TOPICS OF THE DAY.
OUR SUZERAINTY OVER THE TRANSVAAL.
AS we write there is no definite news as to the answer of the Transvaal Government to Mr. Chamberlain's proposals for a joint inquiry, but it seems probable that President Kruger has refused the joint inquiry but has, at the same time, made new proposals for meeting the claim of the Outlanders to share in the government of the Republic. According to Renter's Agency the Boers offer : —(1) A five years' franchise. (2) A share in the election of the President. (3) Increased representation for the Goldfields, to the extent, probably, of eight new seats. (4) Other questions to be submitted to arbitra- tion, but not to that of a foreign Power. (5) Great Britain to agree not to use her present interference as a precedent. (6) 'Great Britain to agree to relinquish her suzerainty rights. If this is really the offer of the Boer Government•, what ought to be the reply of the Colonial Secretary ? Let us take the items one by one. It is evident that the term of five years will be acceptable, granted, of course, that there are no impossibly intricate conditions as to registration, the giving of notices, and the approval by a long chain of executive officers. The next item also is probably satisfactory,—provided, of course, that there is absolute equality of status between the new and the old voters, and that the words "a share " do not mean any inferior political status. The fourth item as to arbitration seems also satisfactory, or capable of being made satisfactory. We could not posiibly admit arbitration by a foreign Power, nor. would a Court exclusively formed of foreign jurists be likely to be acceptable ; but we do not see why, if the Boers are reasonable, a Court which could be regarded as impartial by both parties should not be constituted. The Privy Council, either through the Judicial Committee or by a committee formed ad hoc, has often to decide points of the kind in question ; and if an element repre- senting the Transvaal view were added to such a Tribunal, it should be able to adjudicate impartially on the matters in dispute. The fifth proposition, that Great Britain is not to use her present interference as a precedent, is not one of great practical importance or value. It could not be agreed to in its present vague terms, and if it were cast in a more reasonable shape, it would' not help the Boers if another quarrel were to arise. It would merely prevent us basing any new interference on our present action. We could, if we wanted to do so, interfere just as much as now. The only real result would be to restrict our use of words. It is the sixth item of the new proposals which 'constitutes the real point of dispute. We are asked to agree to relinquish our suzerain rights. This, of course, we cannot possibly do. We are the suzerain or paramount or superior Power, and that we must remain, and any alteration of the description would merely raise false hopes at Pretoria. We might, of course, in order to save the face of the Boers, make a new Convention expressly saying that we are not the suzerain Power, and then proceed to declare ourselves the paramount Power and to define our position strictly ; but that would be a verbal quibble which it would be neither wise nor dignified for us to have recourse to. While the very substantial limitations on the independence of the Boers imposed by the Conven- t ion of London remain, and remain they must, we cannot, if we are to act in good faith, pretend that the South African Republic is an independent State.
The fact that the Government of the Transvaal have insisted upon the insertion of the clause as to the suzerainty in their otherwise not unreasonable set of pro- posals—proposals which are, in truth, Sir Alfred Milner's minimum—is, we fear, of no very good omen. It looks as if they were determined to choose the suzerainty as the field of battle. If they are determined on war the temptation to do this would no doubt be great. In the first place, the question of the suzerainty is the one which divides them least. The Boers are practically unanimous in their detestation of the notion of suzerainty, for they think that it derogates from their freedom of domestic action and independence, and gives the Imperial Government the right of interference. It is useless to tell them that even if the word suzerain, could be blotted out of the dictionary they would not really be freer, because their geographical position, the presence of the Outlanders, and the history of the State all make it necessary for the Imperial Govern. meat to claim, and act upoit their claim, to an over-lord- ship. Perhaps some people will say that this being the case we might fairly indulge them by a verbal concession. We cannot think so. That was exactly what Lord Derby thought and did, and with the worst possible results. He argued : " As we have got the thing what does it matter about the word. Let us, instead of thrusting it down the Boers' throats, allow it to be kept out of sight." The result was that the Transvaal delegation which nego- tiated the Convention went home and told their people that the suzerainty was abolished, and the Boers have ever since regarded us as faithless tyrants because we have stuck to the provisions of the London Convention which gives us suzerainty without naming it specifically,—except in a preamble which is, as it were, only visible to a lawyer's eye. There must be no more such timidity. If we find that certain words mean to the Boers certain things which we think essential, we must not clothe our intentions in other and obscurer words, but must use the disagree- able expressions frankly and candidly. As the Boers want to get rid of the word " suzerainty " because they claim complete independence, and