Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:46:41.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

V. African Interests and the South Africa Act, 1908–1910

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ronald Hyam
Ronald Hyam
Affiliation:
Magdalene CollegeCambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has often been argued that British ministers in the years leading up to the Union of South Africa in 1910 were so obsessed with the principle of white self-government that they forgot their obligations to the African majority.1 The result, it is alleged, was that African interests in general were sacrificed on the altar of Anglo-Afrikaner reconciliation, and in particular betrayed in the South Africa Act of 1909. If there is a partial exception allowed—the withholding of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland from the Union—then, it is assumed, the credit for this could not possibly be given to the imperial government. The recent article in the Journal of African History by Alan R. Booth argues that, in the apparent absence of any actual imperial policy or concern, local African tribal and missionary pressures on the high commissioner were decisive in bringing this about.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 85 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Hailey, Lord, The Republic of South Africa and the High Commission Territories (1963), pp. 25–31;Google ScholarBenson, Mary, South Africa: the Struggle for a Birthright (1966), pp. 19–21;Google ScholarBooth, Alan R.,‘ Lord Selborne and the British Protectorates, 1908–10’, Journal of African History, X, no. 1 (1969), 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For an alternative and better-informed interpretation, see Mansergh, N., South Africa 1906–1961: the Price of Magnanimity (1962),Google Scholar chap. 3.

2 Perhaps I may be allowed to cite my own book, Elgin and Churchill at the Colonial Office, 1905–1908 (1968), where the evidence in support of this statement is set out in chapter 4.

3 Bryce, J., ‘Relations of the advanced and the backward races of mankind’ (Romanes Lecture, 1902).Google Scholar The British were perhaps more far-sighted than Afrikaners: at any rate,. Smuts later admitted that, unlike Selborne, he had not seen the importance of the African problem in 1908–9 (Smuts, J.C., Wartime Speeches (1917), p. 88;Google ScholarHancock, W.K., Smuts, vol. II, The Fields of Force, 1919–50 (1968), p. 114).Google Scholar

4 Elgin Papers (Broomhall), Elgin to Crewe, 7 May 1908 (draft).

5 Gladstone Papers, B.M. Add. MSS 44225/176, Kimberley to Gladstone, 25 May 1880. The Colonial Office files for the Carnarvon period were turned up in the summer of 1908– see P.R.O., CO. 417/463/16130, minute by C. P. Lucas, 8 May 1908.

6 Hyam, Elgin and Churchill, chap. 7; CO. 417/458/25076, Selborne to Crewe, 22 June 1908.

7 C.O. 417/471/12029, Crewe to Selborne, telegram, 14 Apr. 1909; for Khama's petition, see 482/16895.

8 Parl. Debates, 4th ser., House of Commons, vol. 188, c. 1248, 13 May 1908.

9 C.O. 417/463/38204, minute, 30 Oct. 1908; see also Crewe, Parl. Deb., 5th ser., vol. 2, c. 859–60, 3 Aug. 1909.

10 C.O. 417/459/41744, Selborne to Crewe, 24 Oct. 1908; C.O. 417/471/8099, minutes, Mar. 1909.

11 C.O. 417/478/17977, May 1909.

12 Sir Charles Dilke Papers, B.M. Add. MSS 43921/181, Schreiner to Dilke, 22 July 1909.

13 C.O. 48/602/22201, enclosure on Sir Walter Hely-Hutchinson (governor of the Cape) to Crewe, 16 June 1909, and minute by Crewe, 12 July 1909; see also Thompson, L.M., The Unification of South Africa (1960), pp. 402–3.Google Scholar

14 C.O. 417/478/29845, minute, 4 Aug. 1909.

15 P.R.O., CAB 41: Asquith to the king, 16 July 1909.

16 Parl. Debates, 5th ser., House of Commons, vol. 9, cc. 1009–14, 16 Aug. 1909; see also Thompson, Unification of South Africa, 428.

17 Confidential Print, African, no. 933, ‘Conference between delegates from South Africa and the secretary of state for the colonies', 20 and 21 July 1909.

18 C.O. 417/458/19782, minute by Crewe 14 June 1908 on Selborne to Crewe, 8 May 1908; 455/22355, minute by Seely, 25 June 1908.

