Germania. Jaargang 2

[p. 39]

A Jingo's Warning to Belgium.

There isn't a country in the world where Mr. Chamberlain's South-African policy has met with a more emphatic and universal condemnation than in Belgium. Indignation meetings, attended by thousands of al classes, have been, and are still being held in the principal towns and eminent men of all political parties have been loud and energetic in their denunciations of the iniquitous war, which a gang of unprincipled politicians and of more unscrupulous money-grabbers are forcing by hook or by crook upon the British people.

The unanimous verdict of public opinion in this country has of course been fully endorsed by the Belgian Press and it is highly satisfactory to see every newspaper, from the most radical Socialist to the most bigoted Catholic, giving utterance to the same feelings of abhorrence, which are practically those of the whole nation.

I can understand such Englishmen, as are supporters of their Government's action, feeling utterly disgusted with us and showing it. It is all very well cheering vociferously in the ‘Pav.’ or ‘Tiv.’ when Miss Highkicker chirps away Let 'em all come or We don't want to fight, especially as nobody in the audience has the remotest idea of fighting himself: in England that sort of thing is done by proxy and left to paid hirelings. John Bull, Esq., is a cute old gentleman. ‘He's got the men (viz. the scum and refuse of town and village), he's got the ships, and (best of all) he's got the money too.’ Thus, while others do the actual fighting, he quietly stops at home, making more money, going to church twice every sunday, raising no end of children and being henpecked by his wife. In the meantime, although the true Jingo pretends to sneer at foreigners and to treat their opinion with the deepest contempt, it is rather galling to have to put up with the fact of the whole civilised world siding with the Boers and indulging in criticisms, which denote a most scandalous want of belief in Mr. Bull's integrity and moral rectitude.

Under such circumstances, I for one wouldn't object to the Belgian Times (an English paper edited in Brussels), undertaking to demonstrate that our view of the case is not the correct one and to vindicate the British Government's honour by establishing England's good right and Mr. Chamberłain's good faith. But I do object to our contemporary favouring us, instead of arguments, with questionable innuendoes and imbecile threats.

The Belgian Times thinks it would be worth one's while to try and

[p. 40]

discover the peculiar reason why our Press doesn't approve of Messrs. Chamberlain and Cecil Rhodes' little speculations. The reason of course is obvious: we have no sympathy for high-way robbery and stealing your neighbour's country is quite as bad as stopping the coach on Hounslow Heath or picking somebody's pocket in Fleet Street. But the reason hinted at is clearly another one: I dare say the Belgian Times has unearthed a duplicate of the Dreyfus ‘Syndicate’ and will ere long horrify the world and send us all into fits by swearing that every paper in Belgium is in Oom Paul's pay.

And when our confrère of the Belgian Times contends that, in the present case, our Press doesn't reflect the real opinion of this country, he simply shows, if not an utter disregard of truth, at least an almost ludicrous ignorance of our people's ways. Living here, he ought to know by this time that Belgians are not in the habit of concealing their feelings and vent them freely on the smallest provocation. If our newspapers were advocating ideas repellent to the majority or, for that matter, to a minority of their readers, the voice of the dissentients would very soon be heard and a spirited controversy follow. As it is, I am afraid that, should our confrère try his level best to detect in Belgium one intelligent man sharing his views, he would meet with the same result as the late Diogenes in old Greece⁽¹⁾. We, Belgians, don't go in for conventional cant. We have a nasty knack of calling things by their name and judging accordingly. Dr. Jameson, the pet hero of hopelessly shelved British spinsters, we consider a brave, but reckless filibusterer, the latest impersonation of Morgan the Buccaneer and William Walker, who, being caught red-handed, ought to have been shot or strung up without more ado⁽²⁾. Cecil Rhodes, as far as we can see, is

(1) This perhaps is saying too much. There is one man in Belgium, who took up Mr. Chamberlain's defence and tried to exculpate him, viz. M. le Pasteur Hocart, the same who, after founding a mock-religion of his own (l'Eglise protestante libérale) and appointing himself its highpriest, has unceasingly and with indifferent success been pestering the Brussels Municipality for a grant of money. M. Hocart calls himself a disciple of Christ, although he denies his Master's divinity, but while Christ scourged the buyers and sellers, the money-changers and money-lenders out of the Temple. M. le Pasteur, who evidently knows on what side his bread is buttered, kneels devoutly at the Golden Calf's shrine. Besides, M. Hocart, although he wants to be kept at the Belgian taxpayers' expense, is not a Belgian, not even a Swiss, as many imagine: he is a Britisher, a native of Guernsey.

