CHAPTER XVII.

"As to how far and by what method, questions could be decided by a judicial authority whose independence, impartiality and capacity should be above suspicion."

Thus the constitution of a tribunal of arbitration was accepted by Mr. Chamberlain, and in his despatch of August 28th he directed Sir Alfred Milner to arrange a fresh conference with Mr. Krüger. On September 2nd the Pretoria Government asks whether the British Government will receive burghers of the Free State as members of the arbitration tribunal? which are the subjects it will be competent to settle? and which will be reserved?

Sir Alfred Milner's views on this subject are stated in a lengthy despatch to the Government, dated September 8th. The points which Sir Alfred Milner considered should be excluded from arbitration as being likely to re-open discussion are the following: (1) The position of the British Indians; (2) the position of other British coloured subjects; (3) the right of all British subjects to be treated as favourably as those of any other country;"a right which has never been formally admitted by the South African Republic."

Here the Arbitration Question may be said to have dropped, Sir A. Milner's telegram of September 8th being followed by the ultimatum of October 9th.

Hence this question was not a new one at the time of the Bloemfontein Conference. It had been raised by the Government of Pretoria as a means by which its "inherent rights as a Sovereign State" should be acknowledged, a pretension which could not be admitted by the British Government.

As we have seen, however, arbitration was not absolutely refused by Mr. Chamberlain; he imposed two conditions; the Conventions of 1881 and 1884 were not to be questioned, foreigners were not to be chosen as arbitrators; the points referred to arbitration should be clearly specified.

There is a vast difference between this attitude and the arrogant tone generally ascribed to Mr. Chamberlain. It is always advisable to refer to the documents on a question before discussing it.

Referring to the Bloemfontein Conference, Dr. Kuyper says:

"Mr. Chamberlain opened his criminal negotiations ... Unfortunately for him, his opponent, of whom Bismarck said there was not a statesman in Europe who surpassed him for sagacity and sound judgment, did not fall into the trap. He prolonged the negotiations ... but from the moment he held in his hands undeniable proofs of the manner in which Mr. Chamberlain was luring him on and seeking to gain time, he hurled at him the reproach of "coveting Naboth's vineyard," and sent an ultimatum to London." (p. 502).

We are struck in this passage by the admirable logic of Dr. Kuyper. It is Krüger who "prolongs the negotiations," and Chamberlain who "seeks to gain time." To heighten the prestige of Mr. Krüger, Dr. Kuyper invokes the testimony of Bismarck. I certainly think that it was Krüger's ambition to become the Bismarck of South Africa, and President of the "Africa for the Afrikanders, from the Zambesi to Simon's Bay."

I come to the final act:—

On September 2nd, the Government of Pretoria withdrew its proposal to reduce the delay in granting the franchise to five years; the British Government not having accepted the conditions imposed: (1) Refusal of all enquiry into the condition of the Franchise Law by a Joint Commission; (2) Abrogation of Suzerainty in conformity with the note of the Government of Pretoria, of April 16th, 1898; (3) Refusal to submit questions under discussion to Arbitration.

Mr. Chamberlain replied in his despatch of September 8th. He was unable to accept the terms of the Note of April 16th, 1898, which he had formally refused.

He maintained that the Franchise Law was insufficient to guarantee an immediate and effective representation of the Uitlanders.

He demanded that a joint, or unilateral, Commission should be instituted to examine whether the law on the Franchise were not rendered inoperative by the conditions which would make such representations impossible.

The acceptance of these propositions by the South African Republic would put an end to the tension existing between the two Governments, and, in all probability, would render ulterior intervention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to ensure redress of the Uitlanders' grievances unnecessary, as they themselves would thenceforth be entitled to bring them directly to the cognizance of the Executive and the Raad.

Mr. Chamberlain adds that the British Government is prepared to authorise a fresh Conference between the President of the South African Republic and the High Commissioner in order to settle all details of a Tribunal of Arbitration, and the questions capable of being submitted to it on the basis of the Note of August 30th.

This very moderately worded despatch, embodying equally moderate propositions, ended as follows:

"Should, however—which Her Majesty's Government earnestly trusts may not be the case—the reply of the South African Government be negative, or dilatory, it reserves to itself the right to consider the situationde novo, and to formulate its own propositions for a final settlement."

The Government of Pretoria replied on September 16th, by referring to its Note of September 2nd. It devotes an entire paragraph to the statement that the English language will not be admitted in the Volksraad. It refuses to consider at that juncture the appointment of a fresh Conference; it accepts, however, the proposed Joint Commission.

