Sept. IS, 1887] 



NATURE 



471 



frem the fault of the system which overlaps duties as well as 

 boundaries, and often gives one and the same duties to be per- 

 formed by distinct departments. Perhaps, in some in-tances, 

 tliis friction may call out latent energy, but it at least most suc- 

 cessfully prevents departmental superiors from looking into their 

 own departmental affairs, and developing and perfecting the 

 local administration, and keeping up to the times. 



With regard to international boundaries, too little attention is 

 usually paid to the changes which are caused by the advance of 

 civilization. For example, a natural boundary may, in time, 

 become merely conventional owing to development of commu- 

 nications. 



At one time the Rhine was a natural boundary, but it has now 

 become a channel of communication. Again, the Zambesi is at 

 present a national boundary, completely separating distinct 

 tribes ; the time may come when it also will be a great channel 

 of communication. The usual natural international boundaries 

 are broad or rapid rivers and arms of the sea, mountain ranges, 

 deserts, and swamps ; but the highlands and lowlands of a 

 covnitry are also naturally separated, as they usually are inhabited 

 by people of different nationality. 



In Europe we find natural boundaries gradually losing their 

 efficiency as political boundaries. The Rhine, for example, 

 throughout a great portion of its length has ceased altogether to 

 be a political boundary, for though it is still a military line of 

 great strength, each large town on either bank has its suburb on 

 the opposite side, and the population has become so assimilated 

 that the river has ceased to be a practical political line. Conse- 

 quently the line of the Vosges is deemed by many to have 

 become the natural boundary between France and Germany, on 

 account of its coinciding with the linguistic barrier. But, again, 

 linguistic boundaries are no tests of the limits of nationalities or 

 national feeling. When a foreign language is forced upon an 

 unwilling people, they may for many generations be acutely 

 opposed to the nation whose language they have adopted. On 

 the Lower Danube, however, the physical, linguistic, and politi- 

 cal divisions all coincide, and the river has become neutralized, 

 and is a natural boundary. 



In Central Europe we find the highlands of the Alps forming 

 th« natural and political boundary, though the people speak 

 three different languages ; but in these cases the people probably 

 will not be found to be of the same race as those speakiiag the 

 same language in the plains below. 



Again, in the Pyrenees we find a natural, political, and lin- 

 guistic barrier coinciding, assisted by the fact that the mountain 

 people are a different race from those in the plains to the north 

 and south. 



In our own country we have a curious instance of language 

 being no proof of the nationality of the people, as the Iberians 

 in Wales speak Celtic, and the Celts in Western Britain speak 

 Anglo-Saxon. Again, in South Africa we have the people of 

 French extraction speaking Dutch, and still feeling resentment to 

 the Government on account of its having forced a foreign language 

 upon them, although the British have succeeded the Dutch. 



Among Asiatic and African territories boundaries are often 

 very ill-defined and uncertain. Frequently it happens that 

 between two powerful States there is a large tract of country 

 which owes a double allegiance, paying tribute to each, and yet 

 in some respects remaining independent, probably consisting of 

 lands which are easily ravaged and are comparatively speaking 

 unprotected by Nature. 



When we look into the subject of boundaries among pastoral 

 tribes, we find curious anomalies. The land belongs in many 

 instances to the tribe and not to the individual, and cannot be 

 alienated. In the desert of Arabia a tribe in one part will 

 have an interest in the date palms or corn lands of a tribe in 

 another part, and this system is rather fostered than discounten- 

 anced, so that when evil befalls an individual in one part he may 

 go and live with his tribal friends elsewhere. It is a knowledge 

 of the intricate connexions of these tribes and the topographic 

 divisions of their lands which admits of any control being kept 

 over these warlike people. A mistake arising out of a mis- 

 understanding of this Bedouin system nearly led to a disastrous 

 result in the Egyptian campaign of 1882, owing to an outlying 

 branch of one of the most powerful tribes in Arabia being 

 supposed to be a petty independent tribe of no consequence. 



