April previous a correspondence had been going on between Dr.
Leyds, Secretary of State for the South African Republic, and Mr.
Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary, upon the existence or
non-existence of the suzerainty. On the one hand, it was contended
that the substitution of a second convention had entirely annulled
the first; on the other, that the preamble of the first applied
also to the second. If the Transvaal contention were correct it is
clear that Great Britain had been tricked and jockeyed into such a
position, since she had received no quid pro quo in the second
convention, and even the most careless of Colonial Secretaries
could hardly have been expected to give away a very substantial
something for nothing. But the contention throws us back upon the
academic question of what a suzerainty is. The Transvaal admitted a
power of veto over their foreign policy, and this admission in
itself, unless they openly tore up the convention, must deprive
them of the position of a sovereign State. On the whole, the
question must be acknowledged to have been one which might very
well have been referred to trustworthy arbitration.

But now to this debate, which had so little of urgency in it that
seven months intervened between statement and reply, there came the
bitterly vital question of the wrongs and appeal of the Uitlanders.
Sir Alfred Milner, the British Commissioner in South Africa, a man
of liberal views who had been appointed by a Conservative
Government, commanded the respect and confidence of all parties.
His record was that of an able, clear-headed man, too just to be
either guilty of or tolerant of injustice. To him the matter was
referred, and a conference was arranged between President Kruger
and him at Bloemfontein, the capital of the Orange Free State. They
met on May 30th. Kruger had declared that all questions might be