LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
MR. RHODES AND SOUTH AFRICA.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—In an interesting article in the Spectator of August 27th about a recent speech made by Mr. Rhodes in Cape Town, you
seem to treat as a matter of doubt whether he may not ulti- mately advocate a Republic in South Africa, and you certainly declare it to be a matter of indifference to yourself.
I am sure you will let me state that you do Mr. Rhodes what he would regard as a very grave injustice. If you will ask any one who has an intimate acquaintance with him, you will be told that the dominating principle of Mr. Rhodes's life is the consolidation of all portions of the British Empire under the British crown. The idea of any one Colony, or group of Colonies, declaring itself to be a Republic, would, you will find, be utterly abhorrent to him.
Indeed, for proof of this there is no need to go outside the very speech which was the subject of your article. In the ver- batim report, which is lying before me, I find the following sen- tences :—" Now, I would appeal to you, can you fancy anything more detrimental to the feelings of the inhabitants of the Cape Colony than that our flag and our desires should disappear?" And, " I would feel most intensely a declaration of a Union of South Africa which meant the disappearance of my flag, because, if I have one good sentiment, it is the love for the flag that I have been born under."
Let me add, Sir, that Mr. Rhodes's love of and pride in the British flag are common to the great body of our Colonists, and it is, on that account largely, though not solely, that I venture to deprecate very earnestly the tone which the Spectator habitually takes upon the question of the political status of the Colonies. I am perfectly convinced that this tone must cause regret and resentment, not merely to many home readers of the Spectator, but also to those thousands of Colonists who like to think that the Mother-country regards and values them as citizens of the Empire, no less than she does the people of Middlesex or of Midlothian. I do not forget the many eminent men who in days gone by have formed what was known as the " Manchester School ;" but I never knew that any of those politicians acquiesced in the loss of our Colonial Empire on any other ground than that it was inevitable, or that they regarded as a matter of pure indifference whether the loss was or was not inevitable. Within the last few years, public feeling has been rapidly changing, and it is widely believed— and I think, outside the Spectator office, universally hoped— that means may be found to resist the centrifugal forces con- stantly at work within the Empire. It is quite possible that these hopes and beliefs may be ill-founded ; but do they deserve to he condemned in advance P If any particular scheme for their realisation should, when produced, contain the elements of militarism, or be subversive of Free-trade doctrines, or in other ways be deserving of hostile criticism, then, surely, will be the moment for the Spectator to put its foot down. A consolidated British Empire might turn out to be the greatest engine for the spread of peace and commerce that the world has ever seen ; and even if this consolidation is as impracticable as the " Manchester School " thought, it can hardly be regarded otherwise than as a legitimate and noble ambition. Why, then, Sir, should you offend the patriotism and aspirations of your readers without, as it seems respect- fully to me, any sufficient reason P—I am, Sir. &c.,
FREDERIC MACKARNESS.
[Our correspondent is quite mistaken. We have never been indifferent to any relaxation of the real tie between England and her Colonies. But we have held, and do hold, that it was quite possible that in certain eventualities adhesion to the formal tie might involve the relaxation of the real tie, and that relaxation of the formal tie might be essential to the drawing closer of the real tie.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
