THE BOER PEOPLE

It is impossible to appreciate the South African problem and the causes which have led up to the present war between the British Empire and the Boer republics without some knowledge, however superficial, of the past history of South Africa.  To tell the tale one must go back to the beginning, for there has been complete continuity of history in South Africa, and every stage has depended upon that which has preceded it.  No one can know or appreciate the Boer who does not know his past, for he is what his past has made him.

It was about the time when Oliver Cromwell was at his zenith ­in 1652, to be pedantically accurate ­that the Dutch made their first lodgment at the Cape of Good Hope.  The Portuguese had been there before them, but, repelled by the evil weather, and lured forward by rumours of gold, they had passed the true seat of empire, and had voyaged farther, to settle along the eastern coast.  But the Dutchmen at the Cape prospered and grew stronger in that robust climate.  They did not penetrate far inland, for they were few in number, and all they wanted was to be found close at hand.  But they built themselves houses, and they supplied the Dutch East India Company with food and water, gradually budding off little townlets, Wynberg, Stellenbosch, and pushing their settlements up the long slopes which lead to that great central plateau which extends for 1,500 miles from the edge of the Karoo to the Valley of the Zambesi.

For a hundred more years the history of the colony was a record of the gradual spreading of the Africanders over the huge expanse of veldt which lay to the north of them.  Cattle-raising became an industry, but in a country where six acres can hardly support a sheep, large farms are necessary for even small herds.  Six thousand acres was the usual size, and 5_l._ a year the rent payable to Government.  The diseases which follow the white man had in Africa, as in America and Australia, been fatal to the natives, and an epidemic of smallpox cleared the country for the new-comers.  Farther and farther north they pushed, founding little towns here and there, such as Graaf-Reinet and Swellendam, where a Dutch Reformed Church and a store for the sale of the bare necessaries of life formed a nucleus for a few scattered dwellings.  Already the settlers were showing that independence of control and that detachment from Europe which has been their most prominent characteristic.  Even the mild sway of the Dutch Company had caused them to revolt.  The local rising, however, was hardly noticed in the universal cataclysm which followed the French Revolution.  After twenty years, during which the world was shaken by the Titanic struggle in the final counting up of the game and paying of the stakes, the Cape Colony was added in 1814 to the British Empire.

In all the vast collection of British States there is probably not one the title-deeds to which are more incontestable than to this.  Britain had it by two rights, the right of conquest and the right of purchase.  In 1806 troops landed, defeated the local forces, and took possession of Cape Town.  In 1814 Britain paid the large sum of six million pounds to the Stadtholder for the transference of this and some South American land.  It was a bargain which was probably made rapidly and carelessly in that general redistribution which was going on.  As a house of call upon the way to India the place was seen to be of value, but the country itself was looked upon as unprofitable and desert.  What would Castlereagh or Liverpool have thought could they have seen the items which they were buying for six million pounds?  The inventory would have been a mixed one of good and of evil:  nine fierce Kaffir wars, the greatest diamond mines in the world, the wealthiest gold mines, two costly and humiliating campaigns with men whom we respected even when we fought with them, and now at last, we hope, a South Africa of peace and prosperity, with equal rights and equal duties for all men.

The title-deeds to the estate are, as I have said, good ones, but there is one singular and ominous flaw in their provisions.  The ocean has marked three boundaries to it, but the fourth is undefined.  There is no word of the ‘hinterland,’ for neither the term nor the idea had then been thought of.  Had Great Britain bought those vast regions which extended beyond the settlements?  Or were the discontented Dutch at liberty to pass onwards and found fresh nations to bar the path of the Anglo-Celtic colonists?  In that question lay the germ of all the trouble to come.  An American would realise the point at issue if he could conceive that after the founding of the United States the Dutch inhabitants of the State of New York had trekked to the westward and established fresh communities under a new flag.  Then, when the American population overtook these western States, they would be face to face with the problem which this country has had to solve.  If they found these new States fiercely anti-American and extremely unprogressive, they would experience that aggravation of their difficulties with which British statesmen have had to deal.