Mr. Chamberlain replies in his despatch of September 22nd, in which he clearly states the attitude of the British Government. It has no desire to interfere in any way with the independence of the South African Republic. It has not asserted any other rights of interference in the internal affairs of the South African Republic than those derived from the Conventions, or "which belong to every neighbouring Government for the protection of its subjects and of its adjoining possessions. But, by the action of the Government of the South AfricanRepublic, who have in their Note of May 9th, asserted the right of the Republic to be a Sovereign International State, it has been compelled to repudiate any such claim." He repeats that the Franchise would enable the Uitlanders to procure just treatment for themselves, and concludes by saying: "the refusal of the South African Republic to entertain the offer thus made coming, as it does, at the end of nearly four months of negotiations, and of five years of agitation, makes it useless to further pursue a discussion on the lines hitherto followed, and Her Majesty's Government are now compelled to consider the situation afresh and to formulate their own proposals for a final settlement."

The Transvaal Government has accused Sir Alfred Milner of not keeping his word. Two despatches, one from Mr. Chamberlain, September 16th, the other from Sir Alfred Milner, September 20th, refute this allegation.

These two despatches received no reply. On September 28th, the Volksraad of the Orange Free State proclaimed that it would "faithfully and honorably fulfil its obligations towards the South African Republic, in accordance with the alliance between the two States, whatever might be the consequences." Mr. Steyn, the President, gave an account of the negotiations from his point of view. The Cape presented a petition drawn up by fifty-eight members of the Cape Parliament, five of whom were Ministers and had adopted Mr. Steyn's view; on the other side, fifty-three members of both Chambers passed a resolution approving the policy ofthe British Government. President Steyn complained of troops being sent to Africa. Later events have proved whether these complaints were justifiable. On September 29th, the Netherlands Railway stated that communication with Natal was interrupted. The telegraph wires were cut. On October 2nd, President Krüger, in adjourning the Volksraadsine die, stated that "War is inevitable," and on October 9th, the Government of the South African Republic handed an Ultimatum to the British Agent at Pretoria.

The Ultimatum demanded Arbitration on all subjects; the withdrawal of British troops; the re-embarkation of British troops landed after June 1st; troops on the high seas not be landed.

"The Transvaal Government requires an immediate and affirmative reply on these four points, before five o'clock, p.m. on Wednesday, October 11th, and it is added that should a satisfactory reply not have reached within that period, it will, to its great regret, be compelled to consider the action of Her Majesty's Government as a formal declaration of War."

Next day Mr. Chamberlain naturally replied that "henceforth all discussion was impossible." Notification was made on the 11th of October. Englishmen and suspected foreigners were expelled; and President Steyn, with the special Boer skill, in misrepresenting facts, announced that "England had committed itself to an open, and unjustifiable attack upon the independence of the South African Republic."

We have seen from which side the attack came.

I have finished my criticism of Dr. Kuyper's article.

Should he not find it clear, perhaps he will be kind enough to mark the points which he desires to have explained. I will gladly insert his reply, on condition that he allows me to publish it, with his article, in pamphlet form, so that readers may have both sides of the question before them. I do not follow him in detail in his apologetic, religious, metaphysical, and oratorical digressions where common-places stand for facts and arguments.

"Has civilisation the right to propagate itself by means of war?" he cries. As far as I am concerned, I think war a very bad vehicle of civilisation, albeit it has often served the purpose; but as long as it remains the last resource of international relations, it is impossible to suppress it.

I return the question. "Has an inferior civilisation the right to impose itself upon a superior civilisation, and to propagate itself by means of war?"

Pro-Boers delight to exhibit in the shop windows a picture representing three Transvaal soldiers; a youth of sixteen, an old man of sixty-five, and a man in theprime of life. What does it prove? That every Boer is a soldier. They have no other calling; to drive ox-teams; ride; shoot; keep a sharp eye on the Kaffirs in charge of their cattle; use the sjambok freely "in Boer fashion," to make them work; these are their occupations. Their civilisation is one of the most characteristic types of a military civilisation.

It is a curious thing, that so many Europeans among the lovers of peace, should actually be the fiercest enemies of England, a country which represents industrial civilisation in so high a degree, that she stands alone, in all Europe, in refusing to adopt compulsory military service. Such lovers of peace range themselves on the side of professional fighters against peaceable citizens. They are for the Boer spoliator against the despoiled Uitlanders. They take their stand against the English who in 1881 and 1884 voluntarily restored autonomy to the Transvaal, and in favor of the Boer, who in the Petition of Rights, 1881, took for programme, as in the pamphlet recently published by Dr. Reitz, "Africa for the Afrikanders from the Zambesi to Simon's Bay."

The British Government, far from desiring fresh conquests, is drawn on by its colonists. France colonises by sending an army, to be followed by officials; then the government, the press, and committees of all sorts, beg and pray refractory home lovers to go forth and settle in the conquered territory. Englishmen go out to Australia, Borneo, Johannesburg; and the British Government has to follow them. It is not English trade which follows the flag, it is the flag which followsthe trade. The present crisis was not brought about by the zeal of British statesmen, but by their weakness in 1881 and 1884; and by the habit which they have allowed the Government of Pretoria of violating conventions with impunity. To such a degree were these violations carried on with regard to the Uitlanders (chiefly English) who, relying on the guarantee of the Transvaal Government, had settled and invested millions of capital in the country, that, dreading for their lives after the murder of Edgar, they presented the petition of March 28th, 1899, to the British Government. No government in the world, approached in such a manner, could have refused to move; and where European governments have gone wrong is that, instead of supporting the action of Great Britain, they let President Krüger believe that they would intervene against her, to the prejudice even of their own countrymen.

