never be for one moment placed in the hands of such incompetent law-givers as are forming the majority in the Union of South Africa”. Gumede contested that“ no one would attempt to deny us Freedom, Liberty, Justice and Fair Play because we are merely Black or coloured”.305 That he misread the roles of these peoples is evident.

Amery’s personal views about Gumede’s comments are unknown. Harris, who claimed “to have read it with great interest”, assured Gumede that “all these efforts help”.306 By chance, the SANNC delegates and Britain’s Prime Minister crossed paths at The International Brotherhood Congress, held on 13-17 September 1919. One of the objects of the Congress was to “give moral and spiritual emphasis to the ideas embodied in the new League of Nations”. Lloyd George delivered his address at the closing meeting, held at the City Temple. Contrary to his initial promise that he “will not say anything in the nature of political controversy”, Lloyd George had much to say about Genl. Smuts and the late Genl. Botha.

Botha’s death was a calamity to South Africa and the British Empire, for I am using no words of exaggeration in saying that in the councils of the nations there was no man the nobility of whose character as well as the sagacity of whose mind carried greater weight and exercised a more beneficent influence than General Botha.

Lloyd George’s high opinions were in direct contrast to those shared by the SANNC delegates. After their disappointing meeting with Amery the delegates were determined to secure a meeting with the Prime Minister.

Gumede persisted in trying to influence public opinion by means of meetings and newspaper coverage. On 9 October Gumede “voiced the grievances of the native races of South Africa” at a meeting of the Foreign and Colonial Sub-Committee, which met at the National Liberal Club under the chairmanship of Charles Roberts, formerly Under-Secretary for India.

According to the Manchester Guardian, Gumede “made a touching appeal to Great Britain to come to their rescue”. Gumede argued that: The South Africa Act of 1909 creating the Union was begotten, framed and passed without any reference to the 5 million natives. We looked to the British nation for the restoration of our rights as British subjects. The colour laws had caused the natives disappointment, but the Native Land Act cut at the very root of our existence. It was an act of class legislation in which we saw the beginning of a policy towards the natives which would result in making us slaves. It was based on principles subversive of all that was right and just. We are in a frightful dilemma. We had not given our allegiance to the Boers, but to the King and British nation. The Boers were playing the game of the top dog and the under dog. It was not fair. What the natives asked for was immediate liberty, justice and fair play.

Gumede kept his constituency in Natal informed about their deliberations abroad. He had sent two letters and a copy of the Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, vol 118, No 106, Official Report, dated Wednesday 30 July to chief Stephen Mini, president of the NNC. In reply, Mini claimed that it “has caused surprise to the people and increased their determination to give further support to the delegation”. Gumede succeeded in getting Mini’s letter published in The Yorkshire Post. Mini wrote:

We are called by Dube of the SANNC to attend an executive meeting. Gumede, I have confidence in you because you know how I feel on these matters entrusted with the deputation. We ask for all our rights to be restored. You must not make any compromise. We are looking to His Majesty the King and the British Parliament to honour the Royal Proclamation dated 1843, which disallowed discrimination of colour and also the pledges made to the late king Cetswayo of the Zulus. Pray ... to get our grievances redressed, because they victimised us into slavery; we did not walk into it by our own consent. Our fathers became British subjects and fully submitted to the British rule.

Tell them (British) we trusted their late fathers; tell them that we do not want to be subjects to another king; ours is His Majesty King George and the British Parliament. To say we must make further representations to this country is not a satisfactory reply. I say, man of men, continue the appeal. The Almighty be with you.310

Gumede informed the readers of The Yorkshire Post that: Mini “is one of the Zulu loyal chiefs of Natal who served with the British troops in the wars of 1880 and 1899-1902”. “He is well known to many British officers who served the South African wars. He is holding many credentials from them.

Also published in the same edition was a letter which Gumede received from Isaac Mabaso of Makokspruit, dated 26 September 1919. Having congratulated Gumede for the work he had done thus far, Mabaso went on to spell out their difficult situation. Our hands have been cut off; we may not even buy land, while it is open for

sale to Europeans. We were condemned by our Government (British) in which we had confidence and respect. There is no other Government that we can trust without the English Government. It is very cruel to us who had had freedom to purchase land here in Natal. When the South African Colonies were united, we had entertained hopes that we shall buy land anywhere up to Mashonaland. Cry loudly for freedom, ye men of Africa.

