ant factor by their wealth and by their power of influencing
opinion in Europe, were angry and restless, because the prospect of
securing reforms which would reduce the cost of working the gold reefs
became more remote.

This was the condition of things in the two Republics and the British
Colonies when the diplomatic controversy between the Imperial Government
and the South African Republic, which had been going on ever since 1895,
passed in the early summer of 1899 into a more acute phase. The
beginning of that phase coincided, as it so happened, with the expiry of
the period during which the leaders of the Johannesburg rising of 1895
had promised to abstain from interference in politics, and the incident
out of which it grew was the presentation to the Queen (in March 1899),
through the High Commissioner, of a petition from a large number of
British residents on the Witwatersrand complaining of the position in
which they found themselves. The situation soon became one of great
tension, owing to the growing passion of the English in South Africa and
the growing suspicion on the part of the Transvaal Boers. But before we
speak of the negotiations, let us consider for a moment what was the
position of the two parties to the controversy.

The position of the Transvaal Government, although (as will presently
appear) it had some measure of legal strength, was, if regarded from the
point of view of actual facts, logically indefensible and materially
dangerous. It was not, indeed, the fault of that Government that the
richest goldfield in the world had been discovered in its territory, nor
would it have been possible for the Boers, whatever they might have
wished, to prevent the mines from being worked and the miners from
streaming in. But the course they took was condemned from the first to
failure. They desired to have the benefit of the gold-mines while yet
retaining their old ways of life, not seeing that the two things were
incompatible. Moreover, they--or rather the President and his
advisers--committed the fatal mistake of trying to maintain a government
which was at the same time undemocratic and incompetent. If it had been
representative of the whole mass of the inhabitants it might have
ventured, like the governments of some great American cities, to
disregard both purity and efficiency. If, on the other hand, it had been
a vigorous and skilful government, giving to the inhabitants the
comforts and conveniences of