that of the Orange Free State. This need not be contested, as that
Minister obviously relied upon a similar observance of staunch adhesion
towards England which that State had shown during a period of thirty
years previous; the fact that the Transvaal was quite differently
situated as to adjoining territory imposed the necessity, if only as a
matter of form, to preserve the written conditions of Transvaal
vassalage.

Lord Kimberley, in 1889, intimated the readiness of his Government to
afford advisory and other co-operation with the Transvaal Government in
order to cope with the new element of foreign immigration, resulting
from the discovery of the rich gold-fields, and to provide appropriate
relations with a new floating population, without materially altering
the status of Transvaal authority, or the methods of government then in
practice.

The Transvaal Government, however, preferred to ignore that loyal offer,
and to be guided by Bond principles instead. That circumstance affords
another proof that England did not then see the necessity, as has
subsequently been the case, of strengthening her position against Bond
aggression by imposing a demand of general franchise for Uitlanders.

One aspect of the prolonged controversy _re_ suzerainty forced upon
England would be to denote a lack of honour, which is not of unfrequent
occurrence when one party to a contract seeks by cavil and legal quibble
to evade compliance with some of its conditions, simply because the
written terms appear to afford scope for doing so. But the principal
reason of the Transvaal contention proceeded from the project of gaining
over some strong foreign ally who would see an obstacle, if not
scruples, in joining common cause whilst England's claim of