Gumede’s priority was to ensure that their case was brought to the attention of the British public. “High taxes, low wages, serfdom and slavery are prevailing in South Africa”, declared Gumede to The Daily Herald on 24 October 1919. Quoting Gumede at large, the newspaper focused upon the plight of the natives in South Africa. “Land given the natives by the late Queen for their free use”, contested Gumede “has been taxed”. The report also focussed on the restrictions placed upon natives’ purchases of land; the restriction on their freedom of movement; and the bad wages being paid to native workers.

Towards the end of November 1919, despite the opposition from the Colonial Office, the long-delayed interview with Lloyd George materialised. The deputation gave a extensive account of African disabilities in South Africa.

Gumede also drew the Prime Minister’s attention to the Dutch Reformed Church Act of 1910, passed by the Union Parliament which prohibited “White and Black worshipping God under the same roof ” in all the Provinces with the exception of the Cape Province. Referring to the electoral system in the Cape, Gumede stated that “we may lose that vote by a two thirds majority in the house of Assembly”. Lloyd George was impressed by the clear way in which the deputation had explained their case and informed them that “he will give due weight to all you have said”. By way of consolation, the Prime Minister however promised to communicate with Genl. Smuts to ascertain what could be done to ameliorate the injustices mentioned.

Disillusioned with Lloyd George’s unwillingness to interfere “even in matters where injustice was proven to have been committed”,315 Gumede turned to his last resort - his pen. The result was a second manifesto, personally addressed to the Prime Minister, dated 1 December 1919. Gumede wrote: The natives of Natal pray you for the restoration of their Parliamentary rights, that was (sic) granted equally to all subjects by the Charter of Natal dated 15 July 1856. The disenfranchisement of Natives is an infringement and repudiation of the Royal Letters Patent dated 12 May 1843. By Act No. 25 of 1895, the natives were dispossessed of the Mission Reserves. These properties are now in the hands of the Minister of Native Affairs; who charges rent and confiscates cattle and other stock by judicial sales of defaulters. By Curfew Bell regulations, natives in towns must not be out of doors between 9 p.m and 5 a.m.

Gumede went on to explain in detail the struggle of the Zulus in Zululand against the dispossession of their lands. He referred to the desperate position of the many landless chiefs “whose land was taken by the Crown and sold to the highest bidder”. Referring to the Anglo-Zulu relations after their War of 1879, Gumede stated:

Great Britain, through Sir Wolseley made this assurance to the Zulu vanquished nation. He said, “I have been very careful in stating to all persons concerned that her Majesty wished to leave Zulu country to its own people and entertained no idea of annexation”. Furthermore, the High Commissioner has assured the Chiefs that there is no intention on our (British) part of settling White people in Zululand, and that the British Government will not recognise purchase by or presents of lands to White people. This promise must be strictly kept, and it will be our duty to exercise constant vigilance that no act is done and countenanced which could, by any possibility, be construed as a departure from the undertaking.

Gumede continued to explain how Britain had reneged upon its own undertaking, starting in 1884 “when a territory of Zululand was allowed to pass into the hands of the Boers”. Gumede further explained how the Natal government, after the incorporation of Zululand in 1897, had taken possession of the coastal belt for European settlement. It is unclear whether Lloyd George officially communicated with Gumede about his manifesto. Meanwhile, the SANNC delegates had appealed to Lloyd George to “put the proceedings of our interview into publicity, as he had done with that of the Nationalists (referring to Genl Hertzog’s deputation of 1919) for if this is done, our people will realise that it pays more and more to be loyal British subjects”.

