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 a.s.sertion 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 subst.i.tuted 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."

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."

[Footnote 21: _Le Siecle_, April 11th, 1900.]

2.--_The Suzerainty and the Conference of the Hague._

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 doc.u.ments referred to by us prove that the Suzerainty Question was not raised at the last moment, as the _Temps_ of 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 Kruger at the Bloemfontein Conference.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE ARBITRATION QUESTION.[22]

1.--_How the Transvaal interprets Arbitration._

According to the idea prevailing throughout Europe, President Kruger 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 a.s.sertions.

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 the _mot d'ordre_ of modern civilisation."

and he adds:--

"As if arbitration were not the rule between _masters_ and _workmen_."

I have often demonstrated the "illusion of such arbitration" (among others see _Le Siecle_, 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 pa.s.sed 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.

Kruger. 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 Kruger 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 Kruger 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. Kruger'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 a tribunal 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."

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?