§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £169,810, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid and other Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement."—[NOTE.—£475,000 7 has been voted on account.]
Sir J. D. REESI crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, in order to call attention to the affairs of a distant and deserving colony, namely, Nyasaland. I do not really wish to reduce the salary which my hon. and gallant Friend so well earns, and I am sorry to trouble him at this time, when he is suffering. The Governor of Nyasaland in his recent address to his Council referred to the necessity for extra taxation for various projects, including railways. If this extra taxation be required for the purpose of railway extension to Lake Nyasa from the centre of Nyasaland, it would be far more patiently borne by those who have to pay it if the railway took a route which was acceptable to commercial opinion in the colony. My hon. and gallant Friend and his advisers have decided upon a route which, rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly, commercial opinion in the colony condemns. It must be obvious, if new taxes, including taxes upon exports of raw material, are to be imposed, that they would be far more readily accepted if the line took the route which runs to the west, instead of the route adopted which runs to the east, but in imposing export duties on raw produce from Nyasaland for this and other purposes, I cannot help thinking that the colonial authorities have practically adopted a rather new policy. As a matter of fact, at a time like the present, one of the chief 892 exports of Nyasaland, namely, cotton, is in the utmost demand for the purpose of carrying on that industry in this country, which comes only second to agriculture. Therefore, it is a matter of no little importance. If my hon. and gallant Friend tells me that there is a precedent for this impost in the tax recently imposed upon the export of cotton from Egypt, I would recall the fact that that was done in view of the existence of something like famine in a part of Egypt, whereas, happily, those calamitous circumstances are absent in Nyasaland.
My hon. and gallant Friend will be already well posted in the matter, because he has courteously and kindly attended to representations that I have made to him outside this House, but I want him to ask the Governor of Nyassaland to give proof of his desire, and to give effect to the desire of the Colonial Office, that the growth and export of cotton should increase, by granting land to those who want it for cotton cultivation upon easy and convenient terms. The Governor has only been prepared to give land to those who own a great deal of that which is not suitable for cotton cultivation upon the exchange of one acre for two acres. The Government have control of most of the land that is suitable for cotton cultivation, and I ask my hon. and gallant Friend, in the first place, to do that which I am sure he will do, because he has always been exceedingly obliging and kind: I ask him to ask the Governor to revise his outlook in this respect and to show the utmost alacrity, anxiety, and earnestness to meet those who are prepared to find the capital for the production of this all-important raw material, instead, I will not say of making difficulties, but regarding as insuperable difficulties which we who are interested in this matter think are by no means insuperable.
Among the export duties to which I have referred is one imposed upon tobacco. At the present moment, when an extra tax is to be put upon Havana cigars, it becomes more than ever desirable—it was always desirable—that British grown tobacco should be encouraged in every possible way. Here we have a famous product of Nyassaland, excellent tobacco smoked by our sailors, who are, I believe, the best possible judges of tobacco—you never see them without pipes in their mouths, and they 893 like Nyassaland tobacco—and here is an opportunity for developing a British grown product, and yet at a time like this along comes an export duty of two pence upon it. I will not trouble my hon. and gallant Friend with all the technicalities with which I might bombard him again as regards brights and darks, but for various reasons connected with the growth of tobacco, and the varying quantities of different qualities which are produced, the rebate given to Colonial grown tobacco is perfectly useless in the case of Nyasaland. It is only operative in regard to a very small fraction of the output, and I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to remember that fact. I ask him also to remember that the companies doing business in Nyasaland are paying 6s. 6d. Income Tax and are going to pay 60 per cent. Excess Profits Duty and this tax. The question is whether anything will be left when they have paid everything demanded from them. At any rate, if the Secretary of State intended to sanction, as he has sanctioned, a new impost of this character, I should have thought that warning would have been desirable, so that those concerned might have made arrangements to cut their coat according to the cloth.