Their appeal was turned down. Kerr replied that the Prime Minister had decided that the interview must be treated as private and that “no public use must be made of it”. Kerr informed them that the Prime Minister “is sending a dispatch to Genl Smuts which includes copies of the interview with your deputation”. In his communication with Genl Smuts, Lloyd George stated that it was a matter of urgency “to redress any real grievance from which Africans may suffer”, and to satisfy any legitimate aspirations. Smuts reply was predictable. He claimed that the deputation had exaggerated African grievances and that there were sufficient constitutional means through which African aspirations could be accommodated. Undoubtedly the underlying principle in Smuts’ communication to Lloyd George was the former’s adherence to the doctrine of Trusteeship over the Africans. Smuts had once told Merriman that he did not believe in politics for Africans.320 In his definition of white-black relationships Smuts proclaimed two axioms: first, there must be no intermixture of blood between the two races; second, Smuts interpreted Britain’s sanction of the Union Act as a means whereby the White people were given a civilising mission towards the Africans. The principle of “democracy” was nowhere found in the vocabulary of a man, whom Lloyd George claimed, had a “brilliant mind”.

Gumede was unsuccessful in obtaining an interview with General Booth of the Salvation Army. Fortunately, the response of the British working class was more encouraging. The London Trades’ Council, “having heard the statement made by Gumede, respecting the oppression of the Colonial race”, expressed its indignation “at the treatment meted out to them, and called upon the Labour Party to raise the matter in the House of Commons”.

Serious financial difficulties caused by, amongst others, the “Edinburgh Castle” incident, threatened the mission of the SANNC deputation. When Thema, Ngcayiya and Mvabaza were about to board their ship to South Africa in September, South African soldiers objected to their occupying third-class cabins, while they, due to lack of accommodation, had to sleep in hammocks. All three together with Mdani Xaba, another student, forfeited their passage and were forced to remain in England until December.

After the departure of Mvabaza and Ngcayiya to South Africa, Gumede, Plaatje and Thema embarked on another platform tour that took them up to Edinburgh in Scotland.324 Ironically, they secured the allegiance of the two organisations of a Socialist colour, namely the Independent Labour Party and the Union of Democratic Control. Keir Hardie, the founding member of the Independent Labour Party and a vehement critic of the British government colonial policy, had been instrumental in Gumede’s deputation to England in 1907. It is significant that Gumede, who had testified against Socialism and Communism less than a year before, in May 1919, was now dependent upon people who supported that same doctrine. Most of their Scottish meetings were held under the auspices of the two organisations. Plaatje and Gumede knew that they were in no position to be choosy about their friends and allies. Although Plaatje and Gumede had “some great times” among the “Socialists” and U.D.C. members325 , they were not attracted to their ideology and refused to heed to the call of the Socialists, namely “to wrest power from the capitalist and establish the African soviets”.326 As will be shown in the next chapter, Gumede was intent on preserving Congress from Socialist inroads. He remained very wary of Communism. Instead he fully identified with Liberalism. Gumede would espouse the Communist ideology from 1927 onwards.

On 24 January 1920, West Africa, a London weekly, published a sympathetic article of the latest political developments in South Africa. Entitled, ‘A Little Light In South Africa’, it reported Genl. Hertzog’s speech on the Pass Laws as well as Genl. Smuts’s Native Affairs Bill which, inter alia, proposes the formation of a permanent Council to advise the Government on Native Affairs. Hertzog, it was claimed, had told his Bloemfontein audience that the pass regulations, at least in so far as they affected the Coloured people, would have to be modified but that the application of the Pass Laws regarding the Africans was to remain unchanged. The report held: that the pass system is at best an excuse for bad police work, and at the worst nothing less than sexual and financial blackmail. It is to be hoped South Africa is beginning to realise that a check upon liberty of movement, which is done without by India and West Africa, can be and must be done without by South Africa. Gumede was angered by the report. In his reply to the editor of West Africa, Gumede stated cases of government discrimination against the Coloureds and Africans:

Hertzog, the leader of the Nationalist party, is promising the coloured people better treatment under the rigorous pass laws. The Natives must still suffer under the painful operation of these liberty-taking laws. Is this a genuine promise or humbug to dupe the coloured voters of the Cape Province, whose electoral franchise under the South Africa Act, 1909, may be removed by a two-thirds majority of the Union Government? After all, it is one of the election cries. The half-caste man (coloured), although a White man’s descendant, cannot be elected a member of the Union House of Parliament. Genl. Smuts, in his speech delivered at Bloemfontein on 11 December 1919, said: As to the coloured people, he paid tribute to their behaviour during the war and he trusted that when the question of pensions was again reviewed, the coloured soldiers who had done their duty would also be taken into consideration. The Natives, although they took a part in the war, as labourers, under the terms of the Union Defense Act are disqualified, and are therefore not entitled to get pensions and gratuities.

