THE SUZERAINTY OF ENGLAND AND THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.[21]
1.--_Who raised the Question of Suzerainty?_
Nine persons out of ten, when speaking of the Transvaal question, say:
"Why did Chamberlain, at the last moment, raise the question of
suzerainty? When everything had been settled, that question ruined all."
The more thoughtful men base their opinion on an article in _Le Temps_
of September 15th, in which occurs this hypothetical paragraph:--
"Moreover it is possible, that, in the dim recesses of his brain,
the Colonial Minister treasures, as a supreme hope and shadowy
idea, the half-formed design of profiting by the discussion he is
raising in order to excite fresh disputes, such as the complex
question of suzerainty."
This insiduous and disloyal conjecture has been reproduced and utilised;
the absolutely unfounded insinuation of _Le Temps_, has been turned into
an accusation against Mr. Chamberlain.
Some people who fancy they can gauge the motives of statesmen better
than their neighbours, add: "If he raised the question of suzerainty,
it was because he wanted to bring about a war." Facts prove, however,
that the suzerainty question was not raised by England, but by the
Government at Pretoria.
The argument against England's suzerainty over the Transvaal is well
known; the preamble to the 1881 Convention, in which the word occurs was
not reproduced in the Convention of 1884.
But it is also known, that, in the letter to Lord Derby of November
14th, 1883, the delegates from the Pretoria Government demanded
restrictions of "the right of suzerainty reserved to Her Majesty by
Articles 2 and 18 of the Convention of 1881," and claimed, that "the
relation of dependence _publici juris_ in which their country now finds
itself placed with regard to the British Crown shall be replaced by that
of two contracting parties." In his despatch of November 29th, Lord
Derby replied, that their "pretension to enter into treaty as between
two contracting powers was neither in form nor substance acceptable by
Her Majesty's Government."
The Preamble of the Convention of 1884 speaks of the representations of
the delegates of the Pretoria Government, "which Her Majesty has been
pleased to take into consideration."
Not daring to efface with a stroke of his pen the suzerainty question,
Dr. Kuyper attempts a metaphorical distinction:--
"The suzerainty question solves itself. Suzerainty may be an
"organic or mechanical relation"; if mechanical, it is arranged by
contract."
When Dr. Kuyper declares England's suzerainty to be of the mechanical
order, he admits that the Transvaal did not hold towards England the
position of an absolutely independent State.
Having been obliged to recognise the right of _veto_, which Article 4
confers upon England regarding the external relations of the Transvaal,
he contradicts himself when he invokes the principle of the equality "of
States among themselves."
Taking refuge in a kind of prescription, he says: "Never, before 1898,
had England breathed a word regarding suzerainty throughout all her
interminable correspondence."
On March 6th, 1897, however, Mr. Chamberlain addressed a despatch to the
South African Republic, in which he complains of several failures to
observe the Convention of 1884. The following facts are cited by him:
(1) Conclusion of a treaty of extradition with Holland, signed at the
Hague, November 14th, 1895; of an act with Portugal, signed at Lisbon,
November 3rd, 1893; of a convention with Switzerland, signed September
30th, 1896--none of these treaties had been submitted to the English
Government, in violation of Article 4 of the Convention of 1884; (2)
Laws concerning the emigration of foreigners, the expulsion of
foreigners, the Press, all in contravention of Article 14 of the 1884
Convention.
Mr. Van Boeschoten, Secretary of State to the Transvaal at that time,
proposed arbitration, the arbitrator to be chosen by the President of
the Swiss Confederation.
Replying on October 16th, 1897, Mr. Chamberlain said that in making this
proposal the Pretoria Government "appears to have misunderstood the
distinction existing between two independent powers."
There we see a distinct assertion of suzerainty, the question which,
according to Dr. Kuyper, was first raised in 1898.
"By the Pretoria Convention of 1881, Her Majesty, as Sovereign of
the Transvaal, granted to the inhabitants of this territory
complete self-government subject to the suzerainty of Her Majesty;
and according to the London Convention of 1884, Her Majesty, while
maintaining the preamble to the preceding instrument declared that
certain other Articles would be substituted for Articles contained
in the Convention of 1881. The Articles of the Convention of 1881
have been accepted by the Volksraad of the Transvaal State and
those of the Convention of 1884 by the Volksraad of the South
African Republic.
"According to these Conventions Her Majesty's position towards the
South African Republic is that of a suzerain, who has granted to
the people of this Republic self-government under certain
conditions; and it would be incompatible with this situation to
submit to arbitration the meaning of the conditions under which she
has granted self-government to the Republic."
Mr. Chamberlain concluded by saying that he could not admit the
intervention of any Foreign power between the English Government and
that of the South African Republic, and that, therefore, he could not
submit the violations of the Convention of 1884 to the consideration of
such a power.
On April 11th, 1898, the new State Secretary, Mr. Reitz, returned to the
question in a long despatch described by Dr. Kuyper as "crushing"
(_foudroyante_), and which proves, at least, that the Suzerainty
Question had been raised before 1898, since it endeavours to refute Mr.
Chamberlain's despatches of March 6th, and October 16th, 1897.
To this Mr. Chamberlain replies, December 15th, 1898:--
"The preamble to the Convention of 1881 remains the basis of the
relations between Her Majesty and the inhabitants of the South
African Republic. To these inhabitants Her Majesty guarantees
internal independence, to Herself she reserves the Suzerainty. The
concession of internal independence and the reservation of the
Suzerainty have but one common origin--the preamble to the
Convention of 1881."
Dr. Reitz succeeded Dr. Leyds as Secretary of State, and on May 9th,
1899, replied to the despatch of the preceding December 15th. In
forwarding this despatch Sir Alfred Milner observed that it contained a
pretension never before put forward by the Government of Pretoria, the
following words being used: "the inherent right of a Sovereign
International State."
Mr. Chamberlain replied, July 13th, 1899, summarising the Conventions of
1852, 1881, and 1884; he recalled Lord Derby's declaration in the House
of Lords, March 17th, 1884: "Whatever Suzerainty meant in the Convention
of Pretoria, the condition of things which it implies still remains.
Though the word is not actually used, we have kept the substance."
[Footnote 21: _Le Siècle_, April 11th, 1900.]
2.--_The Suzerainty and the Conference of the Hague._
How was it that the theorists, who take up the utterance of Dr. Reitz,
that: "the Transvaal has the inherent rights of a Sovereign
International State," did not ask the Queen of the Netherlands that the
South African Republic might be represented at the Conference of the
Hague? It was a grand opportunity, which they no more dreamt of seizing,
than the thought of asking that the Bey of Tunis should take part in it.
These documents referred to by us prove that the Suzerainty Question was
not raised at the last moment, as the _Temps_ of September 15th, 1899,
is affirmed to have stated; that it was not raised only in 1898, as
stated by Dr. Kuyper; that at least it was raised on March 6th, 1897;
that, since the last mentioned date, it has given rise to an important
correspondence; and, finally, that it was the first subject raised by
President Krüger at the Bloemfontein Conference.