1899.] Transvaal Affairs. [149
whole of their case upon the suzerainty question. In their official green book was published a despatch from Mr. Cham- berlain, dated December 15, 1898, in which the Secretary for the Colonies stated that his Government could not admit the contention of the Transvaal Government, put forward in a note dated April 17, 1898, (1) that the suzerainty of Great Britain did not exist ; and (2) that the preamble to the convention of 1881, embodying that principle, had been repealed by the con- vention of 1884. The latter convention substituted a fresh definition for the previous one, of which the basis remained unaltered. If the preamble had actually been waived, it would follow that not only the suzerainty but also the internal independence guaranteed by it to the Transvaal Eepublic would be revoked. Dr. Leyds had asserted that the latter right did not originate in the convention of 1881. This, however, was an error, since, like the reservation of the suzerainty, it had its sole constitutional origin in the preamble to that agree- ment. . . . Mr. Chamberlain went on to say that the British Government would not consent to refer matters in dispute to the arbitration of foreigners. Failing an agreement direct, it would withhold its sanction from any treaty or engagement sought to be entered into by the Transvaal, and not submitted before its conclusion. In conclusion the Colonial Secretary declined to admit the validity of a comparison between the Jameson raid and the breaches of the convention committed by the Bechuanaland freebooters.
It would seem that four months were allowed to elapse before any reply was given to this despatch, when, on May 9, the Secretary to the Transvaal, Mr. Eeitz, adhered to his con- tention " that the suzerainty had ceased to exist in 1884. The argument that the right of the Transvaal to self-government would, in that case, also be repealed, was incorrect, seeing that the convention of 1884 wholly cancelled that of 1881, and granted only limited and specified rights to Great Britain. Self- government was not mentioned in it, being an inherent right of the South African Eepublic as a Sovereign State."
Obviously at this moment at least the question of suzerainty was uppermost in the thoughts of the Transvaal Government, and in order to obtain freedom from a restraint which they felt existed — but would not admit — they were prepared to make apparent or possibly real concessions on other points, especially on the franchise law. In fact they went so far as to say that, while the debate on this question was still going on in the Volksraad, any suggestion made in a friendly spirit would be received by the Transvaal. Not much time, however, was given for this invited action, as the Volksraad hastened to pass its measure of shadowy reform. The proposals were explained to the House of Commons by Mr. Chamberlain (July 11) in reply to Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman. He said that at the conference at Bloemfontein proposals were made by Sir A.