Gumede continued to put forward his reasons why he could not support Smuts’s Native Affairs Bill: Smuts further stated that: A Native Council was required in order to advise the Prime Minister permanently on Native Affairs. Conferences of Natives might be held from time to time to ascertain Native opinion. What he had in mind was separate institutions? The Natives would not be in the White Man’s Parliament. Other coloured races, except the Natives, according to Smuts’s statement, have no right to live on God’s earth in South Africa. It is unfair, unjust and wrong.

It is important to note that the SANNC was deeply divided over the provisions of the Bill. Gumede’s stance was thus personal and in opposition to Dube’s views. The latter, already a qualified advocate of segregation, saw in the Bill the first serious attempt by the government to “meet the wishes of the natives” and the first step towards granting them full representation in the tribunals of the state.329 The majority of Dube’s Durban branch strongly supported him in this regard. For Gumede, Smuts’s latest Bill fell far short of meeting Africans’s expectations and ideals. In conclusion Gumede pressed the following demands:

It will help Genl. Smuts to understand that Natives are asking for the return of their own; further, we are asking for the fulfillment of the Royal Proclamations and treaties. The Genl. can only do this by

(1) revising the South Africa Act, 1909, in order to remove the colour bar, and give equal rights and opportunities to all the subjects, irrespective of colour, race, creed or origin;

(2) extending the Cape electoral franchise to Natal, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State;

(3) repealing the Native Land Act, Native Affairs Administration Bill, the Native Urban Areas Bill;

(4) repealing all colour laws existing in the four Provinces before the Union of South Africa came into existence.330

It is no exaggeration to say that Gumede’s demands can be regarded as liberal and democratic. One safe conclusion is that Gumede enjoyed the support of staunch liberals, the likes of Hardie, Georgiana Solomons and the Colenso family.

Gumede spent the new year addressing meetings and seeking support for the cause of the SANNC outside London, in places like Sunderland. Financial problems forced him to return to the office of the APS in London in order to arrange for a loan. Ironically, the APS which had publicly claimed to have the interests of the deputation at heart, seemed to be losing faith in the mission and tried to persuade Plaatje and Gumede to return home.331 Smuts’s appointment of a Commission to enquire into the Pass laws, convinced the APS that the government was moving in the right direction.332 Gumede, however, was not the least impressed with Smuts’s political concessions. His letters to Harris at this time reveal a sincere commitment and a determination to continue with his campaign of public agitation. Writing from Sunderland to Harris on 6 April 1920, Gumede explained why he did not want to return empty-handed: Nothing has been done yet by Great Britain to come to the rescue of the poor downtrodden (sic) people.

I feel I would be neglecting my duty if I were to return home at present. The Zulus were wronged and their kingdom destroyed by Christian Great Britain. The beloved Queen Victoria gave them (Zulus) back their land and assured them that not an inch would be taken away from them. The British Government promised the natives of Natal, Free State and Transvaal equal rights and opportunities. All has been scrapped and are not now worth the paper they are written on. We suffer for our skin - why? We asked for the fulfillment of these promises only. How can I go home before I have heard the verdict of the British Nation? Under these circumstances I have resolved to suffer more and more even if I were to go and live in a workhouse or die in the streets of London for my race. I thank your society for the monetary help it has already given me. I can assure you that it will not lose a penny of it. I am addressing large meetings here every evening to very sympathetic audiences.

Maybe so, but those audiences proved unable to effect Imperial intervention in South African politics while the ambivalence in the SANNC’s interpretation of the Native Administration Bill continued to exist. Official documents reveal that, for the whole of 1920, no funds were forwarded by the SANNC or NNC to Plaatje and Gumede. The SANNC thus effectively sabotaged its own mission. Regretably, the relationship between Gumede and Plaatje also deteriorated over Plaatje’s decision to carry the campaign to the United States of America.334 In all probability Gumede felt that they should rather concentrate on maintaining the momentum of the campaign in England on the grounds that they were part of the British Commonwealth and were seeking admission to British citizenship as British subjects. They had no mandate to proceed to America. By May 1920 Plaatje and Gumede’s paths separated, with each one conducting his own series of meetings.

