“The tenth Conference of the Interparliamentary Union for International Arbitration now meeting in Paris being cognisant of acknowledging the resolutions of the Conference at the Hague, and being desirous to express its gratitude to all who have contributed towards its results; trusts, that in future the Powers will avail themselves of the means put at their disposal for the amicable settlement of international disputes and regret that “they have not done so” in the actual conflict between England and the South African Republics.”

Upon this, M. Beernaert, with all authority conferred upon him by his position as the delegate of the Belgian Government at the Hague Conference, observed that the Transvaal was not in a position to avail itself of the resolution arrived at by the Conference—­because that Conference was no longer in existence, and because the Boers had not been a party to it.  On his motion the words “could not do so” were inserted instead of the words “had not done so.”

Now why were the Boers not represented at the Hague Conference?

The Queen of Holland, in whose name the invitations were issued, had undoubtedly been appealed to by them, to admit the Transvaal to the Congress in conformity with Dr. Reitz’s contention that “the Transvaal had inherent rights to be an international state,”—­but their request had been refused, as would have been a similar demand coming from Finland or the Bey of Tunis.

The case was on all fours with that of the Vatican.  When the Italian Government declared that they would not sit in the Conference if an invitation were sent to the Holy See, the Vatican was omitted.

Such is the simple fact; and it is just this fact which M. Lorand and M. Beernaert brought into relief by the resolution of 2nd August.  I am quite sure that that was not their intention; the fact remains, notwithstanding.

APPENDIX D.

SOUTH AFRICAN CRITICS.

The letters written by Messrs. Labouchere, Ellis and Clark, Members of Parliament, found in Pretoria, are not of much importance to my mind.  The authors were not branded as traitors by Mr. Chamberlain, he only wanted to place the letters before the public and their electors, who most likely will find these three gentlemen guilty of another offence than that of supporting Mr. Chamberlain’s policy with President Krueger while they made him believe that, as they were fighting against that policy in England, there was no necessity for him to heed their advice.  Their attitude in Europe was bound to nullify the effect of the warnings they were sending to Africa.  It is astounding to see sedate men contradict themselves in that way.  I cannot help wondering at Dr. Clark boasting on the 27th of September that owing to his endeavours Mr. Stead’s pamphlet was widely circulated, though, according to his words, “Mr. Stead had to the last moment been our enemy.”  The