The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-12-21

imposed clrtailments OF territory. An.
other feature OF the Pretoria Convention
which offended the bur ghers was that
instead Of being called the South African
Republic their Commonwealth was styled
the "Transvaal State The country only
recovered the title Of South African Re-
public by the London Convention Of 1884.
Al the election which followed the attain
ment of independence kr uger was elected
President for FIVE years by two-thirds Of
the votes cast. Joubert being the opposing
candidate. He was reelected by . large
majority In 1887. and again In 1902, though
| on the last occasion he narrowly escaped
defeat, receiving 1854 votss against 1000
cast for Joubert. When chosen President
for the fourth time. In 1907. he received
nearly 5000 votes. against less than 5000
obtained by his two competitors. II was,
Of course. during his first Presidency that
Joubert went again to London a. member
Of the deputation appointed TO secure
notifications Of the Pretoria Convention.
The negotiations with Lord Derby. then
Colonial Secretary. began on Sept. ~, 1883,
and will be found described in the ninth
chapter Of this volume. The Boer deputies
were informed that the British Government
was prepared 10 grant the Trsnsvaal the
same independence with regard 10 internal
politics n that enjoyed by the Orange Free
State. This concession was not obtained
BY the Beers in return for any concession
on their part. but was regarded by them
as an indisputable right They pointed out
that, by the Sand River Convention OF 1889,
taeRepublic had right to her independapoe.
which had been unjustly taken from her
and had not been restored to her by the
Pretoria Convention Of 1881 In the form
which had been virtually promised.
1t Is well known that by the convention
of 1854 the Republic regained her COM
plete independence. There was. however.
one article which ourtailed her rights.
ma nelly, Article w.. In pursuance Of which
no treaty made by the South African Re.
public with any nation other than the
Orange Free State could be considered
binding. provided the British Govern
ment should signify disapproval Of II within
six months after receiving a copy Of such
treaty. But the hateful suser ainty was
repealed. The assertion made by Mr..
Chamberlain at later date that the BritiAh
suzerainty was still In force 10 pronounced
false. The reasons for thus describing
the assertion are set forth ct length in the
eleventh chapter. where our author ex-
amines Mr. Chamberlain's refusal to sub
init all questions In dispute to arbitration,
on tho ground that England was the
suzerain OF the South African Republic,
and could not DO expected TO refer q con-
troversy with her vassal to outsiders. A
even 40 fair minded journal as the Lon
don Spectator has argued that the ground
assigned by Mr.. Chamberlain's refusal
was we'll taken, ii il worth while to note
precisely what KRUGER has to say upon
the point
For what other purpose, he asks,
than to. obtain the abolition Of the
suserainty had We made the journey to
London in 1888 and endeavored TO secure
a new conventioni And. since the con-
vention Of 1884. no one had entertained
the very slightest doubt but that the
s,iserainty was annulled. Even Sir Her
dulles Robinson. who was himself one Of
the authors Of the convention OF 1881, de-
clared in an interview with . journalist
that there was no question but that the
suzerainty had been abolished by the
convention Of 1884. In his greatly praised
reply Of the 10th Of April. 1893. Dr.. Leyds
irrefutably established this fact He was
able. moreover. to quote q despatch OF
Lord Derby's Of the 18th Of February, 1854
in which, the then Secretary for the Col
onies enclosed draft Of . new convention
intended TO replace the convention Of
Pretoria.
This draft commences with reprint Of
the preamble Of the convention Of 1881 :,
followed by that Of the convention OF 1884 :,
and headed BY the following note: The
words and paragraphs bracketed and
printed in italics are proposed 20 be inserted;
those within a black line are proposed
to be omitted And now the whole pre-
amble Of 1881 10 contained within black
line; moreover, the words subject TO the
suzerainty Of her Majesty. her heirs and
successors' had been, struck out by Lord
Derby. was especially important to
prove that the preamble to the convention
Of 1881. in which the suzerainty was men,
toned, had lapesd. because Mr.. Chamber
lain contended that this preamble still
existed and continued In forcs. In addi-
ton 70 what has been shown above, that
this preamble WA contained within brackets
and had therefore lapsed. We should. had
Mr.. Chamberlain's contention been cor
rect, have had two conflicting prsambles
to one and the same .conventioa, which
would have been absurd. Now any rea-
sonable person would have thought that
Mr.. Chamberlain would SEQ that he was
wrong; but no-he simply continued to
maintain that the suserainty existed. 1t
will be universally admitted that It 10 i'm
possible to come TO logical understanding
with q man like that, and We must blame
the well-known English insolence, where
small nation Ia concerned. which alone can
have permitted Mr.. Chamberlain to keep
up his nonsensicsl argument
1t has long since been ackno wledeed In
England that the real motive for Mr.. Cham
berlaius ref usal to accept arbitration,
and for his dissemination TO coerce the
Transvaal. was his wish to settle once for
all the question whether the British or the
Dutch should dominate in South Africa.
At the beginning Of the contest. however,
an attempt was made. at home and in the
colonies. to create the impression that
England was engaged in q defensive war
the precautionary movement. Of Boer
commands into Natal being adduced a.
proof Of the assertion. How Dpreposterous
the assertion was 10 made clear by the
series Of incidents and dates which we
find marshalled in the book before ia