In many instances the cattle posts of tribes during peace time 

 by mutual consent intermingle and overlap, yet are kept separate 

 and distinct, so that no geographical boundary is practicable ; in 

 fact among such people it is the tribe before the territory which 



is under the control of the chief. Thus it is quite practicable to 

 conceive instances of a tribe living on lands within the area 

 occupied by another tribe and yet governed by its own laws. 

 Many of the difficulties the British have encountered in South 

 Africa have arisen from a complete ignorance of, or wilfully 

 ignoring, the native land laws. Under the tribal system even 

 the chief^s in council have not the power of disposing of any por- 

 tion of the land they use ; it belongs to every individual of the 

 tribe, and of the tribal branches, and to their children's children. 

 Thus, when a chief gives over his territory, it does not follow 

 that he gives over the land for disposal as Crown lands, but only 

 the government of the people. It is on this account that the 

 offer of Khama and other chiefs of the Bechuanaland territory was 

 of so great value. They proposed by agreement in council in 

 their respective territories to hand over to Great Britain their 

 territories, keeping for themselves the lands they used, and 

 ofi'ering for emigration purposes their vast extent of hunting 

 lands, which are not now of the same value for hunting purposes 

 as they were in former days. 



But this proposal has not been accepted, and a parallel of 

 latitude has been proclaimed without consent of the Bechuana 

 chiefs as the northern limit of the British Protectorate, dividing 

 Khama's territory into two parts, and cutting a portion of 

 Matabeleland off from Lobongolo's territory ; so that the Boers 

 of the Transvaal cannot raid upon the Matabeles without 

 violating the British Protectorate, and vice versa, while we have 

 no means of securing its protection. Again, the Matabeles- 

 when making their annual raid upon Lake Ngami will violate 

 the portion of the State of Khama without the Protectorate, and 

 he, if he wishes to oppose them, must do so from his capital 

 within the Protectorate. This will bring us into conflict with 

 the Matabeles, or else will practically deprive Khama of part of 

 his territory. 



It is difficult to conceive any arrangement more likely to lead 

 to complications in the future. The Protectorate, based on 

 geographical principles, should -extend as far as the Zambesi,, 

 taking in all Khama's certain territory, and as much of the 

 neutral territory as might be necessary to provide a natural 

 boundary to east and west. 



In East Africa, again, the definition of spheres of action 

 recently is anomalous. A boundary ten miles from the coast 

 for the Zanzibar dominions can of course have only a tentative 

 character, and 'the exact definition in the future cannot fail to 

 lead to conflicts. Far worse, however, is the adoption of the 

 River Tana as the northern boundary of the British sphere of 

 influence — a river occupied on both banks by the same agri- 

 cultural tribes. It is not cler.r for what reason the Commis- 

 sioners have left this difficulty for the future. 



It would not be difficult to give many recent instances in 

 which those charged with diplomatic definitions of international 

 boundaries have failed in their duty owing to a want of 

 geographical knowledge of the localities with which they had 

 to deal. 



For example, the boundary treaty of 1783 with the United 

 States was incapable of being carried into effect, as the geo- 

 graphical features did not correspond with the assumption of the 

 Commissioners. This led to a dispute lasting thirty years, 

 resulting in the boundary treaty of August 9, 1843. The ignor- 

 ance of the geography of the country in this case led to very- 

 inconvenient and even disastrous results. 



Again with the San Juan controversy. Historical and geo- 

 graphical knowledge and ordinary care for the future develop- 

 ment of Canada might have led to such measures having been 

 taken in the first instance as would have prevented cession of 

 valuable positions to the United States in 1846. 



In India, again, our want of knowledge of the country to the 

 north of the Afghan boundary has led to a series of unnecessary- 

 concessions to Russia. Had the slightest encouragement been 

 given in former years by the Indian Government to enable 

 officers to acquire information as to the territories beyond our 

 Indian Empire, no doubt we should now be in a more secure 

 position. 



But, fortunately for the British Empire, foreign politicians 

 have also much to answer for to their respective countries on 

 account of their ignorance of geography. 



For many years past Germany has been increasing the popu- 

 lation of the United States and our own colonies without 

 assisting to further the influence of the German Empire ; where- 

 as, had her statesmen been able to look forward, a German 

 colony might have been established. Many Germans as far 



