CHAPTER XIII.

"The Chamber of Mines has never taken part in any political agitation, nor has it encouraged or organised demonstrations of a political nature. We take our stand solely upon an economic basis, endeavouring by constitutional means the alleviation of our burdens, and offering our advice upon questions that affect the State, equally with an industry, our thorough knowledge of which is undeniable. We ask neither for concessions, nor for monopoly. All that we ask is fair treatment for our business and our shareholders. I may here express my disappointment at seeing that all our efforts to bring about good feeling and union between ourselves and the executive, meet with nothing but contempt on the part of the latter."

He then goes on to allude to Hollander officials; and possibly, to certain members of the diplomatic body:—

"Those act in bad faith who unceasingly encourage the executive of this country in their retrograde policy, and constantly tell them that all they do is well done."

He concludes by pointing out the manner in which the Press and political agents of the Government of Pretoria are stirring up ill-feeling against the proprietors and managers of mines. Persons without any defined profession, attracted by the vision of gold, have flocked to Johannesburg; unable to find employment, they have become a discontented proletariat. These are the true adventurers, if the word be taken in its worst sense. Mr. Krüger and his agents choose them as colleagues and pit them against the "wealthy metal-hearted mine owners." This is the policy pursued by Dr. Leyds in Europe, where he has been clever enough to excite alike the capitalist and socialist Press against the hated mine owner.

Mr. Rouliot continues, that it is not within the province of the Chamber of Mines to provide work for incompetent workmen. It was, no doubt, from among these men that Mr. Krüger had raised the signatures of the counter-petition which so "emphatically" declared the administration of the South African Republic "to be all that could be desired."

They werebonâ fideworkmen who took the initiative in the petition of March 28th, 1899, called forth by the murder of their fellow-workman, Edgar. We see, from Mr. Rouliot's report, that the Chamber of Mines regarding the petition as compromising, disassociated itself from it. Nor was that all. The President of the South African League in the Transvaal, Mr. W. John Wybergh, a consulting engineer by profession, was dismissed by one of the principal companies.

These undeniable facts prove that "capitalist intrigues," as Dr. Kuyper calls them, were not the causes of the present war.

The British Government could not disregard a petition which 21,684 British subjects addressed to it; even had its responsibility not been pledged by Articles 7 and 14 of the Convention of 1884, relying upon which those British subjects had settled in the Transvaal. Every civilised Government concerns itself with injuries done to its citizens in foreign lands. The petition of March 28th, was acknowledged by Mr. Chamberlain in a despatch to Sir A. Milner of May 10th, 1899, in which he says that "the complaints of the Uitlanders rested on a solid basis." From the moment that the British Government "put its hand to the plough," and thatLord Salisbury declared it would not draw back, the end was easy to foresee. Mr. Krüger had recourse to his habitual expedients. I said at the time what must certainly be the result; and an eminent French statesman may remember a conversation I then had with him, in the course of which he declared that the English would never, never, make up their minds to go to war. That was the dangerous idea then spread throughout European diplomacy, and which must have been transmitted to Krüger by Dr. Leyds, and some of the representatives of European Governments then in Pretoria. Thus Krüger thought he need not trouble. Hence his attitude at Bloemfontein. It was not because England was desirous of war that it broke out, it was because she bore the reputation of being too pacific, and because she had given too many proofs of forbearance to the Boers.

Dr. Kuyper favors us with a long dissertation upon the various laws of naturalisation existing throughout the world. But he cannot compare a country such as Belgium with 226 inhabitants per square kilomètre, or as France with 72 per square kilomètre, with a country that has two inhabitants to the square kilomètre. Had he been logical, he would have said that the 9,712,000 square kilomètres of the United States should always have been exclusively peopled by the 600,000 or 700,000 Sioux Iroquois and Apaches who used to dispute them.

Dr. Kuyper will reply that they were Redskins and so do not count. Be it so! Though the theory of inferior races has very grave consequences from the standpoint taken up by him.

But, to be logical, he ought to regret that the Puritans of Massachusetts opened wide the doors of the frontiers of their young Republic to English, Irish, and German immigrants, and, having given them equal rights with themselves, fused and made them into citizens of the United States. My present object however is not to discuss theories, but to state facts.

