106 



CAPE COLONY AND SOUTH AFRICA. 



ernment to give 100 to any needy burgher having 

 twelve sons living. A bill was passed establishing 

 a school of mines at Pretoria; another provides for 

 technical schools in all districts, open only to 

 burghers' sons. Another bill extends the munici- 

 pal franchise to non-resident owners of property 

 \\.>rth 100, and at the same time disqualifies Uit- 

 landers for the office of municipal councilor, un- 

 ,i separate law allows them the privilege, as in 

 Johannesburg. The discovery of a diamond mine 

 near Pretoria of similar formation to the Kimber- 

 ley deposits led to the adoption of a bill limiting 

 ownership to 40 claims 80 feet square and prohibit- 

 ing the leasing and amalgamation of claims. Sub- 

 sidies to Uitlander schools were continued for three 

 years more, the condition of receiving a subsidy 

 being that South African history is taught, and 

 Dutch up to a certain standard. 



Dr. Leyds resigned in May the State Secretary- 

 ship and went to Europe as diplomatic representa- 

 tive of the South African Republic to Berlin, the 

 Hague, Paris, Lisbon, Rome, and St. Petersburg. 

 Judge Reitz, formerly President of the Orange 

 Free State, was chosen to succeed him as State 

 Secretary. 



Controversy regarding Suzerainty. When 

 the British withdrew from the Transvaal after 

 their defeat at Majuba Hill they restored complete 

 self-government to the inhabitants subject to the 

 suzerainty of the Queen, as was set forth in the pre- 

 amble of the convention of Pretoria of 1881. The 

 term suzerainty was chosen to describe superiority 

 of a state possessing independent rights of govern- 

 ment subject to reservations with reference to cer- 

 tain specified matters. The most material of the 

 reserved rights of England in the Transvaal was 

 the control of the external relations of the reconsti- 

 tuted Transvaal state, including the conclusion of 

 treaties and the conduct of diplomatic intercourse 

 with foreign powers. In 1883 a deputation was 

 sent to London to secure the abolition of British 

 suzerainty and the stipulations in regard thereto. 

 This deputation negotiated a new convention in 

 1884, from which the word suzerainty was removed 

 and the reserved rights of England were foregone, 

 save that all treaties concluded with foreign powers, 

 except the Orange Free State, or with native tribes 

 beyond the borders, can be vetoed by the British 

 Government at any time within six months of their 

 conclusion. In the draft of the London convention 

 Lord Derby expunged every reference to suzerain 

 rights contained in the convention of Pretoria. 

 The preamble of 1884 expressly acknowledges a 

 new state, the South African Republic, in the 

 place of the Transvaal territory, subject to the 

 suzerainty of her Majesty. 



The right of British suzerainty was first asserted 

 anew by Mr. Chamberlain in hi's dispatch of Oct. 

 16, 1897. He had contended that the alien law as 

 first passed by the Volksraad in 1896 was a breach 

 of the London convention. The Transvaal Gov- 

 ernment demurred to this and refused to revoke 

 the law or suspend its operation, holding that every 

 state has the right to restrain foreign elements that 

 are dangerous to the peace and safety of its inhabit- 

 ants ; refused also the invitation to discuss the ques- 

 tion with the British agent, but offered to submit 

 it to arbitration. Notwithstanding this declaration, 

 the law was revoked, with a view to legislation be- 

 ing introduced anew. Mr. Chamberlain in his an- 

 1 on Oct. 16, 1897. maintained the claim of the 

 British Government to be consulted before legisla- 

 tion is introduced restricting the entrance of aliens 

 other than natives. The rights invoked from the 

 general principles of international law were dis- 

 missed as not applying in this case, which was "not 

 that of a treaty between two states on an equal 



footing, but a declaration by the Queen of Great 

 Britain and Ireland of the conditions upon which 

 she accorded complete self-government to the South 

 African Republic, subject to her suzerainty." He 

 contended that the preamble of the convention of 

 1881 was not replaced by the preamble of the new 

 convention, but was still in force, though the arti- 

 cles of the latter were substituted for the articles 

 of the Pretoria convention. In his view, under the 

 two conventions, the Queen held toward the South 

 African Republic the relation of a suzerain who 

 had accorded to the people of that Republic self- 

 government upon certain conditions, and he held it 

 to be incompatible with that position to submit to 

 arbitration the construction of the conditions on 

 which she accorded self-government to the Repub- 

 lic. Dr. Leyds replied to this dispatch on April 

 16, 1898, recounting the negotiations, with Lord 

 Derby's explanations and elisions, showing that not 

 only by its terms, but in its intent, the convention 

 of 1884 put an end to British suzerainty. Lord 

 Derby said that by the omission of those articles of 

 the convention of Pretoria which assigned to her 

 Majesty and to the British resident certain specific 

 powers and functions connected with the internal 



fovernment and foreign relations of the Transvaal 

 tate,' the Government of the South African Repub- 

 lic would be left free to govern the country without 

 interference and to conduct its diplomatic inter- 

 course and shape its foreign policy, subject only to 

 the requirement embodied in the fourth article of 

 the new draft, that any treaty with a foreign state 

 shall not have effect without the approval of the 

 Queen. The report of the deputation that the ob- 

 noxious provisions of the Pretoria convention were 

 revoked, on the strength of which it was ratified by 

 the Volksraad, had never been challenged on the 

 part of the British Government until now by Mr. 

 Chamberlain. Dr. Leyds pointed out that the two 

 preambles were in direct opposition to each other, 

 and could not be both in force at the same time. 

 Lord Derby in his letter covering the draft of the 

 new convention said that this was proposed in sub- 

 stitution for the convention of Pretoria. Dr. Leyds 

 proposed that the question of suzerainty be arbi- 

 trated by a friendly third power. The present in- 

 dependence of the South African Republic derives 

 its formal acknowledgment, but in no sense its 

 real origin, he held, from an international agree- 

 ment, acknowledged as equally binding on both 

 parties. Great Britain had acknowledged the in- 

 ternational character of the convention by agree- 

 ing to refer the first article to a friendly power, 

 and could not contend that the interpretation of 

 agreements between powers not on the same foot- 

 ing is not to be referred in case of disagreement to 

 international law in the same manner as treaties 

 between powers of the same standing, since there 

 is no other law to which it can be referred ; other- 

 wise the British Government would constitute itself 

 the sole judge of a document to which it is a party. 

 In a dispatch dated May 7, 1897, the State Sec- 

 retary had proposed the abrogation of the conven- 

 tion of London, arguing that Great Britain had 

 violated it by the armed incursion of Dr. Jameson. 

 Mr. Chamberlain, in his dispatch, asserted that the 

 raid was the act of private individuals, for which 

 the British Government was in no wise responsible. 

 Dr. Leyds, in his reply, pointed out that the troops 

 . which raided the territory of the Republic were 

 British troops, serving under the British flag, en- 

 listed, armed, and equipped in British territory un- 

 der the orders of the Administrator, who derived 

 his authority from the British Crown, commanded 

 by officers holding her Britannic Majesty's com- 

 missions, and that the raid was prepared wit li the 

 aid and advice of Cecil Rhodes, who was Prime 



