ABSTRACT
Cathcart's lieutenant-governor, did not share their views; but the Derby Ministry thought it better to wait, and the question of the government of the Eastern Districts was another argument for postponement. Sir Harry Smith and Mr. Porter thought separation would be better than the removal of the seat of government suggested by Lord Grey: and Lord Grey was at any rate convinced by them, before he left office, that a question which so deeply divided both the colonists and their government ought not to be settled during the war.I Postponement was none the less necessary because Pakington inclined to favour separation: and perhaps the presence of Montagu in England was, as the Western District colonists suggested, another influence in favour of delay. Cathcart in September 1852, when the war was virtually over, urged that the constitution should be withheld no longer, and expressed opposition both to the removal of the seat of government and to separation; 2 and the Aberdeen Ministry acted upon his opinion. The Order in Council empowered the Governor to summon the first Assembly wherever he thought fit, and the question of separation was left to its decision. Responsible government was left to the future, and on the whole the policy of Grey and Russell, which had combined liberality of intention with caution of method, may be held to have been justified by events. The form of the constitution owed much, no doubt, to the liberal views of the Attorney-General of the Cape, but much also to the spirit in which Grey and his colleagues at home had set about their work; and the initiative had, after all, been theirs. Grey, it is true, had shown anxiety at times as to the consequences of entrusting to the Assembly the powers that were ultimately given, but his hesitation was due to no hostility to colonial self-government as such but to his appreciation of the responsibility of the Imperial Government for the welfare of the native races of South Africa.
