Paul Kruger

Properties2
tagsperson, statesman, transvaal, south-african-republic
aliasesPresident Kruger, Kruger, Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger

7 min read

Paul Kruger (Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger, 1825–1904) was the President of the South African Republic (Transvaal) who led the 1883 deputation to London to seek the removal of British suzerainty over his state. He is mentioned by P. H. van der Kemp (1900) only in a comparative aside, in Appendix 12 of the article, where Van der Kemp reproduces a letter of 28 May 1899 by D. P. Faure on the suzerainty question of the Transvaal.

The 1883 deputation and London negotiations

Faure, who had served as interpreter to the Transvaal deputation in 1883 on the advice of Sir Hercules Robinson (later Lord Rosmead) and at the request of Lord Derby, testifies that he was present at all the conferences between the representatives of the Transvaal and those of the Imperial Government — Lord Derby, Sir Robert Herbert, Sir Hercules Robinson and (on one or two occasions) Sir Evelyn Ashley. Faure recalls Sir Hercules Robinson telling him in private conversation that he could not understand why President Kruger was so eager to see suzerainty abolished, since it really meant nothing; even if it did not exist, England would still not allow the Transvaal to make treaties with foreign powers detrimental to British interests. Lord Derby likewise told the deputation that, on the question of suzerainty, they were making a mountain out of a molehill.

Despite these dismissive British attitudes, the suzerainty question was one of the principal grievances of the Transvaal representatives, who attached to it the greatest importance. Van der Kemp’s interest in the episode is comparative: he had earlier argued that the same pattern — a clause originally inserted for domestic-opposition reasons and dismissed as insignificant, only to be elevated later into a war-cry — characterised the Dutch handling of the Acheh reservation in the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of London (1824).

Faure’s testimony and the London Convention (1884)

Faure swore that “it was clearly understood and agreed by both contracting parties that H.M.’s suzerainty would be abolished, except to the extent laid down in article 4 of the London Convention which was signed afterwards.” The Transvaal deputation left London perfectly satisfied with the outcome of its mission, except for the new border line. Faure cited, in corroboration, an article he had written immediately on his return to the Cape in the Volksblad (a Dutch paper of which he was then editor) on 17 April 1884, declaring: “Last but not least, suzerainty is abolished.”

A later interviewer for the Saturday Review, speaking with Lord Rosmead shortly before the latter’s death on 3 November [1897], recorded that “People in England maintain that suzerainty was included in the Convention of 1884, just as it was clearly laid down in that of 1881; but is this true?” Lord Rosmead answered: “Well, I ought to know, for I drafted that convention; the idea of suzerainty was withdrawn and the word deliberately omitted. Kruger was not satisfied with the convention of 1881, on account of England’s claim of suzerainty, and we intended to withdraw that claim in 1884.”

Comparative significance

Van der Kemp draws the parallel explicitly: the wording of a treaty may, in the absence of formal minutes, be reinterpreted by one party at a later date to serve new political purposes — exactly the pattern he ascribes to the Dutch with respect to the Acheh treaty of 1819 and the Sumatra-supremacy reservation in 1824. President Kruger’s determination to secure the formal abolition of the suzerainty, and the British reluctance to put that abolition in writing for fear of arming the parliamentary opposition, are presented by Van der Kemp as the South-African analogue of the Acheh paper-war.

See Also

Source

Raffles’ Atjeh-overeenkomst van 1819, by P. H. van der Kemp, in Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 6e Volgr., Deel VII (1900), pp. 159–239. Universiteitsbibliotheek Vrije Universiteit, LS.08781.

Paul Kruger (Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger, 1825–1904) was the President of the South African Republic (Transvaal) who led the 1883 deputation to London to seek the removal of British suzerainty over his state. He is mentioned by P. H. van der Kemp (1900) only in a comparative aside, in Appendix 12 of the article, where Van der Kemp reproduces a letter of 28 May 1899 by D. P. Faure on the suzerainty question of the Transvaal.

The 1883 deputation and London negotiations

Faure, who had served as interpreter to the Transvaal deputation in 1883 on the advice of Sir Hercules Robinson (later Lord Rosmead) and at the request of Lord Derby, testifies that he was present at all the conferences between the representatives of the Transvaal and those of the Imperial Government — Lord Derby, Sir Robert Herbert, Sir Hercules Robinson and (on one or two occasions) Sir Evelyn Ashley. Faure recalls Sir Hercules Robinson telling him in private conversation that he could not understand why President Kruger was so eager to see suzerainty abolished, since it really meant nothing; even if it did not exist, England would still not allow the Transvaal to make treaties with foreign powers detrimental to British interests. Lord Derby likewise told the deputation that, on the question of suzerainty, they were making a mountain out of a molehill.

Despite these dismissive British attitudes, the suzerainty question was one of the principal grievances of the Transvaal representatives, who attached to it the greatest importance. Van der Kemp’s interest in the episode is comparative: he had earlier argued that the same pattern — a clause originally inserted for domestic-opposition reasons and dismissed as insignificant, only to be elevated later into a war-cry — characterised the Dutch handling of the Acheh reservation in the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of London (1824).

Faure’s testimony and the London Convention (1884)

Faure swore that “it was clearly understood and agreed by both contracting parties that H.M.’s suzerainty would be abolished, except to the extent laid down in article 4 of the London Convention which was signed afterwards.” The Transvaal deputation left London perfectly satisfied with the outcome of its mission, except for the new border line. Faure cited, in corroboration, an article he had written immediately on his return to the Cape in the Volksblad (a Dutch paper of which he was then editor) on 17 April 1884, declaring: “Last but not least, suzerainty is abolished.”

A later interviewer for the Saturday Review, speaking with Lord Rosmead shortly before the latter’s death on 3 November [1897], recorded that “People in England maintain that suzerainty was included in the Convention of 1884, just as it was clearly laid down in that of 1881; but is this true?” Lord Rosmead answered: “Well, I ought to know, for I drafted that convention; the idea of suzerainty was withdrawn and the word deliberately omitted. Kruger was not satisfied with the convention of 1881, on account of England’s claim of suzerainty, and we intended to withdraw that claim in 1884.”

Comparative significance

Van der Kemp draws the parallel explicitly: the wording of a treaty may, in the absence of formal minutes, be reinterpreted by one party at a later date to serve new political purposes — exactly the pattern he ascribes to the Dutch with respect to the Acheh treaty of 1819 and the Sumatra-supremacy reservation in 1824. President Kruger’s determination to secure the formal abolition of the suzerainty, and the British reluctance to put that abolition in writing for fear of arming the parliamentary opposition, are presented by Van der Kemp as the South-African analogue of the Acheh paper-war.

See Also

Source

Raffles’ Atjeh-overeenkomst van 1819, by P. H. van der Kemp, in Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 6e Volgr., Deel VII (1900), pp. 159–239. Universiteitsbibliotheek Vrije Universiteit, LS.08781.

Graph View

Backlinks