(2) Jameson's Raid bears a striking resemblance to the filibustering expeditions in Central-America during the fifties. The protagonists of Southern ascendency, all but openly supported by the United-States Government, were aiming at territorial expansion in a direction that would strengthen the position of the slave-holding and cotton-growing states and permanently ensure their might and influence. The game that had just been played with such brilliant results in Texas and California - first, rushing the country, getting hold of the local Government and then claiming the intervention of the United-States - might, they thought, be attended with the same luck in Northern-Mexico, in Cuba and elsewhere. Cuba, however, being held by a numerous Spanish force, it was deemed safer to try and get it by purchase, and Mexico, although rent by civil dissensions and internecine strife, was rather a big fish to tackle. But the weaker Central-American Republics seemed an easier prey. The notorious Walker for a short while was indeed master of Nicaragua, but he was soon overthrown and expelled, and when he afterwards tried to seize Honduras, he was defeated, made prisoner and shot at once.

[p. 41]

only a common thief operating on a larger scale than Bill Sykes or Jabez Balfour; in a country where equal justice is meted out to rich and poor alike, he should be ‘doing time’, instead of being hand in glove with the aristocracy, aye with Royalty, and carried triumphantly through Oxford's streets by the English spes patriae, save the mark! And as to Mr. Chamberlain, the renegade of democracy and dabbler in all kinds of suspicious-looking financial matters, what is he after all, if not, to put it plainly, the friend and confederate of notorious swindlers?

Our contemporary ascribes our attitude to what he is pleased to call our anglophobia. This is another instance of his wonderful ignorance. Anglophobia, as prevalent in France or Germany, is unknown in Belgium. On the contrary, Englishmen and Belgians (and especially Flemings) have for centuries been the best and staunchest of friends. From the time of King Edward III, our Artevelde's trusted compère, to the days of Wellington, Palmerston and Gladstone, we have been accustomed to look upon England as upon our shield and protector. Of course it wasn't to please us, and still less out of Quixotic love for abstract principles, that England has upheld our independence, but simply because it would have been more than inconvenient to allow a foreign Power, say France for instance, to take possession of Antwerp and the Scheldt. The fact, however, remains and all Belgians are perfectly conscious of the debt of gratitude they owe to the British Nation. I say the British Nation and not the British Government. There is, I think, some difference between Gladstone's England, magnanimously acknowledging the wrong done to the Boers and giving to the world an unexampled instance of true greatness and generosity, and the same England, led and duped by Mr. Chamberlain, aiding and abetting a piratical raid into a friendly state's territory; when that failed, raising on the Uitlanders' question an undignified squabble, which would disgrace a petty-fogging country attorney, and at last, when every lie has been exposed and every trick exploded, preparing to resort to brutal force to gain the coveted end, the despoiling of one's neighbour. So did King Ahab deprive Naboth of his vineyard.

[p. 42]

It is questionable, to say the least of it, whether the English people at large approve of such a course. But was it even so, blood is thicker than water. The South African Boers are about to shed theirs in the defence of their homes and that blood is the same that flows in our veins. Call it indiscreet if you like: we cannot remain indifferent and passive, while our brothers are being wiped out. We are and wish to remain England's friends, but the Boers are more than our friends, they are part of ourselves, our own flesh and blood.