There is the fact also that this tobacco, notoriously, is held up for months together. At this moment there are vast quantities of unsold tobacco in this country. It has been around the coast seeking some place at which it might be landed. It has subsequently when finally landed remained unsold because under the present conditions of the market it will not sell. Therefore I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend, not only that warning should have been given, but that if this tax is to be imposed it should not be paid until the money is realised by the sale of the raw products. Transport expenses are exceedingly high, almost prohibitive, when you "deal with products from the heart of Central Africa. That is another objection. I will also point out that no tax should be levied which will favour the native grower as against the British grower, or favour the British grower against the native grower. I do not quite understand why the native of Nyasaland should be called upon to pay a tax of this sort on tobacco which he grows on his own land and in his. own country. I ask the hon. and 894 gallant Gentleman also to remember that the crop for 1920 is a very bad one, and that the Chamber of Commerce and commercial opinion generally are bitterly opposed to the impost. For myself, I would reserve even greater condemnation for the tax on the production of cotton, because at the present time we are crying out for cotton in the United Kingdom.
Next, I come to an ordinance, lately published, to which very serious objection is taken. That is the Native Foodstuffs Ordinance. Under the Native Foodstuffs Ordinance of 1912, the Government had power to prohibit export in times of scarcity. Why now is it necessary to take power to control the crop for the purpose of public improvements or for any purposes affecting the public interest? I am very glad that there are certain projects for developing Nyasaland and Central Africa by means of railways, and that these projects are well on the way to completion; but in regard to this arbitrary interference with the growth and sale and the price of foodstuffs in time of peace, I do not understand why it should be necessary, for the purpose of remunerating labour, which I presume it is, for the construction of those railways. I am most anxious that the railway should be constructed. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether it really is on that account that this new and drastic interference with trade is contemplated? Is the Government to fix a price for maize, for instance? It is the staple of the country. Why not leave this matter to be settled, since famine happily does not prevail, by the ordinary laws of supply and demand, to which I wish with all my heart we could get back in this country as a remedy for all the economic difficulties from which we suffer? Why should not the native sell his maize at his own price? I am not one of those who think, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), that while the Englishman at home will not harm a fly the Englishman abroad will always kill a native. I think our government in that country has been an enormous advantage to the natives. It has increased their wages—not doubled them but quintupled them. Though I am far, indeed, from having any sympathy with bodies like the Aborigines Protection Society, who are always protecting in ignorance those who have sufficient knowledge to protect themselves, nevertheless I think it is desirable that in regard to the growing and selling of agricultural products, those who own 895 them and grow them should sell them and settle the price for themselves.
It should be remembered that the expenses of production in Nyasaland have risen by 300 per cent. or 400 per cent., and that the European planters, and others who have invested money there, find it extremely difficult to reap the profits which it might be assumed would be easily reaped in a country where labour is still cheap, compared with what it is in this country. If the Government at home are preaching on all occasions, as they rightly are, that what we want is production, production and production, let my hon. Friend be very careful not to interfere with the production of our subsidiary possessions by putting a tax on the export of raw materials. I submit, further, that this new policy is extremely harmful to the settlement of soldiers upon the land—a most desirable measure from the point of view of the development of our colonies, and desirable in the interests of the gallant soldiers themselves. The Governor of Nyasaland has said that in order to balance his Budget, or in order, rather, to provide resources, he wanted £97,000. I do not quite know why he wants so much, because he apparently had a surplus of £100,000 last year. Why was it necessary to impose these extra taxes, and to impose them straight away before there was time for anyone who represented the other side to put forward the interests of the European planters and the native planters, and the interests of capital and labour?