At the time of their transference to the British flag the colonists ­Dutch, French, and German ­numbered some thirty thousand.  They were slaveholders, and the slaves were about as numerous as themselves.  The prospect of complete amalgamation between the British and the original settlers would have seemed to be a good one, since they were of much the same stock, and their creeds could only be distinguished by their varying degrees of bigotry and intolerance.  Five thousand British emigrants were landed in 1820, settling on the Eastern borders of the colony, and from that time onwards there was a slow but steady influx of English-speaking colonists.  The Government had the historical faults and the historical virtues of British rule.  It was mild, clean, honest, tactless, and inconsistent.  On the whole, it might have done very well had it been content to leave things as it found them.  But to change the habits of the most conservative of Teutonic races was a dangerous venture, and one which has led to a long series of complications, making up the troubled history of South Africa.

The Imperial Government has always taken an honourable and philanthropic view of the rights of the native and the claim which he has to the protection of the law.  We hold, and rightly, that British justice, if not blind, should at least be colour-blind.  The view is irreproachable in theory and incontestable in argument, but it is apt to be irritating when urged by a Boston moralist or a London philanthropist upon men whose whole society has been built upon the assumption that the black is the inferior race.  Such a people like to find the higher morality for themselves, not to have it imposed upon them by those who live under entirely different conditions.

The British Government in South Africa has always played the unpopular part of the friend and protector of the native servants.  It was upon this very point that the first friction appeared between the old settlers and the new administration.  A rising with bloodshed followed the arrest of a Dutch farmer who had maltreated his slave.  It was suppressed, and five of the participants were hanged.  This punishment was unduly severe and exceedingly injudicious.  A brave race can forget the victims of the field of battle, but never those of the scaffold.  The making of political martyrs is the last insanity of statesmanship.  However, the thing was done, and it is typical of the enduring resentment which was left behind that when, after the Jameson Raid, it seemed that the leaders of that ill-fated venture might be hanged, the beam was actually brought from a farmhouse at Cookhouse Drift to Pretoria, that the Englishmen might die as the Dutchmen had died in 1816.  Slagter’s Nek marked the dividing of the ways between the British Government and the Africanders.

And the separation soon became more marked.  With vicarious generosity, the English Government gave very lenient terms to the Kaffir tribes who in 1834 had raided the border farmers.  And then, finally, in this same year there came the emancipation of the slaves throughout the British Empire, which fanned all smouldering discontents into an active flame.

It must be confessed that on this occasion the British philanthropist was willing to pay for what he thought was right.  It was a noble national action, and one the morality of which was in advance of its time, that the British Parliament should vote the enormous sum of twenty million pounds to pay compensation to the slaveholders, and so to remove an evil with which the mother country had no immediate connection.  It was as well that the thing should have been done when it was, for had we waited till the colonies affected had governments of their own it could never have been done by constitutional methods.  With many a grumble the good British householder drew his purse from his fob, and paid for what he thought to be right.  If any special grace attends the virtuous action which brings nothing but tribulation in this world, then we may hope for it over this emancipation.  We spent our money, we ruined our West Indian colonies, and we started a disaffection in South Africa, the end of which we have not seen.

But the details of the measure were less honourable than the principle.  It was carried out suddenly, so that the country had no time to adjust itself to the new conditions.  Three million pounds were ear-marked for South Africa, which gives a price per slave of from 60_l._ to 70_l._, a sum considerably below the current local rates.  Finally, the compensation was made payable in London, so that the farmers sold their claims at reduced prices to middlemen.  Indignation meetings were held in every little townlet and cattle-camp on the Karoo.  The old Dutch spirit was up ­the spirit of the men who cut the dykes.  Rebellion was useless.  But a vast untenanted land stretched to the north of them.  The nomad life was congenial to them, and in their huge ox-drawn wagons ­like those bullock-carts in which some of their old kinsmen came to Gaul ­they had vehicles and homes and forts all in one.  One by one they were loaded up, the huge teams were inspanned, the women were seated inside, the men with their long-barrelled guns walked alongside, and the great exodus was begun.  Their herds and flocks accompanied the migration, and the children helped to round them in and drive them.  One tattered little boy of ten cracked his sjambok whip behind the bullocks.  He was a small item in that singular crowd, but he was of interest to us, for his name was Paul Stephanus Kruger.