In the Conference which resulted in the Convention of 1881, Messrs. Krüger and Jorissen stated to the English Commissioners that the Franchise would be extended to whites after one year's residence. (V. chapiv.§ 3.) This period had been fixed in 1874. In 1882 it was altered to five years' residence.

However, the Boers felt it expedient to offer a satisfaction of some kind, and, in accordance with their usual methods, conceived in 1890 the device of creating a Second Volksraad, deprived of all executive power, to which naturalised aliens were eligible.

But more especially, after the deep levels began to be worked in 1892, when vast outlays of capital were required, and a long duration to gold mining undertakings was ensured, the Uitlanders began to feel that they must no longer be regarded as suspicious aliens, liable to be expelled from the country at any moment. In 1892, they accordingly formed an Association,The National Union, "for the purpose of obtaining by all Constitutional means, equal rights for all the citizens of the Republic and the redress of grievances." Far from desiring to place the Republic under control of the British Government, they affirmed the maintenance of its Independence.

In his manifesto, Mr. Leonard, Chairman of the Union, demands: (1) The establishment of the Republic as a true Republic; (2) A Constitution which should be drawn up by competent men, to be elected by the whole population, and which should be a guarantee against all hasty modifications; (3) An equitable system of franchise, and honest representation; the equality of Dutch and English languages.

The Government of Pretoria had done everything that was possible to provoke and justify these demands.

In 1894, ignoring the three months' delay between the promulgation and enforcing of a law required by the Constitution, it was enacted that children born in the Transvaal of alien parents should not be recognised as citizens, unless their fathers had taken the oath of allegiance.

One Uitlander wrote: "Thirteen years ago I entered my name on the Field Cornet's book, in the belief that I should receive the franchise at expiration of four years. For nine years I have been deprived of my rights; and I may have to wait twenty years in this country without becoming a citizen."

The Boer government, instead of becoming more and more liberal in proportion to the wealth and power with which its alien residents have endowed it, has grown more and more reactionary; and this state of reaction has been marked by a series of broken pledges.

I now proceed to give an account of the varying phases of the Franchise Question, since the beginning of the Conference at Bloemfontein.

The Conference at Bloemfontein opened on the 31st of May and closed on the 5th of June, 1889. Mr. Chamberlain's Despatch, of the 10th of May, to Sir Alfred Milner, suggests that he should adopt "a spirit of conciliation in order to arrive at an acceptablearrangement which might be presented to the Uitlander population, as a reasonable concession to their just demands."

The position assumed by the English Government was a very simple one; it had declined to interfere to a large degree, and it desired to interfere still less, in the disputes between the Uitlanders and Boers. It was of opinion that the only way of putting an end to them was the granting of the franchise, so as to enable them to attend to their own interests. The English Government, far from desiring to increase its intervention in the actions of the Transvaal Government, desired to say to the Uitlanders: "You have your electoral rights; make use of them in your own defence."

As was easy to foresee, President Krüger, in accordance with his custom began on a number of side issues, instead of going straight to the point, thus employing the method, known to most of us who have had dealings with mistrustful and ignorant peasants. He raised among others the following questions: (1) Swaziland, which he wanted to annex; (2) The mobilisation of the army; (3) The payment of the Jameson Raid indemnity (of which we will speak later); (4) The Uitlanders' petition; (5) The Gold law; (6) The Mining law; (7) The Liquor law; (8) The Tariff law; (9) The Independence of the Republic; (10) The Dynamite Monopoly; (11) Arbitration on all disputed points; (12) British intervention in the internal policy of the South African Republic. And then, added Mr. Krüger ingeniously, when all these matters have been disposed of, we can take up the question of Franchise.

At the very first sitting Sir Alfred Milner declined toenter upon those subjects; at the second sitting he proposed the following conditions for the Franchise; (a) A five years' residence; (b) Declaration of intention to settle in the Transvaal; (c) Oath to obey the laws, and to fulfil all the obligations of citizenship, military service included; (d) The Franchise to be accorded only to men of good repute, holders of a given amount of property or of a given income; (e) a certain number of seats to be reserved in the Volksraad for districts where Uitlanders were in the majority.