By June 1920 Gumede’s financial prospects had improved allowing him to recommence his campaign, this time against Smuts’s new “Native Affairs Act of 1920”. Three months later the APS who had claimed to “have communicated with the Union Government” about the Smuts’ Act, thought that Gumede was “doing little or no good by staying on in this country indefinitely”.335 At the same time, the APS found it “very regrettable” that the deputation (Gumede and Plaatje) utterly refused to consider Smuts’s new Bill favourably. On 22 October Plaatje left for Canada. By December 1920 Gumede had travelled to Leeds where he managed to elicit the support of, amongst others, Sir Michael Sadler, the Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University.

Financial problems forced Gumede to return to the APS office in London for assistance at the end of December 1920. Despite his claim of “scandalous treatment to which we (APS) have been subjected” by the SANNC in South Africa with regard to the non-payment of loans, Harris extended a helpful hand in trying to raise £85 for Gumede’s return passage.337 “I may be mistaken”, wrote Harris, “but I am inclined to believe in Mr. Gumede”. He promised Gumede that he would try his best to persuade the Welfare Committee to advance him the necessary funds on condition that “he (Gumede) could get three or four people to hold themselves responsible if the money was not refunded within a year”.338 Gumede experienced great problems in securing the guarantors.

Explaining his dilemma to Harris on 30 December, Gumede stated: I wrote to my friends and requested them to communicate with you if they would agree to be guarantors. I have not heard from them yet. I am so pressed by my landlady, I don’t know what to do. I shall be very glad if I can manage to sail (return home) as soon as possible. I have received news that Solomon Ka Dinizulu, the chief of the Zulus, was assaulted by a White man at Benoni, near Johannesburg.

While waiting for a reply from his proposed guarantors, Gumede had established formal contact with the high-powered deputation of the National Congress of British West Africa (NCBWA), which had also arrived in England between September and October 1920 to “argue the case of the African people of British West Africa”340 Their deputation was aimed at effecting “a greater share in constitutional government and administration of the several British West African Colonies which they represented”.341 Gumede found striking parallels between the missions of the NCBWA and the SANNC. As in the case of the SANNC’s mission, Gumede witnessed how the NCBWA“ had to run the gauntlet” of the Colonial Office. The attitude of the Colonial Office to both the political demands of the SANNC and the NCBWA was most discouraging. Akintola Wyse argued that: what was more soul-destroying was the fact that the Colonial Office was convinced that this new wave of nationalism was an organised ramp for a small unrepresentative elite of westernized intellectuals, and, consequently, it was unwilling to countenance the Congress leaders.

On 1 January 1921 Gumede had the opportunity of meeting all the delegates and acquiring first-hand information about the case of the NCBWA, when he was invited to a “Converzatione” held in honour of the West African delegates. Here he listened to West Africa’s leading spokespersons, Casely Hayford, the Vice-President from the Gold Coast and Dr Bankole-Bright, the Secretary from Sierra-Leone, outlining the nature of their mission. On 6 January 1921 Gumede took the initiative to arrange a meeting with Bankole-Bright.343 High on his agenda was the need to establish formal contact with the West African movement and to consider new strategies and ideologies which could serve them in their struggle for liberation and dignity. Significantly it became quite clear that both men were against the idea of cooperation with anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements, in particular the Communists.