19 C.O. 417/458/25076, Selborne to Crewe, 22 June 1908; Hancock, W.K. & van der Poel, J.(eds.), Selections from the Smuts Papers, vol.11, 1902–1910 (1966), p. 374,Google Scholar Smuts to Merriman, 3 Jan. 1908; CO. 417/463/24605, Crewe to Selborne, 1 July 1908.

20 C.O. 417/459/25754, Crewe to Selborne, telegram, 17 July 1908.

21 C.O. 417/458/20630, Selborne to Crewe, 18 May 1908, and 459/29921, 27 July 1908.

22 CO. 417/665/8627. Jacottet wrote several long letters to Bryce (Bryce Papers, C. 2) and two of his letters were printed for the cabinet committee.

23 Hyam, Elgin and Churchill, pp. 143–4, 530; Herbert Gladstone Papers, B.M. Add. MSS 45997/239, Harcourt to Herbert Gladstone, 19 Sept. 1911.

24 C.O. 417/471, Selborne to Sir Francis Hopwood, 22 Mar. 1909. Booth's opinion that Selborne was before July 1908 ‘having reservations’ about handing Africans over is not supported by my reading of the dispatches; his argument for the effect in London of Selborne's missives rests on a speculation in Pyrah, G. B., Imperial Policy and South Africa, 1902–10 (1955), p. 127.Google Scholar

25 C.O. 417/458/25076 and 459/26883, minutes by Seely, 17 and 29 July; CAB. 37/94/110 Crewe to Selborne, private, 1 and 12 Aug. 1908 (copies). In reply Selborne acknowledged the risk, but pointed out that since the risk ‘arises from the fact of closer union…from that risk no policy or plan which we may adopt in respect of the Protectorates will be free’. He advocated transfer ‘from the commencement’ as the policy which involved the least risk. He was willing to defer transfer, and believed Crewe had misunderstood him in thinking that he, Selborne, would say to South Africa ‘You may have the Protectorates’ or ‘throw the native territories at the heads of the South African statesmen’. To prove this he listed six conditions which he believed Britain was bound to secure for the chiefs and tribes to be included in the future union. (CO. 417/459/34176, Selborne to Crewe, telegram, 17 Sept. 1908.)

26 C.O. 417/459/34176, Crewe to Selborne, telegram, 16 Oct. 1908, and 46715, and private letter, 17 Oct. quoted in minute by H. W. Just, 24 Dec. 1908; Bodleian Library, Asquith Papers, 46, Crewe to Asquith, 5 Jan. 1909; see also Walker, E.A., Lord de Villiers and his Times (1925), p. 456,Google Scholar and Pyrah, G.B., Imperial Policy and South Africa, 1902–1910 (1955), pp. 127–30.Google Scholar

27 C.O. 417/458/20630, Selborne to Crewe, 13 May 1908.

28 Crewe to Selborne, 17 Oct. 1908, loc. cit.

29 Crewe to Selborne, 18 Mar. 1909, private (copy in Confidential Print, 26 Mar. 1909).

30 C.O. 417/459/45345, Crewe to Selborne, telegram, 16 Dec. 1908.

31 Parl. Deb. 5th ser., House of Lords, vol. 2, c. 765, Crewe, 27 July 1909. Selborne would have liked to treat Zululand in a similar administrative fashion (C.O. 417/455/22355, minute by H. C. M. Lambert, June 1908).

32 C.O. 417/459/41072, Selborne to Crewe, telegram, 6 Nov. 1908.

33 ibid. 46715, Crewe to Selborne, 23 Dec. 1908.

34 Asquith Papers, 46, Crewe to Asquith, 5 Jan. 1909.

35 C.O. 417/459/47952, Crewe to Selborne, 7 Jan. 1909; CO. 417/468/3495, minute by Hopwood, 3 Feb. 1909.

36 CAB 37/97/4, memorandum by Crewe, 11 Jan. 1909, ‘South African unification: Native affairs.’

37 CAB 37/97/6, memorandum by W. S. Churchill, 16 Jan. 1909, ‘South African unification'. Seely said if it were a question of preventing union from being wrecked he would have no hesitation in deferring the whole matter of the Protectorates (CO. 417/471/12442, minute, 3 Feb. 1909).