After keenly contesting these points, Mr. Krüger gave renewed proof of his 'intellectual superiority' by advancing counter proposals bristling with conditions such as sorcerers exact to enable them to accomplish their miracles. As there is always at least one impossible of realisation, the dupe is always in the wrong; in the same manner, it was Krüger's aim to be able to say to the Uitlanders, who did not obtain the Franchise: "It is your own fault. You have not carried out the conditions!"

Oh! Mr. Krüger showed again at Bloemfontein how very clever he is, and how worthy of Bismarck's admiration—but, Bismarck only entered upon a policy which he could carry through.

According to Krüger's proposal, every new-comer must within a fortnight of arrival have himself inscribed as a candidate for naturalisation and the Franchise; the former would be granted after two years; the latter after five more years; seven years in all. But should the first formality have been neglected within the stated time, the Uitlander was to forfeit for good andall the right of obtaining either the one or the other! The first condition having been fulfilled, the inscribed Uitlander was to prove "his obedience to the laws"; but President Krüger did not signify how he was to give this negative proof.

He had, moreover, to prove that he had "committed no act contrary to the Government, or its independence." But to vote against any candidate of Krüger's is, in the Transvaal, an act contrary to the Government. What Uitlander then could ever have obtained his naturalisation? "Two years of continuous registration,"—but are the registers carefully kept in the Transvaal? These formalities accomplished, and naturalisation obtained, there followed five years of registration, and the obligation of permanent residence. A stay at the Cape, a voyage to Europe, would have sufficed to forfeit the whole benefit of the formalities observed, including inscription during the first fourteen days after arrival. Finally, the retrospective clause demonstrates the cunning nature of the methods employed by Mr. Krüger.

First it deals with a nine years' residence,plustwo years for naturalisation,plussix months' declaration, in all eleven years-and-a-half, at the least.

The wording of the clause is as follows:—

"The Residents in the South African Republic before 1890, who shall become naturalised within six months of the promulgation of the proposed law, after giving six months' notice of their intention to apply for naturalisation, shall obtain the full franchise two years after naturalisation, instead of five years. Those who have not been naturalisedwithin six months will have to fulfil the conditions applying to new comers."

Look at the trickery of this regulation. A man must apply for his naturalisation six months beforehand, and he is bound to be naturalised within six months of the promulgation of the law. If he does not make his application on the very day of the promulgation, he loses all the advantages of his residence in the Transvaal before 1890, and he must wait another seven years. Note, that on the actual day of promulgation the administration of the Transvaal could never, even in good faith, have dealt with the 20,000 or 30,000 declarations that would have been made; and Mr. Krüger calmly proceeds to adjourn to another seven years the Uitlanders who had already put in nine years of residence, total 16 years. Yes, Mr. Krüger is very clever to have invented such a skilful contrivance; to have had the audacity to propound it; and to hold the opinion of Europe in such contempt that he could think it possible to make the majority of people the dupe of such schemes; and he has succeeded!

Sir Alfred Milner replied in the courteous language of diplomacy that after the interchange of these two propositions, Mr. Krüger and himself found themselves on exactly the same ground as before the Conference, and that, therefore, there was no object to be gained by prolonging it.

The Anglophobe Pro-Boers of course blame Mr. Chamberlain for the rupture of the Bloemfontein Conference, and extol the forbearance of Mr. Krüger, who carried off his proposal to have it passed by the Volksraad, and "his" burghers.

They do not reflect, that, had he honestly desired to put the matter on the road to settlement, Mr. Krüger should first have come to an understanding upon it. By passing it through the Volksraad as law, he should have cut the cable, were he in reality, anything but an autocrat, and such ratifications anything but mere formalities.

Mr. Krüger had the condescension to say to England, "So you will have none of my proposals which compel those already in the Transvaal to an eleven or twelve years' residence, coupled with impossible formalities, before obtaining the franchise? Very well, I will renew my offer to you in the name of the Volksraad and of "my" burghers, and if you are not satisfied, leave me alone to hoodwink a large proportion of enlightened menon the Continent into believing that I am simply the victim of Mr. Chamberlain's animosity, and England's greed."

