We cannot attempt to summarise the rest of the corre-
spondence, but we may note the very long argumentative despatches of Mr. Leyds, and the letter of Mr. Reitz, the State Secretary. In effect the Transvaal officials contend that "the now existing right of absolute self-government of this Republic is not derived from either the Convention of 1881 or that of 1884, but simply and solely follows from the inherent right of this Republic as a sovereign international State." That proposition is, of course, utterly untenable, and inconsistent with the past history of the Republic and with the text of the various instruments by which the Transvaal exists. To go back to the suzerainty question, it seems to us that what happened in 1884 between Lord Derby and the Boer delegation was simply this. The Boers asked for the total aboli- tion of the suzerainty. Lord Derby, in effect, replied "we cannot possibly do that, but as you make such a fuss about the name, though you agree to our retaining the thing in the shape of the limitations, we will not obtrude the word on you more than we can possibly help." Thus the word was only implied and inferentially expressed, and not printed in the Convention of 1884. The Boers, however, have always ignored this fact, and have acted as if, by not printing the word, the suzerainty was really abolished.
Previous page