The Belgian Times, while prudently abstaining from entering into details, suggests that, before venturing to offer an opinion, we had better begin by improving our acquaintance with the facts of the case. Quite right! but that is exactly what we have done. For years the events in South-Africa have been followed by the Belgian, and particularly by the Flemish public with the greatest care and anxiety and I don't think there is a single question of foreign politics that thas been so thoroughly threshed out by our Press as the Transvaal difficulty. There is not the least doubt of our being sufficiently conversant with the facts to enable us to deliver a sound and unbiassed judgment.

Besides, the matter doesn't allow of much argument, it is as clear as clear can be. Are the Boers Englishmen? No; they are Dutchmen. Consequently, they are and in right ought to be independent from England. Do they wish to become British subjects? Not in the least. Why then can't Enggland leave them alone? I am aware that Jingoes will call them extremely silly, the proudest lot on earth being (according to their lights) that of a British subject. But we beg to differ, and we cannot blame the Boers when they wish to continue their own masters and decline to accept the nominal rule of good and worthy Queen Victoria and the real rule of the man who happens to sit in Downing Street and doesn't care a red cent for their welfare.

As to the so-called Uitlanders' grievances, they are an outrage to common sense and to all principles of International Law. No civilised state can be expected to allow foreigners to settle indiscriminately within its borders and in such numbers as to practically bring the very existence of the country into jeopardy. And isn't it preposterous to hear foreign residents, who ought never to forget that they are there on sufferance, claiming electoral rights and intending to use them to get the control of Legislature and Government and oust the natives out of office?

Fancy Englishmen, many thousands of whom live on the continent, demanding such rights in France or in Germany!

Does England grant the franchise to the German and Russian Jews who flock to London's East-End?

[p. 43]

And if I was to go and settle in England and wished to become a British subject, how long should I have to wait before I could enjoy the privilege of voting at an election?⁽¹⁾

Why, thousands and thousands of British born working men have no vote in their own country. And it is their Government, who threateningly claims for them in the Transvaal what is obstinately denied to them at home!

The worst part of the business is that the Uitlanders are not bona fide settlers. Many thousands were ‘imported’ on purpose by financial wire-pullers, who hoped with the help of such ‘faggot-voters’ to rush the polls. Most of the others belong to the undesirable class of the golddiggers et hoc genus omne, people who at their best are an essentially floating element, wandering from place to place, or rather from placer to placer, and from country to country, and who most certainly have no intention whatever of making Transvaal their permanent home. The best proof of it is that they decline throwing off their British allegiance and wish to remain at the same time subjects of Queen Victoria and citizens of the South-African Republic! Now, as a man can't possibly belong to two different countries, this shows conclusively the absolutely flimsy and frivolous character of the Uitlanders' trumped up grievances.

To Mr. Chamberlain I should like to ask whether he holds the Uitlanders for British subjects or not? As long as they remain British subjects, there can be no question of demanding for them electoral rights in another country; and when they once have renounced their British allegiance, the British Government have no call to interfere on their behalf. Each Power is entitled to protect its own subjects, but has no right to take up the cudgels for foreigners. And it seems rather strange to notice Mr. Chamberlain's singular anxiety where men are concerned, who, supposing they are in earnest, want to become foreigners and turn their backs upon their native England.

But what's the use of talking? In the present state of affairs, war seems almost unavoidable and such a war, the only object of which is to fill the

(1) Under the Naturalization Acts (33 & 34 Vict. c.c. 14, 102) any alien desiring to obtain a certificate of naturalization must present to one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state a memorial praying for the grant of such certificate. The memorial, amongst other things, must state that during the period of eight years immediately preceding the application, the applicant has for five years resided within the United Kingdom, or that during the period of eight years immediately preceding the application, the applicant has been in the service of the Crown, and that he intends to reside in the United Kingdom or to serve under the Crown. And notwithstanding such a statement, it is left to the Government's discretion to grant or to refuse the certificate applied for.

[p. 44]

pockets of a few financial bigwigs, will, no matter what happens, leave an everlasting stain on England's good name.

As a sincere friend and admirer of the English People, I can only add I feel heartily sorry for them.

