Liberalism and the Social Problem | Page 4

walks, while
it quits at its peril the work of practical, everyday service to existing
society.
A word as to the literary quality of these addresses, widely varied as
they are in subject. The summit of a man's powers--his full capacity of
reason, comparison, expression--are not usually reached at so early a
point in his career as that which Mr. Churchill has attained. But in
directness and clearness of thought, in the power to build up a political
theory, and present it as an impressive and convincing argument, in the
force of rhetoric and the power of sympathy, readers of these addresses
will find few examples of modern English speech-making to compare
with them. They revive the almost forgotten art of oratory, and they
connect it with ideas born of our age, and springing from its conscience
and its practical needs, and, above all, essential to its happiness.
H.W. MASSINGHAM.

I
THE RECORD OF THE GOVERNMENT
PAGE
THE CONCILIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA (April 5, 1906) 3
THE TRANSVAAL CONSTITUTION (July 31, 1906) 16
THE ORANGE FREE STATE CONSTITUTION (December 17, 1906)
45
LIBERALISM AND SOCIALISM (October 11, 1906) 67
IMPERIAL PREFERENCE--I. (May 7, 1907) 85
IMPERIAL PREFERENCE--II. (July 16, 1907) 106
THE HOUSE OF LORDS (June 29, 1907) 124
THE DUNDEE ELECTION (May 14, 1908) 147

THE CONCILIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA
HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 5, 1906
We have travelled a long way since this Parliament assembled, in the
discussion of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony Constitutions.
When the change of Government took place Mr. Lyttelton's
Constitution was before us. That instrument provided for representative
and not responsible government. Under that Constitution the election
would have been held in March of this year, and the Assembly would
have met in June, if the home Government had not changed. But just at
the time that the Government changed in December two questions
arose--the question of whether or not soldiers of the British Army in
garrison should be allowed to vote; and the question whether it would

not be better to have sixty constituencies instead of thirty; and, as both
questions involved necessary alterations in the Letters Patent, the time
was ripe, quite apart from any difference which the change of the men
at the helm might make, for a reconsideration and review of the whole
form of the government which was to be given to the two Colonies.
The objection that must most readily occur in considering Mr.
Lyttelton's Constitution is that it was unworkable. It proposed that there
should be from six to nine nominated Ministers in an Assembly of
thirty-five, afterwards to be increased to sixty elective members. The
position of a Minister is one of considerable difficulty. He often has to
defend rather an awkward case. When favourable facts are wanting he
has to depend upon the nimbleness of his wits, and, when these fail him,
he has to fall back upon the loyalty of his supporters. But no Minister
can move very far upon his road with satisfaction or success if he has
not behind him either a nominated majority or an organised Party
majority. Mr. Lyttelton's Ministers had neither. They would have been
alone, hopelessly outnumbered in an Assembly, the greater part of
which was avowedly in favour of responsible and not of representative
government. These Ministers, with one exception, had no previous
Parliamentary experience and no ascertained Parliamentary ability.
They would have been forced to carry their Bills and their Estimates
through an Assembly in the main opposed to them. All this time, while
we should have given to these Ministers this serious duty, we should
ourselves have had to bear the whole responsibility in this country for
everything that was done under their authority; and their authority
could only be exerted through an Assembly which, as things stood,
they could not control.
The Committee can easily imagine the telegrams and the questions
which would have been addressed from Downing Street and the House
of Commons to these Ministers on native matters, on the question of
the administration of the Chinese Ordinance, on all the numerous
intricate questions with which we are at the present moment involved
in South Africa. And what would have been the position of these
Ministers, faced with these embarrassments in a hostile Assembly in
which they had few friends--what possibility would they have had of

maintaining themselves in such an Assembly? Is it not certain that they
would have broken down under the strain to which they would have
been exposed, that the Assembly would have been infuriated, that
Parties differing from each other on every conceivable question,
divided from each other by race and religion and language, would have
united in common hatred of the interference of the outside Power and
the government of bureaucrats. Then we should very speedily