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.