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.

[Footnote 22: _Le Siecle_, April 26th, 1900.]

2.--_Mr. Chamberlain's Conditions._

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 he acknowledged 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 subst.i.tuted in the Convention of 1884." And then Mr. Chamberlain invited Sir Alfred Milner to enquire of Mr. Kruger whether he would accept the exclusion of the Foreign element in the settlement of disputes, arising from the interpretation of the Convention of 1884:

"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 const.i.tution 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. Kruger. 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 att.i.tude and the arrogant tone generally ascribed to Mr. Chamberlain. It is always advisable to refer to the doc.u.ments on a question before discussing it.

CHAPTER XVII.

THE BOER ULTIMATUM.[23]

1.--_Dr. Kuyper's Logic._

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 surpa.s.sed 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 pa.s.sage by the admirable logic of Dr. Kuyper. It is Kruger who "prolongs the negotiations," and Chamberlain who "seeks to gain time." To heighten the prestige of Mr. Kruger, Dr. Kuyper invokes the testimony of Bismarck. I certainly think that it was Kruger'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.

[Footnote 23: _Le Siecle_, April 13th, 1900.]

2.--_Despatches of the 8th and 22nd September._

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 inst.i.tuted 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 ent.i.tled 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 situation _de 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 att.i.tude of the British Government. It has no desire to interfere in any way with the independence of the South African Republic. It has not a.s.serted 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 African Republic, who have in their Note of May 9th, a.s.serted 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. .h.i.therto 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.

3.--_The Ultimatum._

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 pet.i.tion 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 pa.s.sed a resolution approving the policy of the 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 Kruger, in adjourning the Volksraad _sine 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.

CHAPTER XVIII.

DR. KUYPER'S FINAL METAPHOR.[24]

1.--_Where are the Peace Lovers?_

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.