FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46  
47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   >>   >|  
r has a simple method of solving difficulties. Speaking of Article 4 of the Convention of 1884, which gives England the right of veto on all treaties contemplated between the South African Republic and foreign powers, he says:-- "This is not Mr. Krueger's point of view. He, like us, has always stigmatised the occupation of 1877 as a violation of the Sand River Treaty." Mr. Krueger did not stigmatise it thus when he accepted office from the English Government. But, in any case, he was party to the negotiations which resulted in the Conventions of 1881 and 1884. Dr. Kuyper tells us that neither he nor Mr. Krueger recognise them, considering them to have been vitiated by the Annexation of 1877. Be it so; but in that view discussion is useless. Mr. Krueger held them as null and void. He has chosen his own time to declare war. A government has always the right to tear up a treaty just as a private individual has the right to refuse implement of a contract. In the case of the individual, his refusal exposes him to a claim of damages; in the case of a country, the result is war. It is the simplest thing in the world; but then why go seeking for pretexts and explanations, and worrying oneself about making everybody believe that it was England who brought about the war, when after all she was only claiming the due execution of a convention? [Footnote 7: _Le Siecle_, March 27th, 1900.] 2.--_England's Obligations._ When Mr. Gladstone committed the error of entering into the Convention of 1881, he fully believed that he was guaranteeing the rights of English and foreign residents in the Transvaal, of the Boers who might have compromised themselves with the English, and also of the natives. At a meeting in Birmingham, on March 8th, 1881, on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Lawson, a resolution was passed demanding that "satisfaction should be given to the claims of the Boers, without prejudice always to the rights of the natives and English residents." On July 25th, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach reminded the House of the necessity for exacting the necessary guarantees, and of ensuring the tranquillity and security of the English possessions.[8] He reminded the House of the position of those 3,700 Boer petitioners who had asked for annexation, and of the British residents who had invested capital in the Transvaal, upon the guarantee of the British Government. Mr. William Rathbone proposed a resolution demanding equal
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46  
47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
English
 
Krueger
 

residents

 

England

 

individual

 

demanding

 

reminded

 

resolution

 

British

 
Government

Convention
 

rights

 

natives

 

Transvaal

 

foreign

 
believed
 

entering

 

compromised

 
William
 

Rathbone


guaranteeing

 

claiming

 

execution

 

proposed

 
brought
 

convention

 

Footnote

 

Obligations

 

Gladstone

 

committed


Siecle
 
passed
 
exacting
 

guarantees

 

ensuring

 
necessity
 

Michael

 

tranquillity

 

security

 
petitioners

position

 
annexation
 

possessions

 

Lawson

 

guarantee

 
Wilfrid
 
motion
 
meeting
 

Birmingham

 
satisfaction