I come now to deal with another country, Ceylon, of which agriculture is the father and mother. The Governor of Ceylon is in this country now to confer with the Colonial Office regarding the framing of a new and more popular constitution for Ceylon. I have heard questions asked in the House expressing the hope that the details of this new constitution will be submitted to the House for consideration before they are finally passed. I certainly hope nothing of the sort will be done. I think it would be enough if my hon. Friend takes an opportunity of telling the House the main features of the measure, and if those who are unacquainted with Ceylon, which I think includes almost everyone in this House, will refrain from criticisms which are mischievous and really get in the way of those who are as anxious to liberalise, in 896 a reasonable manner, the constitution of Ceylon as any hon. Gentleman whose zeal for reform so far outruns his discretion as to impel him to criticise that of which he has no sort of understanding. The Governor of Ceylon, Sir William Manning, is a very distinguished officer. Hon. Members will remember how all of us here approved his discreet and capable action when in charge of Somaliland. He was Governor there, and went to Nyasaland, where he was also most successful. From there he went to Jamaica, where again he succeeded, and where, if I may say so, his successor has not been nearly so successful—so much so that I think my hon. Friend would not lose time in considering that question. We have in Sir William Manning an extremely capable man, who has shown himself, throughout a distinguished career, most capable of dealing with the natives of countries other than his own. He has always proved a most successful administrator, and I earnestly hope that the zeal for reform, which so frequently outruns discretion, will not interfere with the settlement and the liberalisation of the Ceylon constitution.
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLI wish to deal with a subject affecting a colony very close to that which has been referred to by the hon. Baronet who has just spoken. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary is suffering from a temporary disability, and I extend to him my sympathy. The Committee are aware, I think, that the Government decided recently to change the currency system in the East African Protectorate, in Uganda, and in the country now known as the Tanganyika Territory. The Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper I have tabled with no desire to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but merely because I am anxious to have an opportunity of ventilating what I feel to be the real prejudice being suffered by the Protectorate of East Africa and Uganda. The decision of the Government is to substitute for a rupee, which had a legal value of 1s. 4d., a florin of 2s. At the same time it has been decided, as the Under-Secretary informed me in answer to a question, that for the repayment of debts and contracts which were incurred in rupees, the new florin is to rank as the rupee. This decision has been received with amazement and consternation by the leading planters, settlers and 897 producers in East Africa, and I confess I share that amazement. It appears to me to be both unjust and arbitrary. It is unjust because it increases the indebtedness of every producer by 50 per cent., and inflicts permanent injury, as I think, upon their future financial prospects. It is arbitrary because it seems to me to follow no fixed principle, and it is certainly opposed to reason. I am animated in this question mainly by anxiety to say what I can in the interests of the ex-soldier settlers who have been induced to proceed to East Africa by means of what, in effect, though not, I am sure, in intention, for I make no charge against the Under-Secretary or his Department, amounts to misrepresentation on the part of the Government. Nor can I forget the pre-War settlers who sprang to arms, when war came, in the cause of liberty, and confided their all to the care of justice. It is in their interest, too, that I speak and also in that of the indigenous native. I desire also to refer to the production of raw material and the necessity of doing everything we can to foster it in these territories.
The history of the currency question in East Africa is but brief. The existing system drifted in. It was born in a fit of absence of mind. Like Topsy, it "growed." Originally there was a system of barter, though you found all manner of different coins in use on the coast of East Africa. Gradually, with the opening of the Uganda Railway, the Indian rupee came more and more into the country, and when the Indian troops were there they came to be paid in rupees, and it became increasingly a matter of convenience to use the Indian rupee in East Africa. An Order in Council of 1898 made the silver rupee of British India the standard coin of the East African Protectorate. There was no special virtue in that rupee, it was merely a matter of convenience. The natives had no special love for it. An hon. Member of this House tells me that 20 years ago the natives used to refuse the silver rupee and preferred to be paid in the copper coinage of the country. Obviously it was not to the interest of the settlers to have the rupee. They sold their goods in a sterling market and they were continually arguing that sterling coinage should be introduced into the country, but those representations were disregarded. The next step was in 1905 when, following the 898 example of the Government of India, an Order in Council made the sovereign legal tender in the East African Protectorate at rupees 15 to the sovereign. It has been supposed that the intention of the Order in Council was to tie the rupee to the pound sterling, of which the sovereign was then the representative and to place the rupee on a gold or sterling basis which were then identical. The gold sovereign was an extremely convenient standard to adopt. It was an ideal monetary unit, uniform in time and place, and by linking up the fickle rupee to the gold sovereign you would have far greater uniformity than you could otherwise obtain.
