The 1853 constitution put a figure on respectability. Men whose property was worth £25 were within the limits, as were their families. The rest were not, and had no say in the government of the country. This was a formalisation, and thus a simplification, of the rules by which high politics was henceforth to operate.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the constitution. At the time it was just about the most democratic in the world. This might seem remarkable, given the racial tensions in South Africa at the time, until it is realised that it was created precisely to alleviate those tensions. Of course it had its faults, by modern measures. It was far from universal manhood suffrage, and women did not have the vote at all – not altogether surprisingly since no-one proposed this as a possibility. But it would be anachronistic in the extreme to blame the makers of the 1853 constitution for failing to be, at the least, forty years ahead of their time.

The criticisms which can, and should, be made of the constitution of 1853 refer not to its principles but rather to its implementation. It is usually commented that no ‘coloured’ or African men were ever elected to the Cape Parliament. How far this is true is a matter of definition. There were two MPs who received hereditary titles from the British crown.