The bill introduced into the Volksraad on July 13th was passed on July 19th, with only the addition of one amendment to Article 4, by which residents in the Transvaal, prior to the promulgation of the law, were entitled to obtain naturalisation after seven, instead of nine years of residence, on condition that they had complied with the requisite formalities, and had submitted to the delays before stated. People admired Mr. Krüger's generosity. Nine or ten years, instead of eleven or twelve, for the Uitlanders already settled in the Transvaal! What sacrifices he was making to ensure peace! What magnanimity towards Uitlanders! The first paragraph of Article 4 runs thus:

"Article 4. All persons who shall have settled in the South African Republic prior to the commencement of this Act, and who shall be eligible according to the conditions laid down in Article 1, may obtain letters of naturalisation seven years after arrival in the country."

This article, therefore, only accorded naturalisation to former residents; their seven years in the country counted no more than two.

Suppose them naturalised; in reality, they are deprived of all nationality.

They belong no longer to the land of their birth; if wronged, or maltreated they have no claim upon it for redress.

They are not burghers: they have no political rights; they are, in fact, minors who have lost their guardian.

This condition was to last for seven years in a country where changes are made by the week.

The art of importing confusion into the simplest matters, has been most successfully practised by Mr. Krüger and Dr. Leyds. They have even succeeded in persuading thinking men that the Uitlanders should have accepted with enthusiasm the law of July 19th, and that they should have been deeply grateful to Mr. Krüger who had "reduced from nine to seven years the term first proposed by him at Bloemfontein."

The changes referring to the "redistribution" of seats in the Volksraad were numerous. Mr. Krüger posed as making a huge concession to mining districts in raising the number of seats to twelve; but six of these were for the second Volksraad. Now the second Volksraad must always have the same number of members as the First; thus the apparent concession was merely a valueless automatic arrangement, for it is well understood that the second Volksraad is simply a show institution, devised in 1890. The various schemes for redistribution lead one to the conclusion that the number of members in the First Volksraad were to be in inverse ratio to the population.

The Uitlander looked with mistrust upon a law voted one day which could be modified the next by a simple resolution of the Volksraad; he considered it an illusion which might vanish at any moment Mr. Krüger and his friends thought proper.

The British Government might have replied that it did not recognise this law, and have confined itself to the proposals put forward by Sir Alfred Milner at the Bloemfontein Conference. It did not take this attitude which, in France, would have been advised by the most half-hearted of our Nationalists, had the French Government been engaged in similar negotiations.

In his despatch of July 27, Mr. Chamberlain appears to think that "the concessions made to the Uitlanders to guarantee them something of the equality promised them in 1881 were made in good faith; but this law of July 19th is full of complicated details; he therefore proposes that it should be examined by a joint commission." In the Colonial Secretary's despatch of August 2nd to Pretoria, he adds: "It is understood that the Commission to examine into the question of the Uitlanders' Electoral rights shall be prepared to discuss every subject that the Government of the South African Republic may desire to bring before it, including arbitration, exclusive always of the intervention of Foreign Powers."

The Government of Pretoria had put the law in force without waiting to consider these remarks.

On August 15th a despatch of Sir Alfred Milner's makes mention of a proposal of the State Attorney to the British Government to waive their invitation to a joint enquiry, in respect of the concession of a retrospective Franchise of seven years being substituted for mere naturalisation, and of an increase in the number ofseats. Such a proposition on the part of the Government of Pretoria shows plainly that it wished to evade enquiry into a law so fettered with formalities that its working was chimerical. And when Sir Alfred Milner referred to his proposal at Bloemfontein, the State Attorney decreased to five years the term of retrospective registration, gave eight seats to the Rand, and two to other mining districts.

Upon which Pro-Boers exclaim: The Government of Pretoria has made every possible concession!

They prove by that exclamation that they had not read Sir Alfred Milner's despatches of the 22nd and 23rd of August.

