For instance the words:  an outrage or a reprehensible attempt against the right of nations should be substituted for a crime against civilisation.  The former version was adopted and submitted to the Congress by the Commission, whilst soliciting its opinion on the text of the proposition and of its bearings.  After the English delegates had exposed their views, M. Yves Guyot rose and said that he considered it his duty, as a member of the Congress Committee of Patronage, not only to find fault with the proposals of the Commission in their details, but to object also to the spirit as well as to the letter of the resolution.

“Looking at actual facts”, said Mr. Yves Guyot, “it was not true that arbitration had been accepted by the Governments of the South African Republics.  The acceptance, if any, had been hedged in by all sorts of restrictions, for instance, in making it conditional that England should drop the suzerainty, a condition which Her British Majesty’s Government could not accept.  True, arbitration was mentioned.  But arbitration of what kind? about what?  Could England recognise the right which the Boers had given themselves, to violate over and over again the Conventions of 1881 and 1884?

“Really it was astounding to see such an amount of sympathy wasted on people who had constantly set at naught Art. 14 of the 1884 Convention with respect to the Uitlanders, who had come and brought them civilisation, energy and wealth.

“A retrospect history of the Boers would quickly show that their hatred of the English was in the first place due to the protection which the latter had given to the natives.  It is clearly apparent from documents dealing with the Bloemfontein Conference, that when Mr. Krueger brought forward the arbitration question he merely meant to throw dust into the public’s eyes.  Now he (M.  Yves Guyot) considered it to the interest of the Congress to point out that its members, generous-minded as they were, were irresponsible people.  What authority did they attribute to resolutions, blame and reproach, addressed to governments who are themselves responsible for the destinies of their countries?

“Their resolution might be couched in words as strong as they liked, but what effective sanction could they give it?  Was it not to be feared rather that by its very violence their language might fan the flames, or rake the embers of new conflicts instead of making its peaceful influence felt?”

M. Guyot’s speech was listened to with silent and earnest attention, though now and then objections were heard.

Then after Dr. Clark, Mr. Frederic Passy, Mr. Moscheles and Mr. Arnaud had made their observations the final decision was put off till the next day.

On the 2nd of October the Russian delegate, Mr. Nevicow, read the text of the resolution as it had been amended by the commission: