ENGLAND AND THE TRANSVAAL.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
Srn,—I observe that in a footnote to my letter which you published in the Spectator of June 4th you lay down the maxim that, as Great Britain has the sole right of interpreting the London Convention, the wording of the Convention is of but little consequence. Does it not occur to you that this maxim is the most immoral and oppressive imaginable ? Why enter into a Convention at all, why assert (as Mr. Chamberlain has done more than once) the firm intention of Great Britain to observe the conditions of the Conven- tion, if, by the exercise of the alleged sole right of inter- pretation, the Convention can be made to mean anything that Mr. Chamberlain pleases ? If it is expected, as your footnote seems to hint, that by this means concessions may be squeezed out of the Pretoria Volksraad, such an expecta- tion is an entire delusion. You may do a great deal with the South African burgher by fair words and just treatment. Any attempt at coercion, however, will only consolidate resistance. And if matters should come to extremes, it is the British colonist who will suffer most, and not the Transvaal burgher.—I am, Sir, &c., [Because the Government has an absolute right of veto it does not of course follow that it will be wise or just to exercise that veto harshly or arbitrarily. Still, the legal right remains, and may be used if the other side acts in a way which is dis- loyal to the spirit of the Convention. If the Transvaal stands on its extreme rights, so may the British Government. —ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