§ Sir F. BANBURYBut you cannot get a sovereign anywhere.
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLI am talking of 1905. The value of the rupee tended in those days downwards. But the rupee at 1s. 4d. retained its value by being linked up with the gold sovereign. I have the best authority for believing that in point of fact those who framed the 1905 Order in Council were not considering these questions at all, but were merely considering the question of convenience, and, as in the case of their predecessors, drifting once more in their policy. I am not criticising the Under-Secretary's Department or those who framed the Order. They had no considerations in regard to the rupee except of convenience. What they were out to do, I understand, was by linking the rupee with the sovereign to get a convenient currency both of higher as well as lower amounts. Since 1905, and until the rupee began to go up in the course of the War, every contract in East Africa has been made on the basis of 15 rupees to the sovereign, or, what was the same thing, to the pound sterling. That was the law enforced by the courts. Every debt, purchase of land, loan, sale, payment, in fact every industrial financial or commercial transaction has been made in the confidence that 15 rupees went to the pound sterling. I may add that every settler, though he did his business in rupees, thought in sterling. The Government itself to this day keeps all its accounts and frames its Estimates, its Budget, and brings in its Finance Bills, and transacts all its financial business in that unit of value, the pound sterling. To-day I noticed in the papers that came from 899 East Africa last week, advertisements of the sale of land in sterling, and thex East African Currency Board presents its monthly statement in sterling, and all the salaries of the officials whose contracts were made in sterling, are paid in rupees, 15 to the pound. So that whatever was the intention in 1905, in effect the currency law of that date established a gold or sterling standard on the basis of 15 rupees to the pound sterling or 1s. 4d. to the rupee.
It is within the common knowledge of the Committee that during the War the price of silver rose owing to disturbances in Mexico and other causes. I think it should have been possible, and I do not say this in any spirit of criticism, to have forseen what was certain to happen. The rupee had a token value of 10d. before the War, and as silver appreciated tended to approach the exchange value of 1s. 4d. It was apparent that the time would come when the metallic value of the rupee would exceed the token value and pass the limit of 1s. 4d. In August, 1917, the rupee was quoted for the first time at a price of 1s. 5d. The reason was that you had withdrawn the gold sovereign and you did not do what you did in this country, namely, circulate a Treasury Note as the equivalent. I think that should have been done. At any rate, the result was that the rupee rose to 1s. 5d. When it arose to 1s. 5d. some immediate action was necessary in order to maintain the existing ratio to the pound sterling at 1s. 4d. When a similar difficulty arose in the United Kingdom the ratio of the shilling to the pound was not altered, but a new coinage was sanctioned, and the pound note was introduced, measures which had the effect of stabilising the shilling. The remedy in East Africa was, as I think, equally obvious, and the Government ought in 1917 to have replaced the rupee by a new token of less fineness and made a Treasury pound note legal tender at the fixed ratio of 1s. 4d., or 15 rupees to the pound sterling. I must here pause to say that this failure of the Government in 1917 to take that action, with the necessary subsidiary steps in regard to melting coins, and so forth, is the sole and entire cause of all the trouble that has since arisen. Could we have taken similar action there as in this country, the difficulties of which the settlers in 900 East Africa are to-day complaining would not have existed. The disastrous consequences have arisen, therefore, as I think, from a failure to act. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but she is too often herself the child of procrastination, and in this case the necessity in which the settlers in East Africa find themselves is due to that cause.
The policy of settling ex-soldiers in East Africa was under consideration for the first time in 1916, and a memorandum was then prepared asking for the amount of land available, the amount of capital required to purchase, equip and develop estates, and also showing the probable return on capital and the necessary amount that must be expended by the Government in development of roads, harbours, etc. In April, 1918, the rupee had risen to eighteenpence, and the East African Government were duly warned by the managers of a bank which operates in East Africa of the very serious consequences which would result, because I need not tell the Committee that the whole of these calculations in regard to capital required were vitiated as the rupee rose. In May, 1919, the Convention of Associations, which is a sort of miniature parliament of trade and commerce in East Africa, pressed very strongly upon the Government the desperate position in which producers would find themselves if nothing was done, but all that time nothing was done, though the Government still proceeded with their settlement scheme. Lands were offered at a price calculated on a sterling basis, but expressed in rupees at the old rate of fifteen to the pound. Lectures were given to these ex-soldiers explaining the conditions in East Africa, and, I understand, on an assurance received from the Under-Secretary himself, they were assured that steps were being taken to recover the control of the currency, and applicants were advised when the rupee stood at 1s. 8d. not to remit their capital at that price, but to wait until something was done to re-establish control over the rupee.
So matters went on during 1919, but in August of that year the rupee rose to 1s. 10d., and then my hon. and gallant Friend wrote, "We are fully alive to the critical position created by the further rise in the rupee to 1s. 10d., but we cannot move until the Governor replies"— 901 I understand to certain representations that had been made. When the rupee was at 1s. 10d. the Colonial Office were writing, therefore, that they were fully alive to the critical position created by that rise, and were presumably anxious to do away with the consequences of inaction. In the end of 1919 the rupee rose to 2s., and a scheme on the lines that I have suggested was pressed on the Colonial Office. I am not sure of this, but I believe my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary himself was at that date rather favourably disposed towards that proposal. At any rate, it was approved by the Convention of Associations, and, I believe, by the Governor of East Africa, and I am not sure, but I think by the Governor of the neighbouring protectorate. In November, 1919, the Under-Secretary himself saw a deputation and gave hope of early relief, and by so doing—I do not know whether he gave any promise, and I do not wish to misrepresent him—but by the hopes he aroused he actually deterred the soldier settlers from remitting further funds at the rate of 2s. It is at that time, November, 1919, that a sudden change seemed to come over the scene, and other interests seem to have intervened. I do not know what those interests are. I have heard them described as the Hidden Hand, but I am not sure exactly what they are. At any rate, the Colonial Office, which then apparently had the intention of stabilising the rupee at 1s. 4d., hesitated and were lost. The rupee, on the other hand, did not hesitate but promptly went up to 2s. 4d.
Since then events have moved fast. The Government of India have taken certain steps, which I do not think I need go into, but as a result of those steps the value of the rupee rushed up to 2s. 9½d., I think. The purchasing power of the rupee in East Africa had not increased, and the effect of the rupee at 2s. 9d. was that the local cost of production in East Africa was raised by 100 per cent. That was a situation which I am advised spelt almost immediate ruin to the producer, on whose prosperity obviously depends the prosperity of the whole community. There were two courses then open to the Government—and I am now talking of very recent history. Either they might have followed the example of the Government of India and frankly adopted a gold standard, or they might have followed 902 wholly the example of Great Britain which, as I have said, already was adopting a new token of less fineness, which they did, and making the pound sterling in the form of Treasury notes legal tender, which they also did, but also, as I think, they might have followed this country still further and retained the legal relation between the token subsidiary coinage and the pound sterling on the pre-war basis. The Government accepted neither alternative. They followed Great Britain as regards the new token and the Treasury notes, but they have altered the legal relation between the token silver and the pound sterling from 15 rupees to the pound sterling to 10 rupees to the pound sterling. I cannot believe that the full effects of that action have really been thought out to the last. Two out of the three measures lately taken might have been taken at any time in the past four years, but to ease the difficult situation which has arisen, due to neglect to take the action they might have taken, they have now substituted the 2s. florin for the 1s. 4d. rupee in every relation of commerce and industry, with the disastrous results to the producer which I have indicated.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§
I should like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend what caused him at that time to shift his ground, and what justification there is for putting the soldier settler in East Africa in a worse position than, for example, the smallholder in this country. In East Africa the effect on the soldier settler is to add this permanent 50 per cent, on his cost of production and to increase the debtor's burden by the same, whilst we all know in this country precisely the opposite policy has been adopted of easing the burden as far as possible on the debtor interest. I would like to give one or two practical examples of the effect of this policy in East Africa. An officer friend of mine was under agreement to invest a fixed sum, stated in rupees, of which a balance of some 30,000 rupees remained to be paid. The money was urgently required, and at the old exchange it should have cost him £2,000. At the time he remitted, which was on St. Valentine's Day, it cost him over £3,500, a very large increase indeed, due, as I say, solely to the Government not taking the action which has now been taken at an earlier date. He did not regard that, I need hardly say, as a very pleasant Valentine.