It was a strange exodus, only comparable in modern times to the sallying forth of the Mormons from Nauvoo upon their search for the promised land of Utah.  The country was known and sparsely settled as far north as the Orange River, but beyond there was a great region which had never been penetrated save by some daring hunter or adventurous pioneer.  It chanced ­if there be indeed such an element as chance in the graver affairs of man ­that a Zulu conqueror had swept over this land and left it untenanted, save by the dwarf bushmen, the hideous aborigines, lowest of the human race.  There were fine grazing and good soil for the emigrants.  They travelled in small detached parties, but their total numbers were considerable, from six to ten thousand according to their historian, or nearly a quarter of the whole population of the colony.  Some of the early bands perished miserably.  A large number made a trysting-place at a high peak to the east of Bloemfontein, in what was lately the Orange Free State.  One party of the emigrants was cut off by the formidable Matabeli, a branch of the great Zulu nation.

The final victory of the ‘voortrekkers’ cleared all the country between the Orange River and the Limpopo, the sites of what have been known as the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.  In the meantime another body of the emigrants had descended into Natal, and had defeated Dingaan, the great Chief of the Zulus.

And now at the end of their great journey, after overcoming the difficulties of distance, of nature, and of savage enemies, the Boers saw at the end of their travels the very thing which they desired least ­that which they had come so far to avoid ­the flag of Great Britain.  The Boers had occupied Natal from within, but England had previously done the same by sea, and a small colony of Englishmen had settled at Port Natal, now known as Durban.  The home Government, however, had acted in a vacillating way, and it was only the conquest of Natal by the Boers which caused them to claim it as a British colony.  At the same time they asserted the unwelcome doctrine that a British subject could not at will throw off his allegiance, and that, go where they might, the wandering farmers were still only the pioneers of British colonies.  To emphasise the fact three companies of soldiers were sent in 1842 to what is now Durban ­the usual Corporal’s guard with which Great Britain starts a new empire.  This handful of men was waylaid by the Boers and cut up, as their successors have been so often since.  The survivors, however, fortified themselves, and held a defensive position ­as also their successors have done so many times since ­until reinforcements arrived and the farmers dispersed.  Natal from this time onward became a British colony, and the majority of the Boers trekked north and east with bitter hearts to tell their wrongs to their brethren of the Orange Free State and of the Transvaal.

Had they any wrongs to tell?  It is difficult to reach that height of philosophic detachment which enables the historian to deal absolutely impartially where his own country is a party to the quarrel.  But at least we may allow that there is a case for our adversary.  Our annexation of Natal had been by no means definite, and it was they and not we who first broke that bloodthirsty Zulu power which threw its shadow across the country.  It was hard after such trials and such exploits to turn their back upon the fertile land which they had conquered, and to return to the bare pastures of the upland veldt.  They carried out of Natal a heavy sense of injury, which has helped to poison our relations with them ever since.  It was, in a way, a momentous episode, this little skirmish of soldiers and emigrants, for it was the heading off of the Boer from the sea and the confinement of his ambition to the land.  Had it gone the other way, a new and possibly formidable flag would have been added to the maritime nations.

The emigrants who had settled in the huge tract of country between the Orange River in the south and the Limpopo in the north had been recruited by new-comers from the Cape Colony until they numbered some fifteen thousand souls.  This population was scattered over a space as large as Germany, and larger than Pennsylvania, New York, and New England.  Their form of government was individualistic and democratic to the last degree compatible with any sort of cohesion.  Their wars with the Kaffirs and their fear and dislike of the British Government appear to have been the only ties which held them together.  They divided and subdivided within their own borders, like a germinating egg.  The Transvaal was full of lusty little high-mettled communities, who quarrelled among themselves as fiercely as they had done with the authorities at the Cape.  Lydenburg, Zoutpansberg, and Potchefstroom were on the point of turning their rifles against each other.  In the south, between the Orange River and the Vaal, there was no form of government at all, but a welter of Dutch farmers, Basutos, Hottentots, and half-breeds living in a chronic state of turbulence, recognising neither the British authority to the south of them nor the Transvaal republics to the north.  The chaos became at last unendurable, and in 1848 a garrison was placed in Bloemfontein and the district incorporated in the British Empire.  The emigrants made a futile resistance at Boomplaats, and after a single defeat allowed themselves to be drawn into the settled order of civilised rule.

At this period the Transvaal, where most of the Boers had settled, desired a formal acknowledgment of their independence, which the British authorities determined once and for all to give them.  The great barren country, which produced little save marksmen, had no attractions for a Colonial Office which was bent upon the limitation of its liabilities.  A Convention was concluded between the two parties, known as the Sand River Convention, which is one of the fixed points in South African history.  By it the British Government guaranteed to the Boer farmers the right to manage their own affairs, and to govern themselves by their own laws without any interference upon the part of the British.  It stipulated that there should be no slavery, and with that single reservation washed its hands finally, as it imagined, of the whole question.  So the Transvaal Republic came formally into existence.