It may be mentioned that British Uitlanders only appealed to their own government, after having, conjointly with Uitlanders of other nationalities, addressed various petitions, since 1894, to the Pretoria Government which petitions were received with contempt, President Krüger replying: "Protest! protest as much as you like! I have arms, and you have none!"

Dr. Kuyper affirms that "with regard to moral worth the Boers do not fall short of any European nation." I have not wished to digress from my argument by entering upon known cases of corruption concerning theVolksraad in general, and Mr. Krüger in particular, but we have seen their methods of legislation, of administering justice, and of keeping their pledged word; let that suffice.

Dr. Kuyper collects all the calumnies against British soldiers, but he dare not aver that the Boers have not been guilty of the abuse of the white flag, and of the Red Cross. At the beginning of April, Lieutenant Williams, trusting in the good faith of a party of Boers, who hoisted the white flag, was shot dead by them.

Dr. Kuyper says "all the despatches have been garbled, defeats turned into victories." It is not of Dr. Leyds he is speaking, but of the English. He declares (February 1st) that "the best English regiments are already disintegrated," that "the immensity of the cost will frighten the English shopkeepers," that "the ministerial majority will likely soon be dissipated." In giving these proofs of perspicacity, Dr. Kuyper charitably adds, concerning England, "her reverses may be her salvation." And in order to ensure her this salvation, he looks forward to "those projected alliances, whose tendency it is unquestionably to draw together against that insular power," of which Dr. Kuyper would fain "be the son, were he not a Dutchman," and yet whose destruction he so ardently desires. This far seeing politician forgets that were his wishes realised, Holland would be the first victim.

Dr. Kuyper delivers a lengthy dissertation upon "the inadequacy of the Christian movement"; and showshimself worthy to be a collaborator of M. Brunetière by excommunicating Schleiermacher, "the typical representative," says the Rev. J.F. Smith, of modern effort to reconcile science, theology and the "world of to-day with Christianity."

He inveighs against individualism, Darwinism, and the law of evolution; he speaks of "the broad paths of human sin," and accuses the English clergy of "betraying the God of Justice"; he places before them the God of the Boers, declaring that "an invisible Power protects their commandos."

Dr. Kuyper who is much better acquainted with the North Sea herrings than with African lions, concludes his articles with this daring metaphor:—

"So long as the roar of the Transvaal lioness, surrounded by her cubs, shall be heard from the heights of the Drakensberg, so long shall the Boers remain unconquered."

Now, the Boers have surmounted the armorial bearings of the South African Republic with an eagle, bird of prey beloved of conquerers. It is true that in the left quarter of their coat of arms is a small lion lying down with bristling mane. It is probably the lady-friend of this ferocious quadruped which Dr. Kuyper has chosen to symbolise the people of the Transvaal.

I would merely remark to him that the highest summit of the Drakensberg rises to an elevation of something like 10,000 feet. It is situated away from the frontier of the Transvaal, between Natal, Basutoland, and the Orange Free State. I imagine it is there that Dr. Kuyper's Transvaallioness is to take her stand, in order to carry out Krüger's programme "Africa for the Afrikanders, from the Zambesi to Simon's Bay." But the poor animal would not be long on that height, before she would die of cold and hunger. This concluding imagery well reflects the spirit of Dr. Kuyper's essay; it demonstrates to perfection the rapacious and megalomaniac ideal of the Boers; and in his grandiloquence the author contrives to express exactly the reverse of what he means.

Here again Dr. Kuyper puts metaphor in the place of reasoning; a truly Eastern mode of discussion.

Ever since I entered upon public life, I have always endeavoured, in the study of social and political phenomena, to eliminate subjective affirmations, the dogmatic and comminatorya priori, the antiquated methods which consist of taking words for things,nominafornumina, metaphors for realities.

Physical and biological science owe to the objective method the progress that, from the times of Bacon and Galileo, has transformed the face of the world; social science must henceforth replace rhetoric, scholasticism and all balderdash of that kind; affirmations,a priori, and excommunications, by the rigorous scrutiny of facts: Unity of Method will lead to Moral Unity.[25]

I cannot do better than reproduce at the end of this pamphlet the analysis made by me inLe Siècle, March 14th, of a remarkable article written by M. Tallichet, Editor of theBibliothèque Universelle de Lausanne.

I have good reason for believing that President Krüger was kept by Dr. Leyds under the illusion that he could count on intervention in his favour. However, "Who should intervene?" is the question asked by M. Tallichet in his article,La Guerre du Transvaal et l'Europe, published byLa Bibliothèque Universelle de Lausanne.