903
I have details of a company engaged in East Africa which is paying annually in exchange, due solely to the extra cost of the rupee, no less than 10 per cent. on its issued capital. Then in the neighbouring colony of Uganda they complain with equal bitterness. I have extracts from a Report of the Uganda Development Commission—a Commission which consisted partly of commercial people and partly of Government officials. I will quote from a report printed as late as March 20. They say:
We are constrained to emphasise the fact that existing industries are gravely threatened by the present rate of exchange. The planting industry, a valuable asset both to the Empire and the Protectorate, is in existing circumstances unlikely to continue and may possibly have to be abandoned. … Furthermore, it cannot be expected that capital, sorely needed, will be attracted to the country while the loss on exchange is some 40 per cent. We urge, therefore, that the matter should be dealt with at the earliest possible date, as the situation constitutes a menace to the country's future.
That, on the authority of officials and producers in a neighbouring country, shows clearly that they have identical interests and identical opinions upon this. I should like to ask the Committee to consider what are the interests of those whose indebtedness has been increasd by 50 per cent. They are first of all the pre-War settlers. These men, as I have said, came to arms when called. They left their farms to deteriorate, their credit naturally in their business is strained and their debts naturally increased through war service, and the only war bonus they get from my hon. Friend is this increase of their indebtedness by 50 per cent. Then there are the ex-service settlers. Their capital has been depleted through this failure to act on the part of the Government. Their cost of production has increased and their profits, calculated on the old basis of the 1s. 4d. rupee, are of course at the present rate wholly illusory. Their position seems quite hopeless. Those men were granted land as a reward for military service, and the only return is that their productive efficiency, through the currency system adopted by the Government, has been affected to an extent which is really equivalent to a permanent disability of 50 per cent. I have heard it stated that there is a suggestion of reducing the rent of the farms, but that is
904
surely only a palliative. The ex-soldier settler in the end will pay a little less for what must be eventual ruin. The interest of the indigenous native is identical. It depends on the prosperity of the farmer.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIt depends on his wage being a good wage instead of a bad wage.
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLIt depends on production and the prosperity of the settler, and as an independent producer he is concerned with sterling prices just as the white man is. There are other interests which might be mentioned. There are the missionary societies and their funds raised in this country. But the other interest I want to mention, which is really the important one, is the interest of the Government itself. I think the Government is committed to a policy of railroad, harbour and road construction. Loans must be raised, and they must be raised in sterling. The expenditure on those loans must necessarily be more than half local, and it is easy to see that if the amount of the loan is £6,000,000, £1,000,000 can be very easily lost in exchange. Those are the debtor interests, on whom this burden is to be put permanently. What are the creditor interests on the other side? I suppose the banks; but surely far-sighted policy must realise that their real interest is in developing the resources of the country. There is another class—the Indian residents—a very small number of people, I believe, but who have in their hands a great deal of the wholesale and retail trade of the country. I am told they have done extremely well out of the War. I understand they have made large fortunes out of the War, and that when the white man went to the front, and when the indigenous native, in large numbers, was recruited and fought for the Empire of which he forms part, the members of this small coterie of Indians made no contribution at all in personal service to the needs of the Empire.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe Indians fought very well.
