convicted of a common felony. The latter is subjected to the degradation of being expelled by resolution from the House; the former is more compassionately regarded 'as dead.' Lord John Russell, in submitting to the House on the 18th of March, 1849, a motion declaring that inasmuch as Smith O'Brien had been convicted of high treason he had become incapable of sitting in Parliament, confessed that there was no absolute precedent for dealing with such a case. There was the case of a Mr. Forster, respecting whom the following entry appeared in the 'Journals' under the date of the 10th of May, 1715, the time the Pretender made his abortive descent upon Scotland:

That T. Forster Esq., a member of this House, having been taken in open rebellion bearing arms against His Majesty, be expelled this House. Ordered that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant &c., to make out a new writ for electing &c., for Northumberland, in the room of T. Forster Esq., expelled this House.

A kindred entry occurred in the Journals' thirteen months later, or on the 2nd of June, 1716:

The House being informed that J. Carnegie Esq., member for Forfarshire, had been in arms in Scotland on the part of the rebels during the late rebellion, and that there were two persons at the door who could prove the same, they were called in and examined at the Bar, and gave the House an account that they had seen the said Mr. Carnegie in arms at Perth on the part of the rebels; and it was resolved nem. con. that the said Carnegie be expelled this House.

Lord John Russell pointed out, however, that in both these instances the House acted upon information only, and did not wait for trial, whereas the case of Smith O'Brien was that of a member who had been actually convicted of high treason. Smith O'Brien was therefore not expelled the House, but was regarded as dead in a civil sense; and a new writ for his seat for the city of Limerick was accordingly issued.

If, then, the oath is purely and simply a declaration of loyalty to the reigning Sovereign, an obligation which, oath or no oath, devolves upon every subject, and if its violation entails no additional punishment on a member of Parliament, it is little more than an idle function. No oath or affirmation is required of any member of the Legislature of either Germany or France; but there is a solemn declaration of fidelity to the Commonwealth. In the American Congress the declaration runs: To the best of my knowledge and ability I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' In Italy there is a dramatic oath. The President of the Chamber of Deputies solemnly reads the words of the oath, which binds the members to labour 'with a single view to the inseparable welfare of King and country,' and the new Deputy, extending his right arm above his head, says 'I swear.'

VOL. XLVI-No. 270

MICHAEL MACDONAGH.

Ꮓ

THE CASUS BELLI IN SOUTH AFRICA

RATHER more than one-fourth of Sir Sidney Shippard's article in the July number of this Review is devoted to a statement of his own qualifications for the task. I gather from it that he has spent a great many years in South Africa and knows the country well. But the undoubted advantage which such an experience gives him may be more than counterbalanced by the incapacity to judge public opinion at home arising from long residence abroad. Our countrymen who serve the Empire so splendidly in all parts of the world too often forget, in the exercise of autocratic power, that they are the servants of a free people, for the most part passionately devoted to the ideal of justice. They lose touch with the mother-land and become virtually foreigners. It is for that reason that so few of the retired servants of the Empire have been able to guide public opinion in this country, even on the subjects which they have spent their lives in learning.

The subject of Sir Sidney Shippard's article is British policy in the Transvaal. I believe the desire and the determination of the great body of the British people is that our policy there and everywhere should before all things be founded on justice. That may surprise Sir Sidney Shippard. He appears to have derived his notions of modern England'-so he styles the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland-from the alien journalism of London. His fling at the 'political blunders of Mr. Gladstone' may be permitted to pass, inasmuch as it includes in its sweep Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, whose policy, so far as he knows it, he supports. But when he speaks in this connection of unhappy party divisions which are sapping the vital strength of England as a world-power,' and when he goes on to describe the Boers as relying on the efforts of those in England who are ever ready to take sides against their own country, no matter how just her quarrel,' he misconceives the nature of our party differences and forgets how little as yet they have affected the South African question. This sort of thing he should leave to the yellow press of the metropolis. And he may rest assured that the people of Great Britain are not to be driven from a policy of justice by the taunt, come from whom it may, that they are 'taking sides against their own country.'

Sir Sidney Shippard's argument apparently is, that unless we

force the Milner programme of Reform upon the Boers, by war if necessary, we shall lose South Africa. He supports it by nothing that can be called a reason. There are many persons as well informed as Sir S. Shippard, who prophesy the same disasters as a consequence of the policy which he advocates. War with the Transvaal on the grounds suggested would, even if successful, break the unity of South Africa for years to come; and with disunion, who shall say how long the Imperial connection could be maintained? Things have already reached a dangerous pass, and not in the Transvaal only. When was the Empire in such a condition as now? Race arrayed against race in the Cape Colony-Governor and Ministers apparently in disaccord-colonies separated by thousands of miles of sea and land, and united only by their common tie to Great Britain, taking opposite sides on the Imperial question-these are the present results of the policy which arrogates to itself the name of Imperialism. It is high time that the honest and nativeborn Briton, who made and maintains the Empire, should come to its rescue.