In the very year after the Sand River Convention, a second republic, the Orange Free State, was created by the deliberate withdrawal of Great Britain from the territory which she had for eight years occupied.  The Eastern Question was already becoming acute, and the cloud of a great war was drifting up, visible to all men.  British statesmen felt that their commitments were very heavy in every part of the world, and the South African annexations had always been a doubtful value and an undoubted trouble.  Against the will of a large part of the inhabitants, whether a majority or not it is impossible to say, we withdrew our troops as amicably as the Romans withdrew from Britain, and the new republic was left with absolute and unfettered independence.  On a petition being presented against the withdrawal, the Home Government actually voted 48,000_l._ to compensate those who had suffered from the change.  Whatever historical grievance the Transvaal may have against Great Britain, we can at least, save perhaps in one matter, claim to have a very clear conscience concerning our dealings with the Orange Free State.  Thus in 1852 and in 1854 were born those sturdy States who have been able for a time to hold at bay the united forces of the Empire.

In the meantime Cape Colony, in spite of these sécessions, had prospered exceedingly, and her population ­British, German, and Dutch ­had grown by 1870 to over two hundred thousand souls, the Dutch still slightly predominating.  According to the liberal colonial policy of Great Britain, the time had come to cut the cord and let the young nation conduct its own affairs.  In 1872 complete self-government was given to it, the Governor, as the representative of the Queen, retaining a nominal unexercised veto upon legislation.  According to this system the Dutch majority of the colony could, and did, put their own representatives into power and run the government upon Dutch lines.  Already Dutch law had been restored, and Dutch put on the same footing as English as the official language of the country.  The extreme liberality of such measures, and the uncompromising way in which they have been carried out, however distasteful the legislation might seem to English ideas, are among the chief reasons which made the illiberal treatment of British settlers in the Transvaal so keenly resented at the Cape.  A Dutch Government was ruling the British in a British colony, at a moment when the Boers would not give an Englishman a vote upon a municipal council in a city which he had built himself.

For twenty-five years after the Sand River Convention the burghers of the Transvaal Republic had pursued a strenuous and violent existence, fighting incessantly with the natives and sometimes with each other, with an occasional fling at the little Dutch republic to the south.  Disorganisation ensued.  The burghers would not pay taxes and the treasury was empty.  One fierce Kaffir tribe threatened them from the north, and the Zulus on the east.  It is an exaggeration to pretend that British intervention saved the Boers, for no one can read their military history without seeing that they were a match for Zulus and Sekukuni combined.  But certainly a formidable invasion was pending, and the scattered farmhouses were as open to the Kaffirs as our farmers’ homesteads were in the American colonies when the Indians were on the war-path.  Sir Theophilus Shepstone, the British Commissioner, after an inquiry of three months, solved all questions by the formal annexation of the country.  The fact that he took possession of it with a force of some twenty-five men showed the honesty of his belief that no armed resistance was to be feared.  This, then, in 1877, was a complete reversal of the Sand River Convention and the opening of a new chapter in the history of South Africa.

There did not appear to be any strong feeling at the time against the annexation.  The people were depressed with their troubles and weary of contention.  Burgers, the President, put in a formal protest, and took up his abode in Cape Colony, where he had a pension from the British Government.  A memorial against the measure received the signatures of a majority of the Boer inhabitants, but there was a fair minority who took the other view.  Kruger himself accepted a paid office under Government.  There was every sign that the people, if judiciously handled, would settle down under the British flag.

But the Empire has always had poor luck in South Africa, and never worse than on that occasion.  Through no bad faith, but simply through preoccupation and delay, the promises made were not instantly fulfilled.  If the Transvaalers had waited, they would have had their Volksraad and all that they wanted.  But the British Government had some other local matters to set right, the rooting out of Sekukuni and the breaking of the Zulus, before they would fulfil their pledges.  The delay was keenly resented.  And we were unfortunate in our choice of Governor.  The burghers are a homely folk, and they like an occasional cup of coffee with the anxious man who tries to rule them.  The 300_l._ a year of coffee-money allowed by the Transvaal to its President is by no means a mere form.  A wise administrator would fall into the social and democratic habits of the people.  Sir Theophilus Shepstone did so.  Sir Owen Lanyon did not.  There was no Volksraad and no coffee, and the popular discontent grew rapidly.  In three years the British had broken up the two savage hordes which had been threatening the land.  The finances, too, had been restored.  The reasons which had made so many burghers favour the annexation were weakened by the very power which had every interest in preserving them.