A. Prayon van Zuylen.

September 29th 1899.

P.S. - To show the wretched hollowness of Mr. Chamberlain's case, when tested according to the recognised rules and principles of International Law, I append here the text of an interesting document dealing exhaustively with this aspect of the question. It is an Appeal to the Bristish People drawn up by the Dutch Transvaal Committee, many members of which are men of the highest repute, whose names ‘speak volumes’ and are too well known, in Holland and abroad, to the scientist and lawyer, to need further commendation.

To the People of Great Britain and Ireland.

‘The undersigned feel bound emphatically to protest against the policy that has been pursued of late by your government with regard to the South-African Republic. They solemnly charge that policy with an open defiance of the most elementary principles of the law of nations, according to which every state, whether great or small, is normally entitled, first, as regards its home affairs, to be left free to settle them in its own way, and secondly, as to its international relations, to be dealt with by other powers on a footing of equality. A state that lays claim to a superiority over a neighbouring one, should prove its point conclusively, and what has thus been made out to exist at variance with the general rule ought never to be extended to consequences not expressly stipulated.

‘Now the two contentions on which the whole of your indefinite claims against the said Republic use to be based, fall short altogether of fulfilling this requirement. That Her British Majesty, having a right to veto international agreements contracted by the Republic, may be called the latter's “suzerain” we are as ready to grant, as that the British empire may be styled “the paramount power in South-Africa” on account of the size and the populousness of its domains there. We are not quarrelling about words, provided they be not misused to foster the prejudice as if there existed an entire ascendency of the United Kingdom, an entire inferiority of the Republic, of such a kind as precludes the latter beforehand from being treated by your government on a footing of equality in any respect. Better say you want to have your way and to expand, and be candid!

‘The semblance of a proof by which your Colonial Secretary has tried in this case to justify his intention of setting the common rules of international law at nought, may be summed up as follows. First: when a

[p. 45]

sovereign graciously converts his prerogative into the minor right of suzerainty, the latter implies as a matter of course that, should there arise between the two parties a disagreement as to the extent and the limits of the Suzerain's prerogative, the confliting assertions are not to be placed on a level, so that arbitration for instance can never be claimed on the vassal's part. Secondly: the suzerainty reserved for the British Crown in the preamble of the Pretoria arrangement of 1881 was a case in point, and ought not to be limited to the particulars expressly provided for. Thirdly: the said preamble having been maintained at the London convention of 1884, the suzerainty as above defined subsists unto this day.

‘With a view to make clear the hollowness of this would-be argumentation we go on the premise that the term “paramountcy” conveys no juridical meaning whatever, on which account it has wisely been dropped in the ministerial plea, whereas the concept “suzerainty” does occur in the vocabulary of international law. However, the meaning even of this word is so vague and a suzerain's rights are so variable, that in any given case the import of the term must wholly depend upon the particular provisions made. Having stated thus much beforehand, we proceed to examine the sophistical triad itself.

‘Ad l^m. The theory stated here as implied in the contentions of your colonial secretary, is absolutely void of reasonable meaning. Good faith simply condemns the idea of suffering the left hand to withdraw in silence what was granted by the right hand a moment before. All notions of international law forbid to read into a liberal grant of the kind adduced the illiberal restriction supposed in the minister's theory; in the absence of express provision they place the contentions henceforth to be made by the two parties on a footing of equality.

‘Ad 2^m. We readily subscribe to the assertion that the Pretoria arrangement was by its very nature a one-sided royal grant. But the inference that has been drawn from it must be protested against emphatically. “The term suzerainty”, such are the then colonial secretary's own words, “has been chosen as most conveniently describing superiority over a state possessing independent rights of government, subject to reservation with reference to certain specified matters”.