as we cannot admit that claim, we must not indulge their objec- tion as if it were a mere verbal .prejudice. It may seem a matter of form, but it is really a matter of sub- stance. That we are legally, morally, and historically entitled to use the word "suzerainty " seems to us to be placed beyond all possible doubt by the Blue- book on the subject published last Wednesday. The question is there fought out at length. We hold, have always 'held, and have frequently pointed out in these columns, that the two Conventions—i.e., that of 1881 and that of 1884—on the face of them show that the suzerainty was retained. The Convention of 1881 states in so many words that a grant of complete self-government is made " to the inhabitants of the Transvaal territory," subject to " the suzerainty of her Majesty," upon certain terms which are embodied in " articles." Then comes the Convention of 1884, which, after reciting that the Convention of 1881 "contains certain provisions which are inconvenient," proceeds to declare that her Majesty has been pleased to direct " that the following articles of a new Convention be substituted for the articles embodied in the Convention of August 3rd, 1881." Surely, if words mean anything, this means not that the former Convention is altogether torn up, but that for the articles embodied in it are substituted the new articles. This, of course, leaves the preamble, which is not an article, though an essential part of the Convention, entire and untouched. If there had been any other intention the Convention itself would have been said to have been cancelled, and not merely fresh articles substituted. You cannot substitute a new sole in a boot if the boot itself has been thrown away. But it may be • argued that there is something mean in taking this strict and technical view of the point. We shall be told, perhaps, that what the Boers wanted in the new Convention was the abolition of the suzerainty, that they honestly thought the suzerainty was being abolished, and that we allowed them to think so. That being so, we cannot now urge that they were deceived, and that while appearing to abolish the suzerainty we really retain it. That, if based on fact, is a very poignant argument, land we should most certainly hold that if the Boers were really tricked in this way, and if they were allowed to think that we were giving up the suzerainty when we were not, we could not honourably now insist that the suzerainty was specifically retained. But it is clear from the papers in the new Blue- book that the Boers were not tricked, and that they were made clearly to understand from the beginning that we were not going to give up the suzerainty, and that the most we would do was not to obtrude it unduly,—not to flaunt it before them, in fact. The proof of this is to be found in the following statement made by Sir Robert Herbert, who was cognizant of all the negotiations at first hand:--" It is beyond question that when the Transvaal Government in 1883 requested a reconsideration of the Convention of Pretoria, it did not venture to propose the abolition of the Queen's suzerainty, nor would her Majesty's Govern- ment have been prepared. to receive a deputation for the discussion of that matter. What the Transvaal Govern- ment represented was that 'the revision of the Conven- tion was urgent, specially with regard to Western Frontier affairs.' When, however, they had arrived in London in November, 1883, the Transvaal delegates, in their letter to Lord Derby of November 14th, 1883, after suggesting that there were objections to the extent of the suzerain rights reserved to her Majesty by Articles 2 and 18 ' of the Convention of Pretoria, for the first time requested that the relation of a dependency, publici juris, in which our country now stands to the British Crown, may be replaced by that of two contracting Powers.' " Sir Robert Herbert goes on to show that Lord Derby entirely objected to this view. "Lord Derby was aware that the formal withdrawal of the Queen's suzerainty would be liable to be interpreted as the surrender of the claim of this country to control the foreign relations of the Transvaal ; and accordingly, in his letter to the delegates, dated November 29th, 1883, he informed. them that a draft treaty, which they had submitted for adoption as between two equal contracting Powers, was " neither in form nor in substance such as her Majesty's Government could adopt." From this it is clear that the Boer delegates knew, as Lord Derby knew, that here was the essential point. If we had meant to give up the suzerainty, or had meant the Boers to think that we did so, we should have 'assented to the 'Convention of 1884 being in the form of a bilateral contract. The fact that we insisted so absolutely on the Convention being in the form of a grant is positive proof that we retained the suzerainty and that we did not conceal the fact. We have, then, a moral as well as a legal right to avail ourselves of the fact that, though the word suzerainty was not forced down the throats of the Boers, it was retained, and retained because the pre- amble of the Convention of 1881 was never annulled, but was kept alive by the London Convention merely sub- stituting a new set of articles for those embodied in the previous Convention.
We can, then, insist upon the continuance of suzerainty with a perfectly clear conscience, for, though the Boers greatly desired to abolish it, and asked to be allowed to do so, their request was refused: All that the second Con- vention did was not to obtrude the suzerainty,—a weak, foolish policy, no doubt, but not one which can be called dishonest, or which can in any way hamper us now in our claim to exercise the legitimate rights of a suzerain.
Previous page
