WHAT ARE WE GOING TO FIGHT ABOUT ?
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR.") SIR,—If every thinking man in Great Britain would put that question of yours to himself, and try to find an answer, alike satisfactory to his reason and to his conscience, I think that there would be no war. Neither in your own articles, nor in those of other journalists, do I find any sufficient argument for bringing such a calamity upon South Africa. My incapacity in this respect represents, I believe, the general mental condition of my countrymen. Otherwise I would not ask you to waste your space upon this letter. I know the remarkable influence exercised by your journal in forming the opinions of those who wield influence in English society; and I am, therefore, dismayed by the advice which you give at this critical moment of our history. Before I refer to your article of the 23rd ult., in which you give an answer to the question at the head of this letter, let me submit the following considerations as forming an essential part of the case upon which our country has now to pronounce judgment. I venture to affirm (1) that the Trans- vaal Republic has already given votes to the Outlanders on a seven years' residence, which proposal Mr. Chamberlain declared afforded a basis for negotiation ; (2) that it has con- ceded the demand for an inquiry into the effects of that law; (3) that it has offered a five years' suffrage, provided that this intervention in its internal affairs be not made a prece- dent, and that all pending questions be settled by arbitration ; and (4) that it fully recognises such suzerainty as is provided for in the only existing Convention between Great Britain and the Republic: Observe, however, that our Government has refused arbitration, and that this refusal more than anything else has brought negotiations to as tandstill. That is curious in a Government whose delegate at the Hague so
distinguished himself for his advocacy of international arbi- tration, that he has been raised to the Peerage..
Under the above circumstances, then, where can plain men find any adequate grounds for war ? Yet the primary and sacred duty of every Government is to give overwhelming justification for going to war. In the case before us there is no refusal to admit the claims we have made, while the Boers have made one concession after another. It seems to them that as fast as they grant one thing, something else is demanded. The points at issue are now so small and obscure that they ought to be submitted to a few competent men coming with open minds for their consideration. It cannot be doubted that they would soon arrive at a settlement satis- factory to both parties. If such is the case, a resort to force would be a national crime. It is very necessary to observe that the difficulty of coming to an understanding has not so much been caused by the nature of the differences, as by pro- found distrust of our bona:/ides. And that distrust is surely not unnatural. It is pardonable because the history of our relations with the Boers have, from their point of view at least, been those of continued persecution and injustice. These Pilgrim Fathers of French and Dutch descent, who fled into the wilds of Africa to avoid religious persecution, have again and again encountered British hostility. Our hands are not clean ; the names of Shepstone and Jameson are justly remembered against us. Moreover, during all these months of negotiation, our Press has never ceased to threaten war, and there are many other facts to justify the Boers in supposing that a desire for their gold-producing territory was the real motive at work. For these reasons, it was essential to exhibit the greatest tact and consideration in dealing with these people; I think that both have been wholly wanting.
I would now refer to your own statement of the grounds for resorting to armed force. They are based on a claim for the right of intervention "in the legislation and administra- tion" of the Republic. I would, however, submit that no such claim can be made except on a basis of international law, or of a specific agreement, and where can this be found ? So far as "the protection of British subjects" is concerned, the Transvaal Government has declared that it has not asked us to abandon any right, based either on the Convention of 1884 or on international law. As to the grievances of the Outlanders, referred to in your article of last Saturday— many of which have been strongly denied—I submit that we need not now consider them. The enlarged suffrage offered to the foreign immigrants will fully enable them to protect themselves in both Chambers; and it must be remembered that the terms offered are infinitely more favourable than those which obtain in England, and exceed those asked for by us at Bloemfontein. The Outlanders have long had votes for the Second Chamber after two years' residence ; and the present question relates wholly to votes for the First Chamber. If the advocates for war were to have their way, the grievances would, indeed, disappear, because the Out- landers themselves would disappear. May we not say, in the presence of such a proposed remedy for the wrongs of the Outlanders, that it is a thousand times worse than the alleged disease? Lord Dufferin once said that when diplomatists failed to avert war they should be hung. Surely the same penalty should be inflicted on those who appoint such agents.
—I am, Sir, &c., HODGSON PRATT. National Liberal Club, October 2nd.
Previous page
