¹ See in particular Trapido, Stanley, ‘White Conflict and Non-White Participation in the Politics of the Cape of Good Hope, 1853–1910’, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis (London, 1970).Google Scholar

² Lewsen, Phyllis, ‘The Cape Liberal Tradition—Myth or Reality?’, Race, XIII, I (07 1971), 66–80.Google Scholar

³ Davenport, T. R. H., The Afrikaner Bcmd 1880–1911 (Cape Town, 1966).Google Scholar

⁴ Garson, Noel G., ‘Party Politics and the Plural Society, 1910–29’ Collected Papers of the Seminar on the Societies of Southern Africa in the 19th and 20th Centuries, I (Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London, 1970), 133.Google Scholar

⁵ Trapido, S., ‘White Conflict and Non-White Participation’, op. cit.Google Scholar

⁶ Garson, N. G., ‘Party Politics’, 133.Google Scholar

⁷ Trapido, S., ‘White Conflict and Non-White Participation’, 159.Google Scholar

⁸ Thompson, L. M., The Unification of South Africa (Oxford, 1960).Google ScholarWalker, E. A., A History of South Africa (London, 1962).Google Scholar

⁹ Bundy, Cohn, ‘The Response of African Peasants in the Cape to Economic Changes 1870–1910: A Study of Growth and Decay’, Collected Seminar Papers, in (I.C.S., London, 1973).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Malan was constantly required to take over the business of government at moments of crisis—see ‘Autobiography of F. S. Malan’, unpublished, circa 1938. This is to be found in the ‘New’—i.e. recently discovered—Malan Papers in the Cape Town Archives. These Papers have now been placed with the original body of Malan Papers.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 27 May 1920, Merriman's speeches; 31 May 1923, Hertzog's speech.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid. 1 June for 31 May 1923.

¹³ This makes Hancock's argument that Smuts was responsible for the so-called ‘wave’ of ‘liberal’ legislation in the early 1920s highly dubious. (Hancock, W. K., Smuts Vol II:The Fields of Force [Cambridge, 1968], III).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Malan, F. S., ‘The Union of South Africa, 1910–1921’, in Cambridge History of the British Empire, VIII (Cambridge, 1936), 653.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Of course, such policies were also to the liking of the Chamber of Mines, as it wished to cut the costs of production by paying lower wages to African and Coloured workers than they did to whites. What are ‘liberal’ policies from one point of view, may be ‘capitalist exploitation’ rom another.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Outside parliament too, Smuts had not said a great deal on the subject. The Savoy House speech in 1917 can hardly be taken seriously as a policy statement. (Hancock, W. K., Smuts Vol I: The Sanguine Years [Cambridge, 1962], 318–19.)Google Scholar

¹⁷ Speech by Malan, F. S. on 1 Jan. 1908, quoted U.G. 54–1937, 224.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Garson, N., ‘Party Politics’ op. cit. 234,Google Scholar and Hancock, W. K. and van der Poel, J., Selections from the Smuts Papers, II (Cambridge, 1966), 488–99.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Malan, F. S., Konvensie Dagboek van F. S. Malan (Van Riebeeck Society, Cape Town, 1951), 32, 49–59.Google Scholar

²⁰ Hancock and v.d. Poel, Smuts Papers, II, 561.Google Scholar

²¹ Merriman had also expressed reservations about standing firm behind the Cape tradition. See, Lewsen, P., Selections from the Correspondence of J. X. Merriman, 1905–1924 (V.R.S., Cape Town, 1969), 236.Google Scholar

²² Davenport, Afrikaner Bond, 299, and Malan Papers, 1920.Google Scholar

²³ Hancock and v.d. Poel, Smuts Papers, II, 452.Google Scholar

²⁴ These changes were incorporated in Malan's Draft Constitution for the S.A.P. which was eventually adopted in 291. See Malan Papers, 1920.Google Scholar