"President MacKinley, as was asked of him in a petition organised by the Peace League? He has no such intention. Of the European Powers, three only could have tried to do so: Russia, Germany and France. Russia, however, who might have induced France to act with her, will not trouble herself about it. Nicholas II., her sovereign, has but lately taken part at the Hague in a conference promoted by himself for the purpose of considering the means of insuring peace. Having taken the initiative he may be believed to have been actuated by philanthropic motives. But it also happens that peace is, for Russia, of the greatest importance, grown, as she is, out of all proportion, continuingto extend her tentacles wherever there is a chance of seizing something. To this cause of weakness must be added others: the need of money for her gigantic enterprises; the famine, now become endemic, by which her European provinces are ravaged, depopulated and reduced to the greatest misery. She is profiting now by her experiences after the Crimean War. As long as she remains inactive, the influence she exercises on general politics by her mere extent, and the mysterious power which seems to be the corollary of it, far exceeds her actual strength. On her descending into the arena, however, this optical illusion is dissipated, as was apparent in the recent Turkish War; her prestige was lessened. No steps will therefore be taken by her to increase England's difficulties by which she gains much without striking a single blow."With regard to France, her only interest in the question is her rivalry with England and the possibility, afforded by the latter's difficulties, of re-opening the Egyptian Question. Public opinion was sounded on this subject by a few newspapers, government organs among them, but without obtaining the desired result. Although not daring to counsel a formal alliance with Germany, they would have liked to see her intervene. The present French Government, and especially M. Delcassé may be credited with too much good sense and good feeling to resort to the foolish, pin-pricking policy of M. Hanotaux to which the Fashoda incident is really due. Such blunders are not made a second time."

"With regard to France, her only interest in the question is her rivalry with England and the possibility, afforded by the latter's difficulties, of re-opening the Egyptian Question. Public opinion was sounded on this subject by a few newspapers, government organs among them, but without obtaining the desired result. Although not daring to counsel a formal alliance with Germany, they would have liked to see her intervene. The present French Government, and especially M. Delcassé may be credited with too much good sense and good feeling to resort to the foolish, pin-pricking policy of M. Hanotaux to which the Fashoda incident is really due. Such blunders are not made a second time."

Only Germany remains to be considered. That there have been intimate relations between the Governments at Pretoria and Berlin, is certain. At one time the Emperor's aspiration was to unite his possessions in East Africa to those in theWest, and he counted on the Transvaal to assist him. Mr. Stead's opinion on this subject, at the time of the Jameson Raid, has already been quoted by us (Le Siècle, December 28th, 1899). But this policy has since been renounced by him; the German Government took fright at the influence exercised by Dr. Leyds on certain of the Berlin newspapers; guns and Mauser rifles have been furnished by Krupp, but that is a private firm; German officers have entered the Boer army, to what extent have they been disavowed? The Emperor William is certainly interested in the Transvaal War.

"He gets others to experiment on the value of German armaments, rifles, guns, and all the tactical and strategetical problems incident to the perfection of modern arms, and which have not yet been solved. Experience, that is to say war, is worth everything in such a matter as this, and the Boers with their German officers are literally working for 'the King of Prussia.'"

That the Emperor should wish the Boers to succeed is logical enough, and to all Frenchmen capable of thought, to Belgians, Swiss and Dutch too we commend the way in which this desire is proved by M. Tallichet:

"Should the Boers be successful, England's power would be lessened. She could no longer maintain the balance of power in Europe, which is a service of inestimable benefit to our continent, especially to the smaller countries, and to none more than to Holland. The conquest of the Netherlands is a great temptation to Germany, who would thereby gain exactly what she wishes: an excellent sea-board; a great number of sailors; colonies, at the very moment when she is aspiring to a first-class fleet. In a recent number of the semi-officialNorddeutsche Zeitung, an article waspublished by Dr. Ed. von Hartmann, suggesting that Holland should be persuaded, or if necessary forced by commercial competition to become part of the German Empire, which would thus gain all it could possibly desire. Is it likely that this glorious little country will consent? Its charming young Queen, said to be a great sympathiser with the Boers, will she descend from her present position to take rank with the German Princes under the Emperor whose equal she is to-day? Assuredly not."But if, on the other hand, England were to be paralysed, no defence of Holland would be possible; France could not undertake it alone, much as it would be to her interest; and what other Powers would be capable of resisting?"Of course, it may be urged, the German Emperor would never do such a thing. Perhaps not, he is not immortal however, and there is no knowing what may be done by his successors. Besides, by his friendship with Abdul-Hamid, he has shown himself capable of sacrificing everything to the greatness of his Empire. It would in all probability be unnecessary to resort to force; there are less brutal ways just as efficacious. In the event of Germany possessing undisputed preponderance, with no counter-weight, she will bring an irresistible pressure to bear upon Holland, as did Russia to poor Finland, and induce her to join the Germanic Confederation. When, therefore, Holland upholds the Transvaal, and seeks to annihilate England, she, like the Boers, though in a different manner, is working for "the King of Prussia"."

