CO885-(13-15) — Page 378

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

HC.O. 885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

| COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPMENT

2

That our particular attention was requested to the Articles numbered II., III., XVIII., XXI., and XXII. which, it would be seen, claimed for Her Majesty (either in her regal capacity, or specifically as "Suzerain" the entire conduct and control of foreign relations, and important rights of interference, both as to matters of internal government and border management.

That the Convention having proved distasteful to the Transvaal State, Her Majesty's Government agreed in 1883 to enter into negotiations for an amelioration of the then existing state of relations.

That the Transvaal State thereupon appointed a Delegation, consisting of Mr. Kruger and two other public men, who came to London with powers to negotiate; and that the correspondence between them and the then Secretary of Stato for the Colonies would be found in the Blue Book C. 3947 of 1884. That it was important to observe in the opening letter, dated the 14th November 1883, the Transvaal Delegation did not ask for a total abrogation of the suzerainty of the Queen, but rather their grievance was that, through'duress, they had been forced in 1881 to accept articles extending and developing that suzerainty, so as to make it something quite different and more hampering than what Sir Evelyn Wood had explained that it would amount to.

That the result of the negotiations between the Secretary of State and the delegates was embodied in the London Convention of 1884 (pp. 47-58 of Blue Book C. 3947).

That the resolution of the Volksraad of the South African Republic ratifying the Convention was enclosed for reference.

That in that Couvention nothing was said, one way or the other, about suzerainty, and that the question was whether it survived notwithstanding. That, in doing their work, Mr. Fairfield was to observe that the draftsmen, so far from appearing anxious to place the point beyond dispute, would almost seem to have desired to leave to each possible disputant something on which to base an argument, a course which was probably unavoidable if an agreement were to be arrived at, but which was directly answerable for the existing difficulty.

That in favour of the view that suzerainty survived it might be said that:-- (1.) It was not renounced, and Her Majesty ought not to be held to have deprived herself of such a right unless by express words.

(2.) The first part of the instrument, which was in the form of a direction and declaration by Her Majesty, did not say that the new Articles were to be sub- atituted for the Covention of Pretoria, but for the Articles of that Convention, meaning presumably the numbered Articles, but excluding, by implication, the first (unnumbered) clause or sentence, which contained the grant of self-government to the Transvaal people, subject to Her Majesty's suzerainty.

(3.) Unless, at least, that opening part of the old Convention survived, the Transvaal people would have nothing in writing to show that the Queen had expressly abandoned her full sovereignty and dominion over the country as exercised between 1877 and 1881.

(4.) Although most of the attributes of suzerainty, as defined in the old Convention, disappeared in the new set of Articles, as much survived in Article IV. as Sir. Evelyn Wood said that suzerainty consisted in, in fact, all that the new settlement did was to abandon those specific powers of suzerainty which Her Majesty's. Government, in ignorance of the exact words used by Sir Evelyn Wood, had allowed, or directed, to be introduced, contrary to the understanding arrived at in March 1881.

That, on the other hand, it might be argued that :-

(1. Her Majesty was made to speak of the new and substituted Articles as if they constituted "a new Convention," no words being used declaring or plainly implying that the new Articles were to be governed by, and read with, the opening sentence of the old Convention.

(2.) The déclaration of suzerainty was over the " Transvaal State a name imposed on the community, by the Secretary of State's order against the wishes of the people and their leaders. The title of Transvaal State was quietly dropped in the new Cin "ention and Articles, and the State was spoken of under its former title of the South African Republic, which before 1877 was undoubtedly an independent State. Although that Republic was for a time annexed, Her Majesty's authority being exercised over it in invitam it was never made the subject of the particular form of dependence implied in the term suzerainty.

(3.) Her Majesty had never used the style of suzerain of the South African Republic in any public instrument, nor had any claim of suzerainty been made by Her Ministors

3

on her behalf during the ten years which had elapsed since. the London Convention was concluded.

(4.) The three earlier Conventions, viz. :-those of Sand River, Pretoria, and London, were not in the form of agreements between equal parties, but, as to their opening and more operative parts, were in the form of grants by, or declarations of, the pleasure of a superior towards an inferior. The Conventions which had been concluded since 1884 were more in the form of agreements between equals. The Swaziland Convention of 1890 and that of 1893, which would be found in the documents noted in the margin, African illustrated that proposition.

(South) No. 400, p. 9.

C. 7213, p. 149.

(5.) As to the argument that, apart from the opening sentence of the Pretoria Con- Blue Book vention, the British Crown had never undone the forcible annexation of 1877, and that the Transvaal people had otherwise no clear title to even a qualified independence, the answer of the Republic would probably be that the language of the Convention of 1884 and the subsequent attitude of this country constituted a tacit admission that the Sand River Convention constituted the true root and basis of the Republic's independence.

That the question was of no particular importance from a practical point of view, but that any unregarded utterance upon the subject might, in the present state of our relations with the South African Republic, produce mischevious results; and that your Lordship was inclined to think that, in answering questions in Parliament, it would be prudent-as far as possible to adhere to the line taken by the late Mr. W. H. Smith in answering a question put to him by Mr. Edward Hardcastle on the 25th of February 1890.

C

That the question and answer were in the following terms:-

Mr. Edward Hardcastle. To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the suzerainty of the Transvaal was retained by the British Crown when the troops were withdrawn from that country? What is the nature and value of that suzerainty ?

And whether, under it, British subjects, who are said already to out-number the Boers, are entitled to the franchise?

In reply, Mr. W. H. Smith said:-"The Convention of London, made in 1884, between Her Majesty and the South African Republic contains no express reservation of the Queen's right of suzerainty, and, although Her Majesty retains under the Convention the power of refusing to sanction treaties made by the South African Republic with foreign States and nations and with certain native tribes, it is a cardinal principle of that settlement that the internal government and legislation of the South African Republic shall not be interfered with.

"No persons, whether British subjects or otherwise, could at present obtain the franchise within the South African Republic unless they make a declaration of allegiance to it, which involves, to a considerable extent, the renunciation, within the Republic, of their national rights and obligations as the subjects of the Queen."

That the last part of both question and answer were not directly material to the present question, but that the earlier parts were directly in point, and might perhaps be made more conclusive by the addition or interpolation of some reference to Sir Evelyn Wood's definition of suzerainty.

That your Lordship did not propose to formulate any series of specific questions on which a reply was asked, but that you would be glad to receive our advice and remarks on the above statement of facts and considerations.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to

Report-

That, in our opinion, the question whether there is not in Her Majesty a suzerainty over the South African Republic is of very little practical importance, though, on the whole, having regard to the negotiations which preceded the London Convention of 1884, the construction of that document itself, and the subsequent attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the Republic, we are of opinion that the suzerainty has been abandoned. Whether this be so or not, the only subsisting right of interference, otherwise than by way of diplomatic representation, depends upon the conventional right given by Article IV. of the London Convention of 1884.

We havo, &c.

JOHN RIGBY. R. T. REID.

The Most Hon. The Marquess of Ripon, K.G.,

&c. &c. &c.

I