THE Rhodesian colonial story says that the Royal Charter which was the legal document that gave the British arch imperialist Cecil John Rhodes the authority to colonise our country, Zimbabwe, was as a result of Rhodes’ fraudulent ‘Rudd Concession’ which persuaded the British government to give Rhodes and the British South Africa Company (BSAC) the Royal Charter.
It’s not true at all!
It is a lie to say that the British government issued out the Royal Charter to Rhodes because of that man’s fraudulent ‘Rudd Concession’.
Rhodes got the Royal Charter because of his financial power.
To support our argument we shall look at the Royal Charter versus the fraudulent Rudd Concession as well as Rhodes money power.
Let us start by looking at the Royal Charter and its major highlights.
The Royal Charter was given to Cecil John Rhodes’ British South Africa Company by Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland.
This was after a petition had been presented to the British government by: James Duke of Abercorn, Alexander William George Duke of Fife, Hon, Edric Fredrick Lord Gifford,vc Cecil John Rhodes, Alfred Beit, Albert Henry George Grey and one George Cawston.
It is important to stress that it is a petition for a Royal Charter that was given to the British government and not the Rudd Concession.
What is of interest to our story are the highlights of what was in the petition for a Royal Charter to the British government which was made by Cecil John Rhodes and his colleagues.
The Royal Charter document gives us the following highlights from the petition. “That the petitioners’ desire to carry into effect divers concessions and agreements which have been made by certain of the chiefs and tribes inhabiting the territories (Zimbabwe and beyond) and such other concessions, agreements, grants and treaties as the petitioners may hereafter obtain – – – with the view of promoting trade, commerce, civilisation and good government in the territories which are or may be comprised or referred to in such concessions, agreements, grants and treaties as aforesaid.
“That the petitioners believe that if the said concession, agreements, grants and treaties can be carried into effect, the condition of the natives inhabiting the said territories will be materially improved and their civilisation advanced – – there will be suppression of the slave trade in the said territories – opening up of the said territories to the immigration of the Europeans – – .”
Now let us simplify what has been said above.
One, Rhodes and company did not attach to their petition the fraudulent Rudd Concession because in the first place the document had no signatures and Rhodes himself because it was never meant for the British government, but for their rivals in Southern Africa.
Number two, it is interesting to note that Rhodes and company in their petition lied that they had entered into several concessions with various chiefs in Zimbabwe and beyond when nothing of the sort had happened.
It is therefore quite clear from the petition given to the British government that the talk about concessions is about several concessions and not just one and there is no particular reference to one concession called the Rudd Concession.
Now let us look at the contents of the petition of Rhodes and company vis-a-vis the Rudd Concession.
The petition to the British government talks about civilising the natives in the areas to be colonised, ending slave trade, allowing immigration of Europeans into Zimbabwe.
There is nothing like this in the Rudd Concession.
The Rudd Concession only talks about allowing the British to enter the country to do mining and commerce and exploiting the country’s resources.
As a matter of fact, the Rudd Concession is totally against other Europeans getting in Zimbabwe except the English.
Here is what the Rudd Concession says about the need to exclude other Europeans. “I do hereby authorise the said grantees their heirs representatives and assigns (these are English) to take all necessary and lawful steps to exclude from my Kingdom, principalities and dominions all persons (read other Europeans) seeking land, metals, minerals or mining rights therein.”
Therefore one cannot say the Rudd Concession which was against other European, except the English migrating into Zimbabwe, gave rise to the Royal Charter which was pro European migration into our country.
There is also nothing about ending of slavery in the Rudd Concession nor promoting civilisation.
The fact of the matter is that the Royal Charter was given to Rhodes because he had the financial muscle to successfully carry out the colonisation project of Zimbabwe.
Cecil John Rhodes had his rich diamond company called De Beers.
That company had a trust deed which authorised Rhodes to use company funds, to take steps for the government of any territory so that if it obtained a Charter in accordance with the trust deed from the Secretary of State (of the United Kingdom) it would be empowered to Annex A portion of territory in Central Africa, raise and maintain a standing army and undertake warlike operations!!
And so when Rhodes and company petitioned the British government for a Royal Charter having shown them the De Beers trust deed the British “government came to see that since they were not being asked to finance the new territory (colonisation of Zimbabwe) there could be little harm in letting Rhodes and his company go ahead shouldering all the risk and responsibility of claiming for England a country – -.”
The British government was happy to grant the Royal Charter to Rhodes and company after they, the British government had been satisfied that Rhodes’ British South Africa company was a ‘powerful (financially) British company’ capable of: issuing shares, establishing or authorising banking companies in Zimbabwe, making and maintaining roads, railways, telegraphs harbours, carrying on mining and other industries, developing, clearing, planting, irrigating and authorising lands in Zimbabwe, making loans, carrying on commerce, trade, business, acquiring land in the United Kingdom etc etc.
The above is what influenced the granting of the Royal Charter and not the so-called Rudd Concession.
The Rudd Concession as we have pointed out in this ‘paper’ before was a fraudulent document which was meant “to ward off Britain’s fellow European colonial competitors from colonising Zimbabwe for after all Zimbabwe was then considered a married woman to the colonial British master courtesy of the Rudd Concession.”
This fraudulent document never left Southern Africa and so was never the main document used by Cecil John Rhodes to acquire the Royal Charter in London.
It was Rhodes’ big bucks that carried the day!
And so, people like King Lobengula who were vilified for nothing, blamed for ‘kutengesa nyika’ are as innocent as angels because the Royal Charter was given to Rhodes on the strength of his money and not the fraudulent Rudd Concession.