The references made to the history of the Transvaal so far reach up to the
rehabilitation of its independence and the convention of 1881. Some of the
conditions of that treaty, especially the subordinate position imposed by
the suzerainty clause, were found to be repugnant to the burghers. Delegates
were therefore commissioned to proceed to England in order to get the treaty
so altered as to place the State into the status provided by the Sand River
convention, which conceded absolute independence. Mr. Jorrison, a violent
anti-English Hollander, was the chief adviser of the members of that
delegation.
To
that the English Ministry could not assent, but sought to meet the wishes of
the people by agreeing to certain modifications of the convention of 1881.
This was effected with the treaty of 1884. The delegates had specially urged
the renunciation of the suzerainty claim, but that claim appears not to have
been abandoned, to judge from the absence of such mention in the novated
treaty. Had its renunciation been agreed to, as has been since averred, it
is quite certain that the delegates would not have been content without the
mention in most distinct terms of that, to them, so important point. It may
therefore be assumed as a fact that the negotiations did not result in an
active suspension of the relations as set forth in the convention of 1881,
and that the Transvaal continued in a status of subordinacy to England, but
only with a wider range in regard to conditions of autonomy. To most lay
minds it therefore appears perfectly clear that the Transvaal delegates had
well understood and accepted, and so had also their Government, that the
convention of 1884 was de facto a renewal of that of 1881, with the only
difference that it provided an enlarged exercise of autonomy, but without in
the least abrogating the principles of respective relations, which were left
intact, or at least latent.
It
has been averred and a strong point made in the theory of repudiating
suzerainty or over-lordship that Lord Kimberley had given the assurance that
the right of Transvaal autonomy and independence was meant to equal that of
the Orange Free State. This need not be contested, as that Minister
obviously relied upon a similar observance of staunch adhesion towards
England which that State had shown during a period of thirty years previous;
the fact that the Transvaal was quite differently situated as to adjoining
territory imposed the necessity, if only as a matter of form, to preserve
the written conditions of Transvaal vassalage.
Lord Kimberley, in 1889, intimated the readiness of his Government to afford
advisory and other co-operation with the Transvaal Government in order to
cope with the new element of foreign immigration, resulting from the
discovery of the rich gold-fields, and to provide appropriate relations with
a new floating population, without materially altering the status of
Transvaal authority, or the methods of government then in practice.
The Transvaal Government, however, preferred to ignore that loyal offer, and
to be guided by Bond principles instead. That circumstance affords another
proof that England did not then see the necessity, as has subsequently been
the case, of strengthening her position against Bond aggression by imposing
a demand of general franchise for Uitlanders.
One aspect of the prolonged controversy re suzerainty forced upon England
would be to denote a lack of honour, which is not of unfrequent occurrence
when one party to a contract seeks by cavil and legal quibble to evade
compliance with some of its conditions, simply because the written terms
appear to afford scope for doing so. But the principal reason of the
Transvaal contention proceeded from the project of gaining over some strong
foreign ally who would see an obstacle, if not scruples, in joining common
cause whilst England's claim of over-lordship remained unshaken. But for
that consideration the Transvaal Government inwardly viewed the whole of the
treaties as waste paper, since it was not only intended to violate them all,
but also to bring about, at an opportune moment, a hostile severance from
England. In the meantime, the academic squabble was to serve as a decoy to
hide Transvaal identification with any such sinister objects, and to divert
attention and suspicion.