"But if, on the other hand, England were to be paralysed, no defence of Holland would be possible; France could not undertake it alone, much as it would be to her interest; and what other Powers would be capable of resisting?

"Of course, it may be urged, the German Emperor would never do such a thing. Perhaps not, he is not immortal however, and there is no knowing what may be done by his successors. Besides, by his friendship with Abdul-Hamid, he has shown himself capable of sacrificing everything to the greatness of his Empire. It would in all probability be unnecessary to resort to force; there are less brutal ways just as efficacious. In the event of Germany possessing undisputed preponderance, with no counter-weight, she will bring an irresistible pressure to bear upon Holland, as did Russia to poor Finland, and induce her to join the Germanic Confederation. When, therefore, Holland upholds the Transvaal, and seeks to annihilate England, she, like the Boers, though in a different manner, is working for "the King of Prussia"."

I earnestly recommend this passage in M. Ed. Tallichet's article to the attention of my fellow-countrymen; the folly which dominates our foreign policy, alarms me as much asthat which caused the innocence of Dreyfus to be denied for years, by Ministers,the état-major, and many millions of Frenchmen. Justice was sacrificed by them to paltry considerations, and to-day those of us who are infatuated with sympathy for the pillaging policy of the Boers seem to have set up as their ideal the completion of the disaster of 1870!

M. Ed. Tallichet's article should be read and carefully considered by all who take an interest in the future of Europe. The question is presented by him fully and clearly; there is no trace of sympathy for or antipathy to Boers or British; the fate of France, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, is equally discussed. Their position is linked with England's power; any injury to her power would weaken any of the smaller countries above-mentioned, and be a source of danger to France.

I. Offer to Dr. Kuyper to reproduce his article.—II. Dilatory reply of Dr. Kuyper.—III. Withdrawal of Dr. Kuyper.—IV. M. Brunetière's refusal.—V. The Queen of Holland and Dr. Kuyper's article.

On March 25th I addressed the following registered letter to Dr. Kuyper:

March 25th, 1900.Sir,I have the honour to send you the numbers ofLe Sièclecontaining a criticism of your article, "La Crise Sud-Africaine," which appeared in theRevue des Deux Mondes.In order to present theprosandconsto the reader at one and the same time, I ask you to agree to the following proposition:I offer to publish in one pamphlet your article and my reply.I undertake to pay the cost and if there should be any profits to divide them with you.By accepting this proposal you will show that you are as convinced of the solidity of your arguments as I am of the solidity of mine.YVES GUYOT.

March 25th, 1900.

Sir,

I have the honour to send you the numbers ofLe Sièclecontaining a criticism of your article, "La Crise Sud-Africaine," which appeared in theRevue des Deux Mondes.

In order to present theprosandconsto the reader at one and the same time, I ask you to agree to the following proposition:I offer to publish in one pamphlet your article and my reply.I undertake to pay the cost and if there should be any profits to divide them with you.

By accepting this proposal you will show that you are as convinced of the solidity of your arguments as I am of the solidity of mine.

YVES GUYOT.

I received the following letter, March 29th:

Amsterdam,March 28th, 1900.To M. Yves Guyot.Sir,Only having received one number of your paper (23,381) I do not know whether your criticism is finished. As soon as I have it all before me—with references to the documents cited, if you please,otherwise it is difficult to follow—I will see whether it calls for a detailed reply on my part, in which case I might, according to American precedent, republish my article, inserting, with your permission, your reply. This was done by the New YorkOutlook, when it published in the same number, "the Case of the Boers," and "the Case of the British."At the same time the copyright of my article belongs to the Editor of theRevue des Deux Mondes, without whose permission I can do nothing. As I shall be in Paris before long I will ask him for it, should your polemic attack seem to me to require a reply.With regard to your proposal to leave the risks of a fresh publication to you, while sharing the profits, although I appreciate the delicacy of such a suggestion, I could not accept it.KUYPER.

Amsterdam,March 28th, 1900.

To M. Yves Guyot.

Sir,

Only having received one number of your paper (23,381) I do not know whether your criticism is finished. As soon as I have it all before me—with references to the documents cited, if you please,otherwise it is difficult to follow—I will see whether it calls for a detailed reply on my part, in which case I might, according to American precedent, republish my article, inserting, with your permission, your reply. This was done by the New YorkOutlook, when it published in the same number, "the Case of the Boers," and "the Case of the British."

At the same time the copyright of my article belongs to the Editor of theRevue des Deux Mondes, without whose permission I can do nothing. As I shall be in Paris before long I will ask him for it, should your polemic attack seem to me to require a reply.

With regard to your proposal to leave the risks of a fresh publication to you, while sharing the profits, although I appreciate the delicacy of such a suggestion, I could not accept it.

KUYPER.

The following remarks on his letter were published by me inLe Siècle, March 30th.