‘Ad 3^m. The minister's contention as to the preamble of 1881 having been maintained by those who framed the convention of London, is at variance both with the history of the London negotiations and with the text of the latter document itself. It is refuted by the history of the negotiations, in as much as they prove the unanimity of the two parties, first, in the intention that the settlement to come was to be a two-sided contract; secondly, that it was not only to amend the Pretoria agreement, but to

[p. 46]

supersede it altogether; and, lastly, that by the omission of the Pretoria preamble, which had contained the term “suzerainty”, the state of Transvaal was to emerge, from relations of political dependency, to the rank of self-dependent power, subject only to a British right of veto in one particular point. It is refuted by the wording of the document itself, for the assumption that the British Crown, while explaining a change in its conduct, was all the time determined to stand by the reasons for its conduct in the past, is outrageous and unwarrantable in itself, and the most undeniable arguments would be wanted to justify it. Now those arguments, far from being afforded by the document, are even precluded by the same, for it is stated, not that the new articles as such shall take the place of the old, but “that the following articles of a new convention ... shall... be substituted for the articles embodied in the convention of 3^rd August 1881.” That is conclusive for anybody willing to see and understand. A limitation of that renewal to the articles as such forces upon the last words of the passage cited an argument “a contrario” as far fetched as such an argument can be, and among lawyers an interpretation of the kind stands in bad repute of unfairness. Here, where cogent reasons on your side would be required to justify your intervention in the affairs of Transvaal, a contention without any other support but such a sham-argument defeats itself.

‘Summing up, we state that but for the unique restriction imposed upon its freedom by the royal veto-article, the South-African Republic is proclaimed by the law of nations a state as independent as the United Kingdom itself: Your colonial secretary is wrong in denying that. He is twice wrong in building upon the vague pretence of British “Suzerainty” a system of indefinite assumptions wherewith to clothe an intended assault upon a weaker state with the appearance of legitimate intervention. He is thrice wrong in overlooking that by the London convention the empty term of “suzerainty”, that poor foundation of his argument, has consciously been given up on the English side.

‘By suffering him to act in accordance with his threefold contention, you, people of Great Britain would, stand convicted of complicity in a crime against the law of nations. Though indeed we are addressing a nation that calls herself Christian, we for the moment leave all purely ethical considerations out of sight, - what we are pleading for is bare justice, and nothing but that. And we feel convinced that in the above explanation justice has been proved to afford no apology whatever for the proceedings of your present government with regard to our republican brothers in Transvaal.

‘We are not without some hopes, that of those Britons who have till

[p. 47]

now kept silent in this affair, the greater part, upon reading this serious warning of ours, will reflect upon it in the sincerity of their hearts, and assist in refraining the government from bringing a shame upon the nation. May we for our part, prove to have contributed a little in strengthening the undaunted group of British champions for a policy of peace and patience with Transvaal, which your colonial secretary in answer to Sir H. Campbell Bannerman has upbraided beforehand with the guilt of overturning the fabric of his criminal designs!

J.E.N. Baron Schimmelpenninck van der Oye, M.P., President;

Prof. Mr. W. van der Vlugt, University Professor;

Dr. P.J.F. Vermeulen, M.P.;

Jhr. Mr. A.F. de Savornin Lohman, M.P.;

Mr. A.F.K. Hartogh, M.P.;

Prof. Dr. C. Bellaar Spruyt, University Professor;

Paul den Tex, Secretary of the ‘Nederlandsch Zuid-Afrikaansche Vereeniging’;

Prof. Dr. H. Kern, President of the ‘Algemeen Nederlandsch Verbond’;

Jhr. Mr. W.C.A. Alberda van Ekenstein, M.P.;

Prof. Dr. J. Woltjer, University Professor;

Mr. J.C.M. Kolkman, M.P.;

G.P. Ittmann Jr., Merchant, the Hague;

H.J. Meerkamp van Embden, Merchant, Rotterdam;

W.A Genneken } Chairmen of different national Unions of Dutch workmen.

B.H. Heldt } Chairmen of different national Unions of Dutch workmen.

K. Kater } Chairmen of different national Unions of Dutch workmen.

W.C.J. Passtoors } Chairmen of different national Unions of Dutch workmen.

Dr. J. Th. de Visser, M.P., Secretary, Amsterdam.