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 the prime 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 Pet.i.tion 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 follows the 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 pet.i.tion 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 Kruger 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 pet.i.tions, since 1894, to the Pretoria Government which pet.i.tions were received with contempt, President Kruger replying: "Protest! protest as much as you like! I have arms, and you have none!"
[Footnote 24: _Le Siecle_, April 14th, 1900.]
2.--_The Moral Worth of the Boers._
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 the Volksraad in general, and Mr. Kruger 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.
3.--_A Lioness out of Place._
Dr. Kuyper delivers a lengthy dissertation upon "the inadequacy of the Christian movement"; and shows himself worthy to be a collaborator of M. Brunetiere 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 G.o.d of Justice"; he places before them the G.o.d 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 Transvaal lioness is to take her stand, in order to carry out Kruger"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.
4.--_Moral Unity by Means of Unity of Method._
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 comminatory _a priori_, the antiquated methods which consist of taking words for things, _nomina_ for _numina_, 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]
[Footnote 25: Yves Guyot. _Les Principes de 1789 et le Socialisme_.]
APPENDIX A.
I cannot do better than reproduce at the end of this pamphlet the a.n.a.lysis made by me in _Le Siecle_, March 14th, of a remarkable article written by M. Tallichet, Editor of the _Bibliotheque Universelle de Lausanne_.
ENGLAND, HOLLAND AND GERMANY.[26]
I have good reason for believing that President Kruger 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 by _La Bibliotheque Universelle de Lausanne_.
"President MacKinley, as was asked of him in a pet.i.tion 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, continuing to 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. Delca.s.se may be credited with too much good sense and good feeling to resort to the foolish, pin-p.r.i.c.king 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 the West, and he counted on the Transvaal to a.s.sist him. Mr. Stead"s opinion on this subject, at the time of the Jameson Raid, has already been quoted by us (_Le Siecle_, 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-cla.s.s fleet. In a recent number of the semi-official _Norddeutsche Zeitung_, an article was published by Dr. Ed. von Hartmann, suggesting that Holland should be persuaded, or if necessary forced by commercial compet.i.tion 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? a.s.suredly 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"."
I earnestly recommend this pa.s.sage in M. Ed. Tallichet"s article to the attention of my fellow-countrymen; the folly which dominates our foreign policy, alarms me as much as that which caused the innocence of Dreyfus to be denied for years, by Ministers, _the etat-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.
[Footnote 26: _Le Siecle_, March 14th, 1900.]
APPENDIX B.
DR. KUYPER"S ADMISSION.
I. Offer to Dr. Kuyper to reproduce his article.--II. Dilatory reply of Dr. Kuyper.--III. Withdrawal of Dr. Kuyper.--IV. M. Brunetiere"s refusal.--V. The Queen of Holland and Dr. Kuyper"s article.