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLI am talking of those in East Africa, and certainly not of those in India. My observations are wholly directed to East Africa. 905 I am speaking now in regard to a very small number of persons domiciled in East Africa whose interests are in East Africa, where they are bagmen, and who will return to India as soon as they have made a sufficiency out of the country. The last interest is that of the money-lenders in India. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend wants me to elaborate that. I suppose the money-lending interest in India needs justice, but I do not think it is a very important interest that deserves much consideration. The proposal I make is that these interests, such as they are, can be compensated, and ought to be compensated, and, though it is not my province, I would indicate a means by which they could be compensated. I will take for granted the value of this production to the Empire. They grow cotton and could grow more. It is a country six times the size of Great Britain. The fertility of its soil is wonderful. It has every variety of climate, a satisfactory rainfall, and is capable of development. It grows already wheat, cotton, sugar, flax and fibre of very great importance to this country, because of the binder twine. Of the 18,000 tons used in this country in 1918, 10,000 tons, I believe, was derived from East Africa.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWe paid a very good price for it, too—three times as much as before the War.
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLAll that is needed is capital, enterprise and a fair chance for these settlers. What is the remedy? I think, myself, that it is possible in the case of every estimate and every contract which was made on the basis of the 1s. 4d. rupee, to go back to that basis. It is the Government's inaction that has created the position which is disastrous to the producers' interests, and which is temporarily only advantageous to the trading and the banking interests. Half the cost of this Government inaction has been saddled on the producers for all time, and they have, by their decision, endowed the other interests with half the unearned increment due to the appreciation of the rupee. I cordially applaud the steps which the Government has already taken in the issue of the £1 note and the new currency. That is all to the good, though belated, and I do submit that, as a simple act of justice, the position of the rupee should be restored to the status quo—15 to the £ sterling—from which it should never have been 906 allowed to move. The funds for compensating the creditor interests which would in any way suffer through the rupee reverting to the 1s. 4d. value—and the period of time for which this would happen would be very short compared with the period of time during which the debtor interest has already been suffering—can be found very easily. If you turn to the currency note reserve you will find that there is a deficit of £240,000, and, calculated on the 1s. 4d. basis, there will be a surplus of £42,000. That would be available for distribution. Then there is the profit on the redemption of the rupee stock. In the same return I notice there are 250,000 rupees in reserve. Redeemed at 1s. 4d. you have a very large sum involved there. I have mentioned already the Loan expenditure on works. You could probably make an effective saving of at least £500,000.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODOn wages?
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLI have information that there has been no effect at all in the way my hon. and gallant Friend indicates. Wages have not been altered to the detriment of these people through any action that has been taken in bringing the rupee from the 2s. 9d. level to the 2s. level, and it certainly cannot be anticipated that any detriment would result from bringing it back still further. There is the question of State expenditure. There would be a saving there of at least £300,000 a year, I gather, and that, capitalised at 6 per cent., would amount to a very large sum. All this together would provide a compensation fund greatly in excess of any claims that would be submitted against it, especially if any action of the Government, if it adopted the advice that I venture to give, brought the rupee back to its permanent level before the War of 1s. 4d. The compensation fund would be ample. Presuming, however, that it was not ample, surely since the matter affects the whole community, and since some have gained and some have lost, you ought not to put the whole burden upon the ex-soldier and the settler of the pre-War time, or the debtor interest; surely you could do as in this country, reduce the burden on the debtor interest by spreading the whole cost over the whole community. I venture, therefore, to 907 suggest that a funded loan could be raised and charged upon the whole community to provide any further sums required, though I do not admit these would be required. There is also the cost of production which would result, and would permit the payment of interest, and an ample sinking fund. I venture, however, to think that the action I have suggested would relieve the producing class of East Africa of this incubus, which, solely through the inaction of His Majesty's Government, has been placed upon their shoulders. You would relieve them of it, and they would, in the future, be able to develop this great territory which, to the best of their ability, they are endeavouring to do.