The Government of Pretoria made these concessions, indeed but on condition: (1) That the British Government shall withdraw its proposal for a joint Commission to enquire into whether the law was workable; (2) That the British Government shall renounce suzerainty; (3) That arbitration—apart from Foreign Powers, with exception of the Orange Free State—shall be granted immediately upon the Franchise Law being settled. On August 28th Mr. Chamberlain replies. Concerning the suzerainty, he refers to his despatch of July 13th; he consents to discuss the Constitution of a Tribunal of Arbitration from which Foreign Powers, and foreign influence, shall be excluded; he concludes by proposing a fresh Conference.

What is the reply of the Boer Government on September 2nd? The withdrawal of its proposals of August 19thand 21st, relative to the five years' Franchise and increase of number of seats in the Volksraad.

Thus, at the end of three months' negotiations, no conclusion had been arrived at.

It is to this despatch of September 2nd, that Mr. Chamberlain's despatch of September 8th, replies; in that despatch he states, that he is still prepared to accept the proposals of August 19th concerning the Franchise, provided that the enquiry by a Commission, joint or unilateral, prove that the law is workable.

The representation of Uitlanders in the Volksraad, is, of course, only possible on condition that they had the right to make use of the English language.

On September 23rd, the Transvaal Government replies that thetaal, a language not spoken by any but Boers, is to remain the only language used in the Volksraad, and in dilatory phraseology paves the way for the ultimatum of October 9th. Here we have a summary of the negotiations relating to the franchise, from the time of the Bloemfontein Conference.

Confronted with these facts, the Pro-Boer cries: "Ah, but Mr. Krüger was obliged to protect himself. He could not have his burghers swamped by Uitlanders. He was perfectly right."

Good. There is the theory that honest dealing is unnecessary in public negotiations; an apology for that system which is in direct contradiction to the maxim of private law that you cannot give and withhold at one and the same time.

"But why should the English insist upon obtaining the franchise for Uitlanders?"

In order that there should be no more need for the British Government to concern itself in Transvaal affairs, Sir Alfred Milner was right when he said to the State Attorney (despatch of August 15th):

"I am sure that the present proposal is madebonâ fidein order to establish the rights of British subjects once for all; and the Government of the South African Republic need not entertain any fear that we should wish to intervene in its internal affairs in future."

On August 28th, Mr. Chamberlain speaks the same language; at the same time justly observing, that only a portion of the Englishmen residing in the Transvaal would seek to become naturalised.

In point of fact when in February, 1896, the British Government demanded autonomy for the Rand, and on this proposition being refused, demanded at Bloemfontein the Franchise for Uitlanders, it was neither bent upon a policy of absorption nor of conquest. They desired to place self-government in the hands of the Uitlanders, in order to be able to say to them: "Now manage your own affairs with the Boers, obtain respect for your rights by constitutional measures. We are no further concerned in the matter."

It was not the conquest of the Transvaal that was desired by the British Government, it was the establishment of an autonomous Republic.

The Uitlanders of British, Australian, German and American extraction, inter-mixing with the Boers, wouldsoon have merged their national characteristics, and have become simply citizens of the South African Republic.

The Boers might have constructed a vast, wealthy and powerful State in which for generations to come, they would have held the supremacy. As a conquered people they will be compelled to accept the constitution they might have granted, and granted the more readily as they would have reaped the largest share of the benefits.

Nine persons out of ten, when speaking of the Transvaal question, say: "Why did Chamberlain, at the last moment, raise the question of suzerainty? When everything had been settled, that question ruined all."

The more thoughtful men base their opinion on an article inLe Tempsof September 15th, in which occurs this hypothetical paragraph:—

"Moreover it is possible, that, in the dim recesses of his brain, the Colonial Minister treasures, as a supreme hope and shadowy idea, the half-formed design of profiting by the discussion he is raising in order to excite fresh disputes, such as the complex question of suzerainty."

This insiduous and disloyal conjecture has been reproduced and utilised; the absolutely unfounded insinuation ofLe Temps, has been turned into an accusation against Mr. Chamberlain.

Some people who fancy they can gauge the motives of statesmen better than their neighbours, add: "If heraised the question of suzerainty, it was because he wanted to bring about a war." Facts prove, however, that the suzerainty question was not raised by England, but by the Government at Pretoria.