It cannot be too often pointed out that in this annexation, the starting-point of our troubles, Great Britain, however mistaken she may have been, had no possible selfish interest in view.  There were no Rand mines in those days, nor was there anything in the country to tempt the most covetous.  An empty treasury and two expensive native wars were the reversion which we took over.  It was honestly considered that the country was in too distracted a state to govern itself, and had, by its weakness, become a scandal and a danger to its neighbours and to itself.  There was nothing sordid in the British action, though it may have been premature and injudicious.  There is some reason to think that if it had been delayed it would eventually have been done on the petition of the majority of the inhabitants.

In December 1880 the Boers rose.  Every farmhouse sent out its riflemen, and the trysting-place was the outside of the nearest British fort.  All through the country small detachments were surrounded and besieged by the farmers.  Standerton, Pretoria, Potchefstroom, Lydenburg, Wakkerstroom, Rustenburg, and Marabastad were all invested and all held out until the end of the war.  In the open country the troops were less fortunate.  At Bronkhorst Spruit a small British force was taken by surprise and shot down without harm to their antagonists.  The surgeon who treated them has left it on record that the average number of wounds was five per man.  At Laing’s Nek an inferior force of British endeavoured to rush a hill which was held by Boer riflemen.  Half of the men were killed and wounded.  Ingogo may be called a drawn battle, though the British loss was more heavy than that of the enemy.  Finally came the defeat of Majuba Hill, where 400 infantry upon a mountain were defeated and driven off by a swarm of sharpshooters who advanced under the cover of boulders.  Of all these actions there was not one which was more than a skirmish, and had they been followed by a final British victory they would now be hardly remembered.  It is the fact that they were skirmishes which succeeded in their object which has given them an importance which is exaggerated.

The defeat at Majuba Hill was followed by the complete surrender of the Gladstonian Government, an act which was either the most pusillanimous or the most magnanimous in recent history.  It is hard for the big man to draw away from the small before blows are struck, but when the big man has been knocked down three times it is harder still.  An overwhelming British force was in the field, and the General declared that he held the enemy in the hollow of his hand.  British military calculations have been falsified before now by these farmers, and it may be that the task of Wood and Roberts would have been harder than they imagined; but on paper, at least, it looked as if the enemy could be crushed without difficulty.  So the public thought, and yet they consented to the upraised sword being stayed.  With them, as apart from the politicians, the motive was undoubtedly a moral and Christian one.  They considered that the annexation of the Transvaal had evidently been an injustice, that the farmers had a right to the freedom for which they fought, and that it was an unworthy thing for a great nation to continue an unjust war for the sake of a military revenge.  Such was the motive of the British public when it acquiesced in the action of the Government.  It was the height of idealism, and the result has not been such as to encourage its repetition.

An armistice was concluded on March 5, 1881, which led up to a peace on the 23rd of the same month.  The Government, after yielding to force what it had repeatedly refused to friendly representations, made a clumsy compromise in their settlement.  A policy of idealism and Christian morality should have been thorough if it were to be tried at all.  It was obvious that if the annexation were unjust, then the Transvaal should have reverted to the condition in which it was before the annexation, as defined by the Sand River Convention.  But the Government for some reason would not go so far as this.  They niggled and quibbled and bargained until the State was left as a curious hybrid thing such as the world has never seen.  It was a republic which was part of the system of a monarchy, dealt with by the Colonial Office, and included under the heading of ‘Colonies’ in the news columns of the ‘Times.’  It was autonomous, and yet subject to some vague suzerainty, the limits of which no one has ever been able to define.  Altogether, in its provisions and in its omissions, the Convention of Pretoria appears to prove that our political affairs were as badly conducted as our military in this unfortunate year of 1881.

