Page:The Annual Register 1899.djvu/186

 178; ENGLISH HISTOEY. [aug.

vaal deputation left London completely satisfied with the result of their mission, except with regard to the new boundary

line -"

In support of this view, Mr. Faure gave his recollection of

what had been said to him in conversation by the late Lord Eosmead (then Sir Hercules Eobinson) as to the practical unimportance of the suzerainty question, and his personal readiness to "humour Transvaal sentiment" on that point. He also remembered "Lord Derby saying at one of the con- ferences that as regarded the question of suzerainty, the deputation was making a mountain of a molehill, but he objected to an article being embodied in the new convention specifically revoking her Majesty's suzerain rights, because he did not care to provide the then Parliamentary Opposition with weapons for attacking the Ministry — an argument the weight of which was realised by the deputation."

Happily Sir Eobert Herbert, who formerly held with much distinction and benefit to the public service the post of Permanent Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office, was still living, and to him Mr. Chamberlain referred Mr. Faure's letter. The effect of Sir Eobert Herbert's reply appeared from the con- cluding passage of his letter, and was unquestionably important. " 1 feel compelled," he wrote, " to differ from Mr. Faure's view, as given in paragraph four of his letter, that 'it was clearly understood and agreed by both parties that her Majesty's suzerainty should be abolished except to the extent defined in Article IV. of the Convention of London/ Her Majesty's Government expressly declined to substitute a treaty for the Convention in which the Queen as suzerain had granted certain powers of self-government to the Transvaal State, and accord- ingly the Convention of Pretoria was not repealed, in order to preserve that part of it which declared the suzerainty ; but fresh articles were framed, in order to give the South African Eepublic larger powers of internal administration, and in order to comply with the request of the republic for greater facilities in initiating negotiations and agreements with foreign nations." There followed in the blue book a long despatch from Dr. Leyds, then Transvaal State Secretary, dated April 16, 1898; the despatch from Mr. Chamberlain (Dec. 15, 1898) ; and the reply thereto (May 9, 1899) from Mr. Eeitz (who had succeeded Dr. Leyds), which have been already referred to. They all dealt with the suzerainty question, and sustained the views respectively corollary to the positions taken by the two Governments on that subject, as to the possibility of foreign arbitration between them on matters connected with the interpretation of the 1884 Con- vention. The most striking feature of this correspondence, both in form and substance, was the claim put forward by Mr. Eeitz that " the now existing right of absolute self-government of this (the South African) republic is not derived from either the Convention of 1881 or that of 1884, but simply and solely