"With regard to the first point, I regret that, at the time of writing, Dr. Kuyper should only have received one number ofLe Siècle; each of my replies having been sent to him under registered cover on the day of publication. It is unfortunate for me that Dr. Kuyper's Article should have appeared in theRevue des Deux Mondes, for that brings me again into contact with M. Brunetière, and it is well-known that M. Brunetière who, last year for fifteen days burdenedLe Sièclewith his prose, does not wish this discussion to be presented to the reader in its entirety. I am greatly afraid of his desiring the same isolation for Dr. Kuyper's article."As far as I am concerned, having began my reply to Dr. Kuyper I shall continue it. If it is not M. Brunetière's wish that our articles should be published together he will thereby acknowledge anew the force of my replies. Were they not documented and convincing, he would not fear their proximity."

"As far as I am concerned, having began my reply to Dr. Kuyper I shall continue it. If it is not M. Brunetière's wish that our articles should be published together he will thereby acknowledge anew the force of my replies. Were they not documented and convincing, he would not fear their proximity."

On April 6th I sent the following letter to Dr. Kuyper (registered).

April 6th, 1900.Sir,In a few days I shall have finished my replies to your article; they will then be published in pamphlet form. I have the honour to ask you definitely whether you accept my proposal to precede them with your article in theRevue des Deux Mondes.YVES GUYOT.

April 6th, 1900.

Sir,

In a few days I shall have finished my replies to your article; they will then be published in pamphlet form. I have the honour to ask you definitely whether you accept my proposal to precede them with your article in theRevue des Deux Mondes.

YVES GUYOT.

In answer to this I received the following letter from Dr. Kuyper written from the Grand Hotel, Paris:

Grand Hotel, 12, Boulevard des Capucines,April 12th, 1900.Sir,My last letter informed you to what extent I could meet your wishes.Now that, without regard to my reply, you simply ask for the authorisation to print my article in a pamphlet which you propose to publish, I can only refer you to the person who has the power to dispose of the copyright.KUYPER.

Grand Hotel, 12, Boulevard des Capucines,April 12th, 1900.

Sir,

My last letter informed you to what extent I could meet your wishes.

Now that, without regard to my reply, you simply ask for the authorisation to print my article in a pamphlet which you propose to publish, I can only refer you to the person who has the power to dispose of the copyright.

KUYPER.

I was under the impression that I had acted in accordance with the reply of Dr. Kuyper, who in his letter, March 28th, wrote: "The copyright of my article belongs to the Editor of theRevue des Deux Mondes, without whose permission I can do nothing. As I shall be in Paris before long I will ask him for it should your polemics seem to me to require a reply."

But since Mr. Kuyper withdrew from the correspondence I wrote the following letter to Mr. Brunetière, Editor of theRevue des Deux Mondes:

April 13th, 1900.To the Editor,Sir,In theRevue des Deux Mondes, February 1st, an article was published by Dr. Kuyper under the title of "La Crise Sud-Africaine."I have published a criticism upon it inLe Siècle;and in order that both sides of the question may be presented to the reader, I have asked Dr. Kuyper's authorisation to reproduce his article in a pamphlet in which I purpose to collect my own.On March 28th, Dr. Kuyper wrote me: "The copyright of my article belongs to the editor of theRevue des Deux Mondes, without whose permission I can do nothing. As I shall be in Paris before long I will ask him for it, should your polemic attack seem to me to require a reply."To-day Dr. Kuyper writes to me from the Grand Hotel, Paris: "I can only refer you to the person who has the power to dispose of the copyright." Since I am asked by Dr. Kuyper to make the request which he had undertaken to make himself, I will do so. I have the honour to ask you for the authorisation to publish Dr. Kuyper's article which appeared in theRevue des Deux Mondesunder the title of "La Crise Sud-Africaine," and to inform me of your conditions for the reproduction.YVES GUYOT.

April 13th, 1900.

To the Editor,

Sir,

In theRevue des Deux Mondes, February 1st, an article was published by Dr. Kuyper under the title of "La Crise Sud-Africaine."

I have published a criticism upon it inLe Siècle;and in order that both sides of the question may be presented to the reader, I have asked Dr. Kuyper's authorisation to reproduce his article in a pamphlet in which I purpose to collect my own.

On March 28th, Dr. Kuyper wrote me: "The copyright of my article belongs to the editor of theRevue des Deux Mondes, without whose permission I can do nothing. As I shall be in Paris before long I will ask him for it, should your polemic attack seem to me to require a reply."

To-day Dr. Kuyper writes to me from the Grand Hotel, Paris: "I can only refer you to the person who has the power to dispose of the copyright." Since I am asked by Dr. Kuyper to make the request which he had undertaken to make himself, I will do so. I have the honour to ask you for the authorisation to publish Dr. Kuyper's article which appeared in theRevue des Deux Mondesunder the title of "La Crise Sud-Africaine," and to inform me of your conditions for the reproduction.

YVES GUYOT.