Bankhole-Bright held that “we are not Bolsheviks; If we have to fight year after year, we shall fight constitutionally.”344 Gumede completely identified with Bankole-Bright’s sentiments. Both men espoused the liberalism ideology especially in a country where this ideology was a matter of personal pride. Gumede exchanged some of his personal newspaper cuttings about the plight of Africans in South Africa with Dr Bankole-Bright. Although Gumede had hoped to return to South Africa in January 1921, the money to pay for his passage and accommodation debt had not yet been raised. However, the delay did at least mean he could attend “An African Dinner” hosted by the African Progress Union in honour of the NCBWA. The spirit and tone of the meeting met with Gumede’s approval. In his keynote address, Councillor J Archer (ex-Mayor of Battersea) and president of the APU, said that “every educated African should have equal rights and privileges as a citizen with all others”. Referring to Lloyd George’s stance on self-determination, Archer stated that:

On the fields of Flanders and France lay the bones of Africans who had given their lives for this country and it was up to the British now to give to the African the right to conduct his own affairs. Caseley Hayford, in replying said that if an English borough had found it possible to pay Archer that honour, by electing him as mayor, he saw “no reason why the Africans in their own country should not be allowed a certain measure of control over their own affairs”.346 However, in 1921, the weight of the Colonial Office was overwhelmingly against countenancing either of the African deputations. Gumede’s remaining political hopes were effectively destroyed by J.E.W. Flood’s statement. One of the most prejudiced officials in Whitehall, Flood considered that “the people of West Africa are not ripe for representative institutions and it would be a very cruel unkindness to any West African colony to grant any such constitution”.347 Flood’s political stance was not lost on Gumede. On the eve of Gumede’s return, Lord Buxton in his keynote address as newly-elected president of the African Society, which was devoted to “take all Africa under its purview”, expressed the opinion that“ he felt confident that the Natives, as a whole, would welcome (Smuts’s) new Act, would be grateful for the advance made and would recognise the spirit in which the Act was passed”.348 Amery, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, shared Buxton’s viewpoints:

At the outset there may be acts of injustices, but in the long run the freedom and responsibility which went with British institutions could not co-exist side by side with a purely servile population. Amery was confident that, however great the difficulties of the relationship between the African and the European might be, they would be solved on the lines of a progressive extension of freedom and the extension of rights which would not be to the detriment and exclusion of the European, but would aim at a solution where both could live together in co-operation. By the middle of March 1921 Harris had managed to secure a loan of £33 from the “Welfare of Africans in Europe Association” which enabled Gumede to return home.351 Many historians share the belief that, in terms of its mission, namely presenting their memorandum to His Majesty for his personal consideration, the deputation was a failure.352 As in the case of the NCBWA,“ there was little positive achievement to show for the enormous cost the deputation had been to Congress”.353 It is important to note Harris’s opinions about the accomplishments of the SANNC’s deputation. Harris held that:

The outstanding and regrettable feature is that the position of the people in the territories from which the Natives came, whether in West Africa or South Africa, is substantially worse. In South Africa racial bitterness has been increased. But much more regrettable than this is the fact that the bitterest disappointments are those of our African fellow-subjects - disappointments which they will go back to Africa to share with their own people, to the detriment of the Mother Country.

CONCLUSION

Gumede’s second deputation to England was important in shaping his outlook on life. There was a broadening of his socio-economic and political outlook, as he had met with London’s and West Africa’s foremost Black businessmen, politicians, journalists and intellectuals who not only exposed him to elements of Black economic and political empowerment, but also Pan-Africanist sentiments. Many of Gumede’s ideas about race pride, unity and Black economic empowerment were shaped during the course of his twenty four months stay in England. The next few years would show how Gumede put these lessons into practice in South Africa. Gumede had been extremely active in England and Scotland. As regards his political negotiations, there was the frustrating exercise of being subjected to the standard Colonial Office response, namely, that of non-interference in the affairs of colonies which enjoyed Responsible Government. The majority of influential Colonial Officials showed little, if any, sympathy with the SANNC petitioners. Gumede absorbed his British “lessons”. Furthermore he had learned about the British Crown’s interpretation of politial theories and of social ideas, in particular the sensitive issue of racial equality within the Empire. Yet one is amazed at the depth of Gumede’s loyalty to the British Crown, the embarrassing rebuffs by the Colonial Office notwithstanding. It was no surprise that Gumede was greatly dissappointed at having to return empty-handed to his constituencies (NNC& SANNC). Gumede recalled in 1930 that “we have failed in our petitions to the British Parliament”.355 The stage was now set for his renewed struggle with the Union government.