²⁵ The Native Affairs Department was effectively under the control of F. S. Malan from 1923 until 1924, and during those years ‘the Cape tradition achieved prominence, although not without a struggle, at administrative headquarters in Pretoria’ (Hancock, W. K., Smuts, II, 90). Burton, Dower and Moffat, who were prominent Cape men, played a significant role in the Department until 1919, and when Smuts became Prime Minister he chose another Cape man, E. E. Barrett as Permanent Secretary of the Native Affairs Department. It was therefore easy for Malan to work with these men who shared his views and directed the formulation of policy.Google Scholar

²⁶ Garson, N. G., ‘Party Politics’, 130.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 13 Mar. 1917.Google Scholar

²⁹ Tatz, C. M., Shadow and Substance in South Africa (Pietermaritzburg, 1962), 32.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid. Davenport, however, disputes this point. Personal conversation.

³¹ Commission to Investigate and Report on the Native Land Question, U.G. 19–1916.Google Scholar

³² Tatz, Shadow and Substance, 28.Google Scholar

³³ (a) The clash between Malan and Hertzog on the Select Committee on Education nearly led to Hertzog's resignation (1912) (Malan, F. S., ‘Autobiography’).Google Scholar (b) The clash between Hull and Sauer which led to the resignation of Hull in 1912 (ibid.). (c) The government's eventual ejection of Hertzog after the de Wildt speech (1913).

³⁴ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 3 Apr. 1917. Burton, a Cape liberal who had been closely involved with native policy since Union, also praised the Bill as ‘a signal triumph for the Cape tradition’ and argued that it in no way abrogated the rights of Africans in the Cape.Google Scholar

³⁵ Trapido, S., ‘White Politics’, 206.Google Scholar

³⁶ Malan, F. S. to South African Native National Congress delegation, 12 Nov. 1918.Google Scholar See Malan Papers, 1922 and U.G. 41—1922.Google Scholar

³⁷ E.g.Google Scholar

³⁸ Hansard, 1914.Google Scholar

³⁹ E.g. the Transvaal Miners Assn.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Malan, F. S., ‘South Africa from 1910–1921’, Op. cit. 667.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Malan Papers, June 1913.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid.

⁴³ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 22 Sept. 1913, and Malan Papers, 1913.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 12 May 1914. F. S. Malan on the Colour Bar.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 25 Feb. 1922. ‘Colour-bar’ debate in parliament. This seems to indicate that there was no strict application of the earlier legislation.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This view was later confirmed by the judgment of Mr Justice Krause in Nov. 1923, in Rex vs Hildick Smith.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 4–5 July 1920.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ibid. 25 Feb. 1922.

⁴⁹ The Low Grade Mines Commission Report, 1920 (U.G. 34—1920).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See footnote 37 above.Google Scholar

⁵¹ The neglect of the rural areas and the need for an efficient system of consultation between the government and Africans was spotlighted by the disastrous misgovernment which resulted in the tragedies of Buihoek, 1921 (see Hancock, W. K., Smuts, II, 97–8, and U.G. 44—1921) and Bondelzwarts, 1922Google Scholar (Hancock, W. K., Smuts, II, 89–110). Even here there were meagre signs of change in the passing of the Orange Free State Native (Baralong) Land Relief Act, although this was vehemently opposed by Hertzog (Hansard, 7 Apr. 1924). Also see Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 19–21 June 1919 and U.G. 48–1919.Google Scholar

⁵² Mining and Industrial legislation between 1914 and 1914 for which Malan was responsible: (There were also numerous measures concerning miners phthisis regulations.)Google Scholar