The next day I received the following from M. Brunetière:

Paris,April 14th, 1900.Sir,You ask me for the authorisation to publish in a pamphlet Dr. Kuyper's article which appeared in theRevue des Deux Mondes, under the title of "La Crise Sud-Africaine." I hasten to refuse you the authorisation.I am, Sir, etc.,F. BRUNETIÈRE.

Paris,April 14th, 1900.

Sir,

You ask me for the authorisation to publish in a pamphlet Dr. Kuyper's article which appeared in theRevue des Deux Mondes, under the title of "La Crise Sud-Africaine." I hasten to refuse you the authorisation.

I am, Sir, etc.,F. BRUNETIÈRE.

In this reply I trace M. Brunetière's habitual courtesy. If I do not thank him for his refusal, I yet thank him for the promptness with which it was signified by him.

It had been my desire to enable the reading public to judge for themselves the value of the arguments put forward by Dr. Kuyper and myself; but it was evidently M. Brunetière's wish that Dr. Kuyper's article should be known only to the readers of theRevue des Deux Mondes, and that they should remain ignorant of my reply. This is in itself a confession; for undoubtedly had Dr. Kuyper been convinced that it was impossible for me to refute his arguments he would have requested M. Brunetière to give me the authorisation to reproduce his article.

On April 26th a telegram from the Havas Agency announced that the Queen of Holland had received the journalists of Amsterdam, of whom Dr. Kuyper is President.

I therefore wrote the following letter to Mr. W.H. de Beaufort, the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Paris,April 27th, 1900.To H.E. the Minister for Foreign Affairs.Sir,The Havas Agency, in a telegram, April 26, gives the following information:"Replying to a speech made by Dr. Kuyper, President of the Society of Journalists, the Queen said she had read with interest his article on the South African crisis, published in a Paris review. The Queen expressed the hope that the article would be circulated abroad, adding that she considered it important that it should be widely distributed in America."That the Queen of a constitutional government, such as that of Holland, should have spoken in this way, proves that the Cabinet is of the same mind. I trust, therefore, that I am not too bold in asking your assistance to carry out Her Majesty's intentions.I had asked Dr. Kuyper's authorisation to reproduce his article at the beginning of a pamphlet; he referred me to M. Brunetière, who with the courtesy of which he has given me so many proofs, replied: "I hasten to refuse your request."M. Brunetière's views are evidently opposed to those of the Queen of the Netherlands.It is true that the article would have been followed by my criticism, but if the arguments therein contained are irrefutable, why fear the proximity of my refutation? I beg you, therefore, to be kind enough to ask M. Brunetière to give me permission to second the views of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands by assisting to circulate Dr. Kuyper's article.YVES GUYOT.

Paris,April 27th, 1900.

To H.E. the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Sir,

The Havas Agency, in a telegram, April 26, gives the following information:

"Replying to a speech made by Dr. Kuyper, President of the Society of Journalists, the Queen said she had read with interest his article on the South African crisis, published in a Paris review. The Queen expressed the hope that the article would be circulated abroad, adding that she considered it important that it should be widely distributed in America."

That the Queen of a constitutional government, such as that of Holland, should have spoken in this way, proves that the Cabinet is of the same mind. I trust, therefore, that I am not too bold in asking your assistance to carry out Her Majesty's intentions.

I had asked Dr. Kuyper's authorisation to reproduce his article at the beginning of a pamphlet; he referred me to M. Brunetière, who with the courtesy of which he has given me so many proofs, replied: "I hasten to refuse your request."

M. Brunetière's views are evidently opposed to those of the Queen of the Netherlands.

It is true that the article would have been followed by my criticism, but if the arguments therein contained are irrefutable, why fear the proximity of my refutation? I beg you, therefore, to be kind enough to ask M. Brunetière to give me permission to second the views of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands by assisting to circulate Dr. Kuyper's article.

YVES GUYOT.

I have published my pamphlet while awaiting M. Brunetière's reply to the Dutch Government which can hardly do otherwise than make the request, agreeing, as it does, with the views of Her Majesty. Should M. Brunetière by any chance cease to fear the proximity to Dr. Kuyper's assertions of the facts and documents published by me, I will issue a new Edition.

Since the foregoing articles were written Dr. Leyds and Mr. Boer have not been idle. M. Pierre Foncin, a General Inspector of the University, has compiled on behalf of a Society called "Le Sou des Boers," a manifesto ending thus: "Well then, since this lust of gold has resulted in war, let the gold of France be poured out in floods, in aid of the innocent victims!"

In spite of considerable influence brought to bear upon this member of the University, the Committee, after some weeks' work, only managed to scrape together something like four hundred pounds. Since then, no more has been heard of it, and its place has been taken by "The Committee for the Independence of the Boers," with M. Pauliat, a Nationalist Senator, at its head. Its object was, in the first place, to organise a reception for the Boer delegates on their return from America.

