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 attitude and the arrogant tone
generally ascribed to Mr. Chamberlain. It is always advisable to refer
to the documents 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 surpassed 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 passage by the admirable logic of Dr. Kuyper. It
is Krueger who "prolongs the negotiations," and Chamberlain who "seeks to
gain time." To heighten the prestige of Mr. Krueger, Dr. Kuyper invokes
the testimony of Bismarck. I certainly think that it was Krueger'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 S