The argument against England's suzerainty over the Transvaal is well known; the preamble to the 1881 Convention, in which the word occurs was not reproduced in the Convention of 1884.

But it is also known, that, in the letter to Lord Derby of November 14th, 1883, the delegates from the Pretoria Government demanded restrictions of "the right of suzerainty reserved to Her Majesty by Articles 2 and 18 of the Convention of 1881," and claimed, that "the relation of dependencepublici jurisin which their country now finds itself placed with regard to the British Crown shall be replaced by that of two contracting parties." In his despatch of November 29th, Lord Derby replied, that their "pretension to enter into treaty as between two contracting powers was neither in form nor substance acceptable by Her Majesty's Government."

The Preamble of the Convention of 1884 speaks of the representations of the delegates of the Pretoria Government, "which Her Majesty has been pleased to take into consideration."

Not daring to efface with a stroke of his pen the suzerainty question, Dr. Kuyper attempts a metaphorical distinction:—

"The suzerainty question solves itself. Suzerainty may be an "organic or mechanical relation"; if mechanical, it is arranged by contract."

When Dr. Kuyper declares England's suzerainty to beof the mechanical order, he admits that the Transvaal did not hold towards England the position of an absolutely independent State.

Having been obliged to recognise the right ofveto, which Article 4 confers upon England regarding the external relations of the Transvaal, he contradicts himself when he invokes the principle of the equality "of States among themselves."

Taking refuge in a kind of prescription, he says: "Never, before 1898, had England breathed a word regarding suzerainty throughout all her interminable correspondence."

On March 6th, 1897, however, Mr. Chamberlain addressed a despatch to the South African Republic, in which he complains of several failures to observe the Convention of 1884. The following facts are cited by him: (1) Conclusion of a treaty of extradition with Holland, signed at the Hague, November 14th, 1895; of an act with Portugal, signed at Lisbon, November 3rd, 1893; of a convention with Switzerland, signed September 30th, 1896—none of these treaties had been submitted to the English Government, in violation of Article 4 of the Convention of 1884; (2) Laws concerning the emigration of foreigners, the expulsion of foreigners, the Press, all in contravention of Article 14 of the 1884 Convention.

Mr. Van Boeschoten, Secretary of State to the Transvaal at that time, proposed arbitration, the arbitrator to be chosen by the President of the Swiss Confederation.

Replying on October 16th, 1897, Mr. Chamberlain said that in making this proposal the Pretoria Government"appears to have misunderstood the distinction existing between two independent powers."

There we see a distinct assertion of suzerainty, the question which, according to Dr. Kuyper, was first raised in 1898.

"By the Pretoria Convention of 1881, Her Majesty, as Sovereign of the Transvaal, granted to the inhabitants of this territory complete self-government subject to the suzerainty of Her Majesty; and according to the London Convention of 1884, Her Majesty, while maintaining the preamble to the preceding instrument declared that certain other Articles would be substituted for Articles contained in the Convention of 1881. The Articles of the Convention of 1881 have been accepted by the Volksraad of the Transvaal State and those of the Convention of 1884 by the Volksraad of the South African Republic."According to these Conventions Her Majesty's position towards the South African Republic is that of a suzerain, who has granted to the people of this Republic self-government under certain conditions; and it would be incompatible with this situation to submit to arbitration the meaning of the conditions under which she has granted self-government to the Republic."

"According to these Conventions Her Majesty's position towards the South African Republic is that of a suzerain, who has granted to the people of this Republic self-government under certain conditions; and it would be incompatible with this situation to submit to arbitration the meaning of the conditions under which she has granted self-government to the Republic."

Mr. Chamberlain concluded by saying that he could not admit the intervention of any Foreign power between the English Government and that of the South African Republic, and that, therefore, he could not submit the violations of the Convention of 1884 to the consideration of such a power.

On April 11th, 1898, the new State Secretary, Mr. Reitz, returned to the question in a long despatch described by Dr. Kuyper as "crushing" (foudroyante), and which proves, at least, that the Suzerainty Question had been raised before 1898, since it endeavours to refute Mr. Chamberlain's despatches of March 6th, and October 16th, 1897.