It was confidently expected by the promoters of the enterprise that it would afford a good opportunity for a demonstration in opposition to the Government on the fourteenth of July. The delegates were received at the Hôtel-de-Ville by the Nationalist Municipal Council, whose President, M. Grébauval, addressed them in virulent speeches, while the great square in front remained empty. The Irish Banquet which took place this year on the twelfth of July under the Presidency of Mr. Archdeacon, and which had been much talked of in 1899 at the time of the Auteuil manifestation, when President Loubet was hit with a stick by Baron Christiani, passed off amidst complete indifference. Nodisturbance of any kind occurred on the fourteenth of July.

The Congress of the Interparliamentary Union in favour of Peace and Arbitration was to be held on the 31st of July. It was stated that the Boer delegates were going to present a memorial, whilst M. Pauliat intended to raise the Transvaal question. My answer was that I intended to be there too, and considered it of interest to treat that question. Dr. Leyds knew that the majority of the English Members of Parliament who belonged to the Congress had declared themselves against the South African war, and he anticipated that owing to their former declarations they would find it difficult not to side with the pro-Boer sympathisers.

It was rather a clever idea. But on the 30th of July there was a meeting of the executive Committee composed of two members of each of the various nationalities, at which the English members declared that, if contrary to its regulations, the Transvaal question was to be discussed they were resolved to withdraw. The Committee decided to admit Mr. Wessels, formerly Speaker of the Orange Free State Parliament, simply as a member of the Congress; to oppose any discussion of the Transvaal question and to rule that the communication made by the Boer delegates was merely to be circulated among the members as individuals.

My pamphlet,La Politique Boer, and my answer inLe Siècleof the 1st of August, were also distributed. Here are a few extracts:

"The manifesto of Messrs. Fisher, Wessels and Wolmarans, delegates for the South African Republics, has been a disappointment to me. I expected that these gentlemen would produce some arguments; they have contented themselves with giving us a summary of Dr. Reitz's pamphlet—"A Century of Wrongs." It endswith the same incitement to annexation, which was already to be found in the cry for help sent on the 17th of February, 1881, by the Transvaal to the Orange Free State—"Africa for the Afrikander, from the Zambesi to Simon's Bay!" The delegates recognise that the time for claiming new territories has passed; they describe themselves as a nation of mild and peace-loving men, the victims of perpetual English persecution. I do not wish to discuss their way of dealing with historical facts, about which they are not so candid as was Mr. Krüger in his 1881 manifesto, because what we are now interested in, is not that which happened in times long ago, but what has happened since the annexation of the Transvaal by England, on the 12th of April, 1877. They do not say a word of the state of anarchy then prevailing in the Transvaal, nor of its military reserves, nor of the threatening attitude of Sekukuni and Cetewayo. Whereas in the manifesto of 1881, with these facts still fresh in the memory of its author, it is said: "At the outset our military operations were not very successful. In the opinion of our opponents we were too weak to resist successfully an attack from the natives," Sir Theophilus Shepstone, unable to restore order, had finally to annex the Transvaal. This he did at the head of twenty-five policemen only. Had the Transvaal been left to itself Sekukuni's and Cetewayo's impis would have overrun the country and turned out the Boers, who, after they had been delivered from their enemies by the English, proclaimed "a war of independence" in December, 1880. The Majuba disaster, 27th of February, 1881, in which the English had 92 killed, 134 wounded, and 59 prisoners, is of course mentioned by the delegates. An English army twelve thousand strong was advancing;but though the Queen's speech referred to the fact of the annexation, Mr. Gladstone, who in his Midlothian campaign, had protested against it, agreed to the 1881 Convention in which the independence of the Transvaal under England's suzerainty was recognised."The Boer nation," the Boer delegates say in their Memorandum, "could not bring themselves to accept the Convention; from all parts of the country protests arose against the Suzerainty clause." I admit willingly that the Boers did not abide by the Convention. In 1884, speaking in the House of Lords,—Lord Derby said: "The attitude of the Boers might constitute acasus bellibut as the Government were not in the mood for war, and the position of the English resident in Pretoria was anomalous," he assented to the Convention of 27th February, 1884, "by which," say the Boer delegates, "the suzerainty over the Transvaal was abolished, and the South African Republic's complete independence acknowledged." This is their contention, now for the facts."

"The Boer nation," the Boer delegates say in their Memorandum, "could not bring themselves to accept the Convention; from all parts of the country protests arose against the Suzerainty clause." I admit willingly that the Boers did not abide by the Convention. In 1884, speaking in the House of Lords,—Lord Derby said: "The attitude of the Boers might constitute acasus bellibut as the Government were not in the mood for war, and the position of the English resident in Pretoria was anomalous," he assented to the Convention of 27th February, 1884, "by which," say the Boer delegates, "the suzerainty over the Transvaal was abolished, and the South African Republic's complete independence acknowledged." This is their contention, now for the facts."

I then adverted to the events of which the XVth. and XVIth. chapters ofLa Politique Boergive a summary. The Jameson raid is, of course, the mainstay of the delegates' argument. After showing what this is really worth, and also discussing the arbitration question, I concluded as follows:

Back to Index Next