Sir Hercules Robinson (1824–1897) — created Baron Rosmead in 1896 and therefore often referred to in his later years as Lord Rosmead — was a senior British colonial administrator whose career spanned nearly four decades and a dozen governorships, culminating in the office of High Commissioner for Southern Africa. In the final appendix of Van der Kemp’s article on the Acheh agreement of 1819 he appears in his capacity as the senior British representative at the Transvaal conferences of 1883 — the man who “designed” the London Convention of 1884 and who, in the words preserved in the Saturday Review, deliberately withdrew the concept of suzerainty from its text.
The Transvaal conferences of 1883
When, in 1883, the British government agreed to receive a deputation from the South African Republic (Transvaal), Sir Hercules Robinson — then serving as High Commissioner for Southern Africa — advised that the deputation should be received in London. On his advice, Lord Derby (the Colonial Secretary) asked D. P. Faure to accompany the deputation and to serve as its interpreter. Faure was thus present at all the conferences between the Transvaal representatives and those of the imperial government. The British side consisted of Lord Derby, Sir Robert Herbert and Sir Hercules Robinson; Sir Evelyn Ashley was, Faure believed, present on one or two occasions.
Faure recalled with pride that Sir Hercules placed great trust in him, and that he had many interviews with him — sometimes at his private residence, sometimes at his club, and sometimes at Brooks’s Hotel in Albemarle Street, sometimes by invitation and sometimes uninvited. The most vivid of Faure’s recollections concerns a private remark of Sir Hercules’s: he could not understand why President Kruger was so eager to see suzerainty abolished, since — even if it did not exist — Britain would never allow the Transvaal to conclude treaties with foreign powers that it judged harmful to its own interests. On this view, the formal abolition of suzerainty was a matter of little substance, and there was therefore no harm in accommodating Transvaal sensitivity by omitting the word from the new convention.
The convention of 1884 and the Rosmead interview
The convention that resulted from these conferences — the London Convention of 1884 — was, in Faure’s testimony, “designed” by Sir Hercules himself. Both parties, Faure insisted, clearly understood and agreed that Britain’s suzerainty would be abolished, except to the extent provided in Article 4. Sir Hercules’s own account of his intentions, however, comes to us at one remove. After his death on 3 November 1896, the Saturday Review published an interview in which its editor had asked him whether it was true that suzerainty was included in the convention of 1884 “as it had clearly been laid down in that of 1881”. Rosmead replied: “Well, I ought to know, because I designed that convention; the concept of suzerainty was withdrawn and the word deliberately omitted. Kruger was not satisfied with the convention of 1881; Britain’s claim of suzerainty was based on it, and we intended in 1884 to withdraw that claim.”
Significance for Acheh studies
Van der Kemp reproduces this evidence at length because it offers a striking parallel to the Dutch experience with the treaty of 1824. In both cases — the Acheh reservation in 1824 and the omission of the word “suzerainty” in 1884 — a stipulation originally “proposed as of no significance” was later treated by the stronger party as decisive of the legal position. Sir Hercules Robinson’s role in this structural parallel is that of the British official who privately assured a weaker party that its grievance had been met in substance, while publicly preserving an ambiguity that allowed the stronger party to re-open the question at a later date. Van der Kemp’s argument is that the Dutch plenipotentiaries of 1824 walked into a similar trap when they accepted the Acheh reservation in an exchanged note rather than in the body of the treaty.
See Also
- Lord Derby
- Sir Robert Herbert
- Sir Evelyn Ashley
- D. P. Faure
- London Convention on Transvaal (1884)
- Anglo-Dutch Treaty of London (1824)
- P. H. van der Kemp
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.
Sir Hercules Robinson (1824–1897) — created Baron Rosmead in 1896 and therefore often referred to in his later years as Lord Rosmead — was a senior British colonial administrator whose career spanned nearly four decades and a dozen governorships, culminating in the office of High Commissioner for Southern Africa. In the final appendix of Van der Kemp’s article on the Acheh agreement of 1819 he appears in his capacity as the senior British representative at the Transvaal conferences of 1883 — the man who “designed” the London Convention of 1884 and who, in the words preserved in the Saturday Review, deliberately withdrew the concept of suzerainty from its text.
The Transvaal conferences of 1883
When, in 1883, the British government agreed to receive a deputation from the South African Republic (Transvaal), Sir Hercules Robinson — then serving as High Commissioner for Southern Africa — advised that the deputation should be received in London. On his advice, Lord Derby (the Colonial Secretary) asked D. P. Faure to accompany the deputation and to serve as its interpreter. Faure was thus present at all the conferences between the Transvaal representatives and those of the imperial government. The British side consisted of Lord Derby, Sir Robert Herbert and Sir Hercules Robinson; Sir Evelyn Ashley was, Faure believed, present on one or two occasions.
Faure recalled with pride that Sir Hercules placed great trust in him, and that he had many interviews with him — sometimes at his private residence, sometimes at his club, and sometimes at Brooks’s Hotel in Albemarle Street, sometimes by invitation and sometimes uninvited. The most vivid of Faure’s recollections concerns a private remark of Sir Hercules’s: he could not understand why President Kruger was so eager to see suzerainty abolished, since — even if it did not exist — Britain would never allow the Transvaal to conclude treaties with foreign powers that it judged harmful to its own interests. On this view, the formal abolition of suzerainty was a matter of little substance, and there was therefore no harm in accommodating Transvaal sensitivity by omitting the word from the new convention.
The convention of 1884 and the Rosmead interview
The convention that resulted from these conferences — the London Convention of 1884 — was, in Faure’s testimony, “designed” by Sir Hercules himself. Both parties, Faure insisted, clearly understood and agreed that Britain’s suzerainty would be abolished, except to the extent provided in Article 4. Sir Hercules’s own account of his intentions, however, comes to us at one remove. After his death on 3 November 1896, the Saturday Review published an interview in which its editor had asked him whether it was true that suzerainty was included in the convention of 1884 “as it had clearly been laid down in that of 1881”. Rosmead replied: “Well, I ought to know, because I designed that convention; the concept of suzerainty was withdrawn and the word deliberately omitted. Kruger was not satisfied with the convention of 1881; Britain’s claim of suzerainty was based on it, and we intended in 1884 to withdraw that claim.”
Significance for Acheh studies
Van der Kemp reproduces this evidence at length because it offers a striking parallel to the Dutch experience with the treaty of 1824. In both cases — the Acheh reservation in 1824 and the omission of the word “suzerainty” in 1884 — a stipulation originally “proposed as of no significance” was later treated by the stronger party as decisive of the legal position. Sir Hercules Robinson’s role in this structural parallel is that of the British official who privately assured a weaker party that its grievance had been met in substance, while publicly preserving an ambiguity that allowed the stronger party to re-open the question at a later date. Van der Kemp’s argument is that the Dutch plenipotentiaries of 1824 walked into a similar trap when they accepted the Acheh reservation in an exchanged note rather than in the body of the treaty.
See Also
- Lord Derby
- Sir Robert Herbert
- Sir Evelyn Ashley
- D. P. Faure
- London Convention on Transvaal (1884)
- Anglo-Dutch Treaty of London (1824)
- P. H. van der Kemp
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.