It was evident from the first that so illogical and contentious an agreement could not possibly prove to be a final settlement, and indeed the ink of the signatures was hardly dry before an agitation was on foot for its revision.  The Boers considered, and with justice, that if they were to be left as undisputed victors in the war then they should have the full fruits of victory.  On the other hand, the English-speaking colonies had their allegiance tested to the uttermost.  The proud Anglo-Celtic stock is not accustomed to be humbled, and yet they found themselves through the action of the home Government converted into members of a beaten race.  It was very well for the citizen of London to console his wounded pride by the thought that he had done a magnanimous action, but it was different with the British colonist of Durban or Cape Town who, by no act of his own, and without any voice in the settlement, found himself humiliated before his Dutch neighbour.  An ugly feeling of resentment was left behind, which might perhaps have passed away had the Transvaal accepted the settlement in the spirit in which it was meant, but which grew more and more dangerous, as during eighteen years our people saw, or thought that they saw, that one concession led always to a fresh demand, and that the Dutch republics aimed not merely at equality, but at dominance in South Africa.  Professor Bryce, a friendly critic, after a personal examination of the country and the question, has left it upon record that the Boers saw neither generosity nor humanity in our conduct, but only fear.  An outspoken race, they conveyed their feelings to their neighbours.  Can it be wondered at that South Africa has been in a ferment ever since, and that the British Africander has yearned with an intensity of feeling unknown in England for the hour of revenge?

The Government of the Transvaal after the war was left in the hands of a triumvirate, but after one year Kruger became President, an office which he continued to hold for eighteen years.  His career as ruler vindicates the wisdom of that wise but unwritten provision of the American Constitution by which there is a limit to the tenure of this office.  Continued rule for half a generation must turn a man into an autocrat.  The old President has said himself, in his homely but shrewd way, that when one gets a good ox to lead the team it is a pity to change him.  If a good ox, however, is left to choose his own direction without guidance, he may draw his wagon into trouble.

During three years the little State showed signs of a tumultuous activity.  Considering that it was larger than France and that the population could not have been more than fifty thousand, one would have thought that they might have found room without any inconvenient crowding.  But the burghers passed beyond their borders in every direction.  The President cried aloud that he had been shut up in a kraal, and he proceeded to find ways out of it.  A great trek was projected for the north, but fortunately it miscarried.  To the east they raided Zululand, and succeeded, in defiance of the British settlement of that country, in tearing away one-third of it and adding it to the Transvaal.  To the west, with no regard to the three-year-old treaty, they invaded Bechuanaland, and set up the two new republics of Goshen and Stellaland.  So outrageous were these proceedings that Great Britain was forced to fit out in 1884 a new expedition under Sir Charles Warren for the purpose of turning these freebooters out of the country.  It may be asked, Why should these men be called freebooters if the founders of Rhodesia were pioneers?  The answer is that the Transvaal was limited by treaty to certain boundaries which these men transgressed, while no pledges were broken when the British power expanded to the north.  The upshot of these trespasses was the scene upon which every drama of South Africa rings down.  Once more the purse was drawn from the pocket of the unhappy taxpayer, and a million or so was paid out to defray the expenses of the police force necessary to keep these treaty-breakers in order.  Let this be borne in mind when we assess the moral and material damage done to the Transvaal by the Jameson Raid.

In 1884 a deputation from the Transvaal visited England, and at their solicitation the clumsy Treaty of Pretoria was altered into the still more clumsy Convention of London.  The changes in the provisions were all in favour of the Boers, and a second successful war could hardly have given them more than Lord Derby handed them in time of peace.  Their style was altered from the Transvaal to the South African Republic, a change which was ominously suggestive of expansion in the future.  The control of Great Britain over their foreign policy was also relaxed, though a power of veto was retained.  But the most important thing of all, and the fruitful cause of future trouble, lay in an omission.  A suzerainty is a vague term, but in politics, as in theology, the more nebulous a thing is the more does it excite the imagination and the passions of men.  This suzerainty was declared in the preamble of the first treaty, and no mention of it was made in the second.  Was it thereby abrogated or was it not?  The British contention is that only the articles were changed, and that the preamble continued to hold good for both treaties.  They point out that not only the suzerainty, but also the independence, of the Transvaal is proclaimed in that preamble, and that if one lapses the other must do so also.  On the other hand, the Boers point to the fact that there is actually a preamble to the second convention, which would seem, therefore, to take the place of the first.  As a matter of fact, the discussion is a barren one, since both parties agree that Great Britain retained certain rights over the making of treaties by the Republic, which rights place her in a different position to an entirely independent state.  Whether this difference amounts to a suzerainty or not is a subject for the academic discussion of international jurists.  What is of importance is the fact, not the word.