Liberalism and the Social Problem | Page 7

British sovereignty in South Africa is not a matter of indifference to his
Majesty's Ministers. Surely no honourable Member believes that we
could wish to cheat the British race in the Transvaal of any numerical
preponderance which may properly belong to them. Equally with our
political opponents we desire to see the maintenance of British
supremacy in South Africa. But we seek to secure it by a different
method. There is a profound difference between the schools of thought
which exist upon South African politics in this House. We think that
British authority in South Africa has got to stand on two legs. You have
laboured for ten years to make it stand on one. We on this side know
that if British dominion is to endure in South Africa it must endure with
the assent of the Dutch, as well as of the British. We think that the
position of the Crown in South Africa, and let me add the position of
Agents and Ministers of the Crown in South Africa, should be just as
much above and remote from racial feuds, as the position of the Crown
in this country is above our Party politics. We do not seek to pit one
race against the other in the hope of profiting from the quarrel. We
hope to build upon the reconciliation and not upon the rivalry of races.
We hope that it may be our fortune so to dispose of affairs that these
two valiant, strong races may dwell together side by side in peace and
amity under the shelter of an equal flag.

THE TRANSVAAL CONSTITUTION
HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 31, 1906
It is my duty this afternoon, on behalf of the Government, to lay before

the Committee the outline and character of the constitutional settlement
which we have in contemplation in regard to the lately annexed
Colonies in South Africa. This is, I suppose, upon the whole, the most
considerable business with which this new Parliament has had to deal.
But although no one will deny its importance, or undervalue the keen
emotions and anxieties which it excites on both sides of the House, and
the solemn memories which it revives, yet I am persuaded that there is
no reason why we should be hotly, sharply, or bitterly divided on the
subject; on the contrary, I think its very importance makes it incumbent
on all who participate in the discussion--and I will certainly be bound
by my own precept--to cultivate and observe a studious avoidance of
anything likely to excite the ordinary recriminations and rejoinders of
Party politics and partisanship.
After all, there is no real difference of principle between the two great
historic Parties on this question. The late Government have repeatedly
declared that it was their intention at the earliest possible
moment--laying great stress upon that phrase--to extend representative
and responsible institutions to the new Colonies; and before his
Majesty's present advisers took office the only question in dispute was,
When? On the debate on the Address, the right hon. Member for West
Birmingham--whose absence to-day and its cause I am quite sure are
equally regretted in all parts of the House--spoke on this question with
his customary breadth of view and courage of thought. He said: "The
responsibility for this decision lies with the Government now in power.
They have more knowledge than we have; and if they consider it safe to
give this large grant, and if they turn out to be right, no one will be
better pleased than we. I do not think that, although important, this
change should be described as a change in colonial policy, but as
continuity of colonial policy."
If, then, we are agreed upon the principle, I do not think that serious or
vital differences can arise upon the method. Because, after all, no one
can contend that it is right to extend responsible government, but not
right to extend it fairly. No one can contend that it is right to grant the
forms of free institutions, and yet to preserve by some device the means
of control. And so I should hope that we may proceed in this debate

without any acute divergences becoming revealed.
I am in a position to-day only to announce the decision to which the
Government have come with respect to the Transvaal. The case of the
Transvaal is urgent. It is the nerve-centre of South Africa. It is the arena
in which all questions of South African politics--social, moral, racial,
and economic--are fought out; and this new country, so lately reclaimed
from the wilderness, with a white population of less than 300,000 souls,
already reproduces in perfect miniature all those dark, tangled, and
conflicting problems usually to be found in populous and
old-established European States. The case of the Transvaal