1899.] The Suzerainty Dispute. [177
connected with ritual. Opportunity was naturally taken, notably by Canon Gore, to press upon assembled churchmen the need for legislative and administrative reform within the Church, with a view to that increased autonomy, in favour of which Mr. Balfour had expressed himself, and on representative lines, which would allow very considerable power to the laity. This propaganda awakened a good deal of sympathy.
At any ordinary time such a condition of ecclesiastical affairs would have been likely to engage a very large share of the attention of the nation. But the intense personal interest of the Rennes drama had not passed away before the gathering gloom of the South African situation had begun to engross the public mind. There were conflicting rumours in August as to the probable tenor of the Boer reply to Mr. Chamberlain's pro- posal of a joint commission to inquire into the effect of the so-called seven-year franchise law, passed by the Transvaal Volks- raad in July. For a few days about the middle of the month there was a disposition abroad to hope that the worst of the crisis was over. This was in view of somewhat positive reports that while objecting to the joint inquiry the Transvaal authorities had decided to concede Sir A. Milner's Bloemfontein minimum — a five years' retrospective franchise — and liberal redistribution proposals. But, very speedily, disquieting intimations appeared that, in return for these concessions, stipulations were made seriously affecting the permanent relations between England and the Transvaal. Public anxiety was not allayed by the publication in the last week of August of further correspon- dence between the British and Boer Governments with regard to the status of the Transvaal. Several of the most important points by this correspondence had already been revealed by the publication of a Transvaal green book early in July (see p. 149). The British blue book, however, not only placed offici- ally on record the repudiation already known to have been given by her Majesty's Government of the Boer contention as to the disappearance of British suzerainty on the signature of the Convention of London in 1884, but supplied material for the historical justification of the imperial attitude, showed how the Boer claim had become much more positive and pronounced, and conveyed Sir A. Milner's grave and emphatic judgment upon its practical significance in its later development. In March, 1898, Sir A. Milner forwarded to Mr. Chamberlain a letter from the Bev. D. P. Faure, who had acted as interpreter to the delegates from the Transvaal during the negotiations in London which resulted in the 1884 Convention, and who believed himself to be the only disinterested surviving witness of those negotiations. His testimony bore on a vital point, being that "it was clearly understood and agreed by both contracting parties that her Majesty's suzerainty should be abolished, except to the extent defined in Article IV. of the Convention of London, subsequently signed. And the Trans-
M