⁵³ Though very little of Malan's industrial legislation came to apply to non-whites it is probable that this was due to forces outside his control (as he had intimated with regard to the ‘colour-bar’), rather than to his own intent, since none of the Acts included any reference to the ‘colour-bar’.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Malan's links with capitalist mining interests at this time offer an interesting parallel to his association with the ‘Kindergarten’ in the years prior to Union. (See Kallaway, P., ‘F. S. Malan, the Cape liberal tradition and the Politics of Union. 1900–1910’, unpublished typescript, 1973.)Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Malan was the first member of the Cabinet to address a labour convention, and in his speech he defended the new order of labour relations enshrined in the Treaty of Versailles. He also upheld ‘the necessity for the State to control industry, and to provide the machinery by which consultation between different parties can be brought about without violent upheaval or strike…’, Malan Papers, 1920.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Malan Papers, 1920, and U.G. 41—1922.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Hancock, W. K., Smuts, II, 66. Also the questions and speeches of Malan in parliament, 24 Feb. 1921.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ New Malan Papers, 1919. In particular, see the correspondence between Botha (in London) and Malan (as Acting Prime Minister) in July 1919, concerning the incorporation of Swaziland.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Malan Papers, 1922. Secret papers concerning the admittance of Rhodesia to the Union; terms of incorporation; correspondence with the B.S.A. Co. and the British Government. May-July 1922.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid. Papers concerning the Mozambique Convention. 52–53 June 1922.

⁶¹ Davenport, T. R. H., ‘The Passing of the South African Natives (Urban Areas) Act, 1923’, unpublished paper, I.C.S. London, 1967.Google Scholar

⁶² This Bill was published in the Government Gazette Extraordinary, 19 Jan. 1918, Government Notice No. 114 of 1918, xxxi, No. 863.Google Scholar

⁶³ Report of the Department of Native Affairs for the years 1913–1918, in U.G. 7—1919, 17.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ U.G. 48—1919.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ This was linked to a whole programme of slum clearance that was envisaged. It is interesting to note that this Bill was introduced two days before the end of the parliamentary sitting, perhaps an indication of the insecurity felt by the government even on such a relatively minor issue involving policy on race relations.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Second Report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs, June 1920. U.G. 34—1922.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 27 May 1920 for 26 May 1920. These remarks are all the more interesting in view of Smuts's volte face in 1923. (See below.)Google Scholar

⁶⁸ For a critique of this view see: Epstein, A. L., ‘Urbanization and Social Change in Africa’, Current Anthropology, viii, 4 10 1967.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ For a masterly study of the ideas which underlay the Phelps-Stokes ideology of ‘education for subservience’ which gained much currency at this time, see King, K. J., Pan-Africanism and Education (Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ The members were Senator A. W. Roberts, Dr C. T. Loram and Geni. L. A. S. Lemmer.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 27 May 1920.Google Scholar

⁷² (The Godley Commission), U.G. 41—1922.Google Scholar

⁷³ See footnote 37.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Report of F. S. Malan's interview with SANNC delegation—12 Nov. 1918. Malan Papers, 1918 and U.G. 41—1922.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Interview of the Transvaal Free Church Council with Hon. the Minister of Native Affairs, 12 Dec. 1918. Malan Papers, 1918.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Hancock, W. K. (Smuts, II, 118–19) has the role of the Bishop of Pretoria completely out of perspective when he gives him the sole credit for persuading Smuts to undertake a new approach to native policy.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ This is well summarized in Davenport, ‘The passing of the… Urban Areas Act’, Op. Cit.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ The Report of the Native Affairs Commission, Chapter III, ‘The Native in Town’, U.G. 15—1922.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ U.G. 36—1923.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 5 July 1922.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ibid. May 1923.

⁸² Ibid. 7 Feb. 1923.

⁸³ Select Committee 3—1923, 17.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Cape Times Parliamentary Debates, 8 Feb. 1923.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Select Committee 3—1923, 17.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ The SANNC deputation interviewed by Smuts (as Prime Minister) on 1 June 1923, in the presence of Sir W. Stanford and Col. Godley, comprised T. J. Gumede, R. V. Selope Thema, F. Mapetla and others. (See Davenport, ‘The passing of the… Urban Areas Act’, op. cit.).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Trapido, S., ‘White conflict and Non-White Participation’ op. cit. 206.Google Scholar