To this Mr. Chamberlain replies, December 15th, 1898:—

"The preamble to the Convention of 1881 remains the basis of the relations between Her Majesty and the inhabitants of the South African Republic. To these inhabitants Her Majesty guarantees internal independence, to Herself she reserves the Suzerainty. The concession of internal independence and the reservation of the Suzerainty have but one common origin—the preamble to the Convention of 1881."

Dr. Reitz succeeded Dr. Leyds as Secretary of State, and on May 9th, 1899, replied to the despatch of the preceding December 15th. In forwarding this despatch Sir Alfred Milner observed that it contained a pretension never before put forward by the Government of Pretoria, the following words being used: "the inherent right of a Sovereign International State."

Mr. Chamberlain replied, July 13th, 1899, summarising the Conventions of 1852, 1881, and 1884; he recalled Lord Derby's declaration in the House of Lords, March 17th, 1884: "Whatever Suzerainty meant in the Convention of Pretoria, the condition of things which it implies still remains. Though the word is not actually used, we have kept the substance."

How was it that the theorists, who take up the utterance of Dr. Reitz, that: "the Transvaal has the inherent rights of a Sovereign International State," did not ask the Queen of the Netherlands that the South African Republic might be represented at the Conference of the Hague? It was a grand opportunity, which they no more dreamt of seizing, than the thought of asking that the Bey of Tunis should take part in it.

These documents referred to by us prove that the Suzerainty Question was not raised at the last moment, as theTempsof September 15th, 1899, is affirmed to have stated; that it was not raised only in 1898, as stated by Dr. Kuyper; that at least it was raised on March 6th, 1897; that, since the last mentioned date, it has given rise to an important correspondence; and, finally, that it was the first subject raised by President Krüger at the Bloemfontein Conference.

According to the idea prevailing throughout Europe, President Krüger had conceded everything from the franchise point of view, when all was ruined by Mr. Chamberlain raising the Suzerainty Question at the last moment. We have seen the value of these two assertions.

Then, certain members of the ultra peace party ask hotly: "Why did he not accept arbitration?" The word in itself appears to them to possess some sovereign virtue. Dr. Kuyper seems to me to be suffering from that terrible intellectual malady psittacism when he exclaims:—

"Arbitration is themot d'ordreof modern civilisation."

and he adds:—

"As if arbitration were not the rule betweenmastersandworkmen."

I have often demonstrated the "illusion of such arbitration" (among others seeLe Siècle, October 6th, 1899), the negative effects produced in France by the law on optional arbitration, and in England by the Conciliation Act of 1896.

From an international point of view, the judgment passed by the Arbitration Tribunal in the matter of the Delagoa Bay Railway, after a lapse of ten years, is not one to induce governments to have recourse to it.

In the relations between England and the Transvaal, the Arbitration Question is closely connected with the Suzerainty Question. It was raised May 7th, 1897, by the State Secretary, Mr. Van Boeschoten, in reply to the complaints made in Mr. Chamberlain's despatch of March 6th, 1897, relating to the violation of the 1884 Convention. Mr. Van Boeschoten's proposal was that the President of the Swiss Confederation should be asked to appoint an arbitrator.

On October 16th, 1897, Mr. Chamberlain replied:—

"The Government of the South African Republic proposes that the contested points of the Convention shall be submitted to arbitration, the arbitrator to be appointed by the President of the Swiss Confederation. In making this proposal the Government appears to have misunderstood the difference existing between the Conventions of 1881 and 1884 and an ordinary treaty between two independent powers."

The conventions had been made up; they did not suit the Government of the South African Republic. Could the British Government say: "They do not suit you. Very well, we will ask the head of a foreign State to appoint an arbitrator by whom they will be considered and annulled in the event of his sympathizing with you."

In diplomatic terms Mr. Chamberlain explains that the English Government could not carry its condescension so far as to subject to the judgment of a foreigner the result of its policy and the negotiations of its diplomats. On April 16th, 1898, a claim was made by Dr. Leyds for: "A tribunal under international law for the especial purpose of deciding differences of opinion regarding the mode of Government, and the rights and obligations of the South African Republic towards the British Government." Again Mr. Chamberlain replied, on December 15th, 1898, that the English Government could admit of no intervention of a Foreign power between the Pretoria Government and itself.