I think it absolutely useless to attempt to follow the writer in his somewhat confused account of the grievances of British subjects in the Transvaal. He makes no attempt to establish a casus belli on any specific ground. Sometimes, apparently, it is a conspiracy of the Dutch to drive England out of South Africa altogether; sometimes it is the plundering and murdering of British subjects in the Transvaal ; sometimes it is the corruption of the Boer Government, sometimes their neglect of the law of the God whose name they so often take in vain'-which calls for the presence of our fleet in Delagoa Bay and an army of occupation in the Transvaal. It is better to read the true case against the Boers in the official despatches. There is one question I should like to mention here, as no light has been thrown on it by any of the publications. According to the Stock Exchange Year-Book a large number of South African mining companies appear to be incorporated not under the unimpeachable Companies Acts of this country, but under the laws of the corrupt Government, which we are told must be mended or ended. They are all, I presume, fed by 'uitlander' capital and manned by uitlander' directors. Is there anything in the laws of the Republic-as there sometimes is in other States-requiring companies to be incorporated under the local law? Or can it be that the plundered uitlander prefers the charter of the Republic to the charter of the Queen?

Now the casus belli must be found, as the question now stands, either in the grievances of the 'uitlanders' or in breaches of the Convention of 1884.

The grievances of the uitlanders, as summarised by Mr. Chamberlain on the 4th of February 1896, include the following: the difficulty in obtaining naturalisation and the franchise; the

question of education; mismanagement of the finances; restrictions on the right of public meeting; the policy of granting State monopolies; grievances in connection with the labour question, railways, and the police. The list, though not exhaustive, is, as Mr. Chamberlain observes, 'formidable in length and serious in quality.' I have mainly used his own words in this enumeration, and their purport is now sufficiently well known to render further explanation unnecessary. All demands are now, according to Sir A. Milner's policy, summed up in the demand for Franchise Reform-which, it is assumed, will enable the uitlanders to redress their grievances for themselves.

Sir S. Shippard says that both the Orange Free State and the Transvaal enjoy a measure of internal independence by virtue of conventions with Great Britain, the Sovereign Power of South Africa; but it is none the less true that both of these States are in a certain sense still under a British Protectorate.' These words require a brief reference to the essential points of the two conventions between the Queen and the Transvaal State. The Orange Free State is not in question now: but, if I am not mistaken, it parted from us on terms of complete independence, unqualified even by a nominal suzerainty.

By the Convention of 1881 Her Majesty's Commissioners 'undertake and guarantee, on behalf of Her Majesty, that from and after the 8th day of August 1881, complete self-government, subject to the suzerainty of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, will be accorded to the inhabitants of the Transvaal Territory upon the following terms and conditions, and subject to the following reservations and limitations.' Then follow thirty-three articles, all of which were in terms accepted by the representatives of the Transvaal. It is unnecessary to describe them, as they were superseded by the Convention of 1884.

By the latter instrument Her Majesty declares that the following articles of a new Convention shall be substituted for the articles embodied in the Convention of 1881, which latter, pending ratification by the Volksraad, shall continue in full force and effect.' The ratification took place in August 1884, and since then the thirty-three articles of the old Convention have been null and void, and the twenty articles of the new Convention now govern the relations of Great Britain and the Transvaal.

The new Convention contains not one word about the suzerainty, but the main provision on that head was contained in the fundamental agreement of 1881. The superseded articles twice in terms assert the suzerainty. The new articles of 1884 contain provisions which would seem to imply that it was the intention of the parties that the suzerainty-whatever it may have meant-was to be abandoned. The question might give scope to legal ingenuity, but it is not of much importance. It would be fair to assume that the suzerainty is still retained, but that it is measured by the provisions embodied in the

new articles of 1884. These new articles, to some extent, repeat; to some extent they alter; to a considerable extent they ignore the provisions of 1881. Except in so far as they are repeated with or without modification, the old provisions are now wholly extinct.

The most striking difference between the two conventions relates to British control of the foreign relations of the Transvaal. Article II. of 1881 reserves to the Queen the right (a) to appoint a British Resident, (b) to move troops through the State in time of war between the suzerain Power and any foreign State, and (c) to control the external relations of the State. By Article XVIII. the duties of the British Resident are defined as 'analogous to those of a Chargé d'Affaires and Consul General,' and it is provided, inter alia, that in regard to communications with foreign Powers the Transvaal Government will correspond with Her Majesty's Government through the British Resident and the High Commissioner.'1

These two Articles, each of which in terms asserts the suzerainty, have disappeared, and their place appears to be taken by Articles III. and IV. of 1884, neither of which names the suzerainty. Article III. provides that if a British officer is appointed to reside at Pretoria or elsewhere within the South African Republic to discharge functions analogous to those of a Consular officer, he will receive the assistance and protection of the Republic.' And Article IV. provides that the South African Republic will conclude no treaty or engagement with any State or nation other than the Orange Free State, nor with any native tribe to the eastward or to the westward of the Republic, until the same has been approved by Her Majesty the Queen. Such approval shall be considered to have been granted if the British Government do not notify within six months that the treaty is in conflict with the interests of Great Britain or any of its possessions in South Africa. So far as external relations are concerned, the suzerainty, if it survives at all, has evidently been reduced to small dimensions.

The two articles of the Convention of 1884 relating to the rights of residents should now be noted. By Article VII., 'No person who has remained loyal to Her Majesty during the late hostilities shall suffer any molestation by reason of his loyalty. . . and all such persons will have full liberty to reside in the country with enjoyment of all civil rights and protection for their persons and property.' By Article XIV., 'All persons, other than natives, conforming themselves to the laws of the South African Republic (a) will have full liberty with their families to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the South African Republic; (b) they will be entitled to hire or possess houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops, and premises; (c) they may carry on their commerce either in person or by any agents whom they

1 Article II. also enacts that diplomatic intercourse with foreign Powers is to be carried on 'through Her Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular officers abroad.'