Part 12 (1/2)

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 ”crus.h.i.+ng”

(_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:--