During the afternoon of the second day of the Bloemfontein Conference the arbitration question with regard to Swazieland, was raised by Mr. Krüger. He returned to the subject on the third day, as follows:—

"In the event of Swazieland becoming part of my Republic; an agreement being arrived at with reference to the Jameson Raid indemnity; Her Majesty's Government agreeing to interfere no more with my internal government; and arriving at an acceptable solution of the Franchise Question; the matter of English subjects, who, having no need to become burghers, yet still have reason to complain of illegal actions, might be submitted to arbitration."

Sir Alfred Milner replied that: "the English Government could not allow interference between itself and the South African Republic, of a foreign power or influence; that it might, however, be possible to consider some other way of nominating an impartial tribunal, and examining certain questions; but that he himself was not authorised to do so."

In conclusion President Krüger said:—

"Give me Swazieland, the indemnity for the Jameson Raid, and arbitration, in exchange for the Franchise, otherwise, I should have nothing. These points would make something worth having."

Sir Alfred Milner's reply was that President Krüger had raised the question of arbitration, without mentioning the manner of arbitration; that there were some questions, with regard to which it could not be admitted by the English Government; that there were others on which it might be admitted; that, if proposals were put forward, he would submit them to his Government.

Mr. Krüger's closing words were:—

"I have nothing to add, I shall submit the questions concerning the Franchise to the Volksraad as soon as I receive the reply that the English Government accepts my proposal of arbitration."

On June 9th, the proposals relating to arbitration were formulated by Mr. Reitz, State Secretary to the Pretoria Government. He began by proving that he could put into people's mouths words which had never been uttered by them. He declared that "at the Bloemfontein Conference the High Commissioner was personally favourable to the settlement by arbitration of all the differences between the two Governments." Sir Alfred Milner had been careful not to go so far as this.

After this inaccurate preamble the following proposals were made by Mr. Reitz:—

(1) "In future, all questions arising between the two Governments, and relating to the interpretation of the London Convention to be submitted to atribunal of arbitration, with the exception of questions of trifling importance."(2) "The tribunal to be composed of two arbitrators appointed respectively by each government, as for instance the Chief Justices of the South African Republic, Cape Colony or Natal. The power to be given to them of choosing as a third arbitrator, someone who should be a subject of neither of the disputing parties; the decision in all cases to rest with the majority."(3) "The instrument of submission to be considered in each case by the two governments, in order that both may have the right of reserving and excluding any points appearing to them too important to be submitted to arbitration."

(2) "The tribunal to be composed of two arbitrators appointed respectively by each government, as for instance the Chief Justices of the South African Republic, Cape Colony or Natal. The power to be given to them of choosing as a third arbitrator, someone who should be a subject of neither of the disputing parties; the decision in all cases to rest with the majority."

(3) "The instrument of submission to be considered in each case by the two governments, in order that both may have the right of reserving and excluding any points appearing to them too important to be submitted to arbitration."

Sir Alfred Milner remarked that this project was "a mere skeleton proposal by which too many things were left undefined." For instance, what did the words "trifling matters" mean? and what was meant by the third article, which gives to both Governments the right of excluding from arbitration points which may appear to them too important to be submitted to it?

Finally, the very composition of the tribunal was in contradiction to the reservations made by the English Government. The third arbitrator would be a foreigner, and with this third arbitrator would rest the decision.

In his telegram of July 27th, however, Mr. Chamberlain did not reply by an absolute definite refusal. He rejected the composition of the tribunal; but heacknowledged that: "the interpretation of the convention in detail is not exempt from difficulties, putting aside the question of the interpretation of the preamble of the Convention of 1881, which regulates the articles substituted in the Convention of 1884." And then Mr. Chamberlain invited Sir Alfred Milner to enquire of Mr. Krüger whether he would accept the exclusion of the Foreign element in the settlement of disputes, arising from the interpretation of the Convention of 1884:

Back to Index Next