Liberalism and the Social Problem | Page 6

now contend that on no account must the basis
of the Lyttelton Constitution be departed from. I am not convinced by
that argument. The Government are to pursue a new purpose, but to
adhere to the old framework. We are to cut off the head of the Lyttelton
Constitution, but are to preserve the old trunk and graft a new head on
it. I do not believe that any Government, approaching this question
from a new point of view, uncompromised and unfettered, would be
bound by the framework and details of the Lyttelton Constitution. It
may be that that Constitution contains many excellent principles, but
the Government have a right to consider things from the beginning,
freshly and freely, to make their own plans in accordance with their
own ideas, and to present those plans for the acceptance of the House.
The noble lord the Member for South Birmingham spoke of the
principle of "one vote, one value," which was embodied in the
Lyttelton Constitution. The principle of "one vote, one value" is in
itself an orthodox and unimpeachable principle of democracy. It is a
logical, numerical principle. If the attempt be made to discriminate
between man and man because one has more children and lives in the
country, it would be arguable that we should discriminate because
another man has more brains or more money, or lives in the town, or
for any other of the many reasons that differentiate one human being
from another. The only safe principle, I think, is that for electoral
purposes all men are equal, and that voting power, as far as possible,
should be evenly distributed among them.
In the Transvaal the principle of "one vote, one value" can be made
operative only upon a basis of voters. In nearly every other country in
the world, population is the usual basis of distribution, for population is
the same as electorate and electorate the same as population. On both

bases the distribution of the constituencies would be the same. There is,
for instance, no part of this country which is more married, or more
celibate, or more prolific than any other part. It is only in the Transvaal,
this country of afflicting dualities and of curious contradictions, where
everything is twisted, disturbed, and abnormal, that there is a great
disparity between the distribution of seats on the basis of voters and on
the basis of population. The high price of provisions in the towns
restricts the growth of urban population, and the dullness of the country
districts appears to be favourable to the growth of large families. It is a
scientific and unimpeachable fact that, if you desire to apply the
principle of "one vote, one value" to the Constitution of the Transvaal,
that principle can best be attained--I am not sure that it cannot only be
attained--on the basis of voters, and that is the basis Mr. Lyttelton took
in the Constitution he formed.
But Mr. Lyttelton's plan did not stop there. Side by side with this basis
of voters, he had an artificial franchise of £100 annual value. That is a
very much lower qualification in South Africa, than it would be in this
country, and I do not think that the franchise which Mr. Lyttelton
proposed could be called an undemocratic franchise, albeit that it was
an artificial franchise, because it yielded 89,000 voters out of a
population of 300,000, and that is a much more fertile franchise, even
after making allowance for the abnormal conditions of a new country,
than we have in this country or than is the case in some American and
European States. So that I do not accuse Mr. Lyttelton of having
formulated an undemocratic franchise, but taking these two points
together--the unusual basis of distribution with the apparently artificial
franchise--acting and reacting, as they must have done, one upon the
other--there was sufficient ground to favour the suspicion, at any rate,
that something was intended in the nature of a dodge, in the nature of a
trick, artificially to depress the balance in one direction and to tilt it in
the other.
In dealing with nationalities, nothing is more fatal than a dodge.
Wrongs will be forgiven, sufferings and losses will be forgiven or
forgotten, battles will be remembered only as they recall the martial
virtues of the combatants; but anything like chicane, anything like a

trick, will always rankle. The Government are concerned in South
Africa not only to do what is fair, but to do what South Africa will
accept as fair. They are concerned not merely to choose a balance
which will deal evenly between the races, but one which will secure the
acceptance of both races.
* * * * *
We meet unjust charges in good heart. The permanence and security of