38 C.O. 417/471/2096, minute, 19 Jan. 1909.

39 Ibid.. 12442, Selborne to Crewe, 22 Mar. 1909, and to Hopwood.

40 Crewe to Selborne, private, 18 Mar. 1909 (copy in Confidential Print, 26 Mar. 1909).

41 C.O. 417/471/12442, minutes of 19 and 20 Apr. 1909. Crewe's changes dealt with (i) prohibition of differential railway rates on produce from the Protectorates entering other parts of the Union, (ii) strengthening the clause on salaries and pension rights of the commissioners, and (iii) stipulations to ensure stringency of curbs on sale of intoxicating liquors. De Villiers persuaded Crewe to drop all these amendments. A verbal ambiguity possibly affecting Basutoland boundaries was spotted by the Basuto National Council and rectified in time (Lesotho Government Archives, Maseru, S. 3/20/1/2 and 3).

42 C.O. 417/471/12442, Crewe to Selborne, telegram, 14 May 1909.

43 ibid. 8100, Selborne to Crewe, 15 Feb. 1909.

44 CAB 37/98/48, memorandum by Crewe, 25 Mar. 1909 on draft bill; CO. 417/472/377, Crewe to Selborne, 26 Mar. 1909, and minutes.

45 C.O. 417/488/20749, Herbert Gladstone to Hopwood, private, 20 June 1910; Herbert Gladstone Papers, B.M. Add. MSS 45996/63–5, 86, 153; 45997/85–7.

46 C.O. 417/455/44771, minutes 15 and 16 Dec. 1908. Selborne paid a visit to Basutoland in March 1909.

47 C.O. 417/465/4385, minute, 16 Feb. 1909.

48 ibid. 8082, Crewe, minute 15 Mar. 1909, and 8972, Crewe to Selborne, 30 Apr. 1909.

49 C.O. 417/468/3495.

50 C.O. 4I7/478/5596.

51 C.O. 417/468/21210 and 24270, Crewe to Sir Walter Hely-Hutchinson (governor of the Cape), 31 July and 6 Aug. 1909. Crewe had of course always regarded it as impossible to try to extend African ‘privileges’ (CO. 417/468/7096, minute, 12 Mar. 1909). In its final form, the Schedule provided for a commission of four, headed by the prime minister, appointed by the governor-general in council; the conditions of transfer were: (i) native land to be inalienable, (ii) sale of intoxicating liquor to be prohibited, (iii) territories to receive due share of Union customs dues, (iv) Basutoland National Council to be maintained, (v) legislation about the Schedule to be reserved to the crown for approval. For Basuto reaction to the terms see Proceedings of the National Council, 1910 (Lesotho Government Archives, S. 3/20/1/3).

52 C.O. 417/468/10717. Selborne to Crewe, 8 Mar. 1909.

53 Parl. Deb. 5th ser., House of Lords, vol. 2, c. 762–5, 27 July 1909, and 866–70, 3 Aug. (Crewe); House of Commons, vol. 9, c. 1946, 19 Aug. 1909 (Seely).

54 C.O. 417/459/29921, Selborne to Crewe, 27 July 1908.

55 Hancock and van der Poel, Selections from the Smuts Papers, n, 307, Merriman to Smuts, 6 Dec. 1906.

56 Confidential Print, Africa, no. 933.

57 C.O. 417/502/15689, Botha to high commissioner, 21 Apr. 1911.

58 Selections from the Smuts Papers, II, 442, Smuts to J. A. Hobson, 13 July 1908.

59 C.O. 417/484/38728, minute, 16 Jan. 1911; B.M. Add. MSS 46000/210, Harcourt to Herbert Gladstone, 20 Apr. 1913.

60 Asquith Papers, 9/94–5, Ripon to Asquith, 29 Dec. 1897.

61 B.M. Add. MSS 46007/174, Botha to Herbert Gladstone, 7 Nov. 1913.

62 See above, p. 98.

63 I wish to thank Professor N. Mansergh, Master of St John's College, Cambridge, Dr R. E. Robinson and Mr G. W. Martin for most helpful advice in the preparation of this paper. In a future paper I hope to trace the history of the transfer proposals, 1909–39.