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery)In view of the very technical character of the points raised in the two speeches to which we have just listened, it will possibly be considered for the convenience of the House if I answer them now, and for the general course of discussion to proceed to which I can give an answer later. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) raised one or two interesting points in connection with the position in Nyasaland. His main point, I think, being his objection to the export duty which has been imposed on tobacco, cotton, and tea. He says, very rightly, that it is our policy to encourage the growth of these articles in the British Dominions. At the same time I may say that the particular revenue position in Nyasaland made it obligatory—if we were not to be financed by the British taxpayer—for us to make both ends meet. Unless we were prepared to introduce the very elaborate machinery of an Income Tax which my hon. Friend would have had to pay in addition to the Income Tax here, of which he justly complains, it was essential to find some simple and easily levied tax. Under present conditions there is no easier, simpler, and more justifiable tax than a relatively low export tax. We have export taxes upon tin and rubber in the Straits Settlements, on cotton in Uganda, on cocoa, palm kernels, palm oils, in fact on a very large range of subjects in West Africa. These duties are found very convenient for the purposes of revenue. I think under existing circumstances they are not 908 duties which hamper or restrict the producer. My hon. Friend complained about the 2d. duty on tobacco. I may say in regard to this that 50 per cent. is remitted to the small producers. My hon. Friend said this entirely does away with the advantage of preference. I would remind him that the preference to this kind of tobacco in the British market is 17d. a lb., and that with the payment of the 2d. duty, there is still a preference of 1s. 3d. over the foreign producer. Over and above that, Nyasaland is on the sterling basis, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend has just contended, introduces a further substantial preference against America and other countries in respect of the exchange. I hope it may not be necessary to continue these duties for very long. If there should be a heavy fall in the price of tobacco, or if it was made clear that this duty was actually having the effect of stopping production in Nyasaland, we should certainly be prepared to reconsider the matter. At the same time, we consider it, at this moment, an essential step in order to balance the revenue, and to carry on the ordinary work of government, which is, after all, in the interests of the grower of tobacco and cotton, as those of anyone else. My hon. Friend said that those concerned ought to have received due warning. He is an old Member of this House, and he knows that the last thing any Chancellor of the Exchequer does is to warn his victims of what he proposes to put upon them.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the effect of certain Regulations which appear, I gather, recently to have been imposed by the Governor of Nyasaland in connection with food production. I have no information whether this food control is connected in any way with the future programme of public works, nor do I know whether it has in view the fact that an excessive growing of tobacco and cotton might result in the danger of a shortage of food. I cannot say, but I shall certainly make inquiries. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I deal in the same manner with the points he raised in regard to the action of the Government in the matter of exchanging cotton land for other land in the possession of existing holders. I really cannot say whether, or how far, any given acre of good cotton land should 909 be exchanged for two acres of other land. Whether or not this is a reasonable offer depends upon what the land exchanged is, and what the exact conditions and circumstances are. But I say again, as in the matter of the food regulations, I shall certainly inquire.
I come now to the very much larger and much more controversial issue raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Brigadier-General Cockerill). I refer to the question of the currency. This is one of those very difficult abstract subjects which often generate more heat than light. I should certainly say, whatever may have been said outside—I have seen circulars in which I have been charged with every conceivable crime in this connection—;my hon. and gallant Friend has treated the matter with fairness and moderation. I wish that we had had a single permanent stable exchange for the whole Empire. I am sure such a thing would be an immense help to Imperial trade. It would constitute a very valuable and absolutely unobjectionable form of Imperial preference. It would stimulate investment and trade throughout the Empire, and it would give to our Imperial trade a stability which foreign trade does not possess. At the same time we have to recognise the actual facts of the situation. There is not to-day, and there has not been in the past, a single Imperial currency or exchange system.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSBefore passing from that point, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any intention of investigating the possibilities of uniform exchange throughout the Empire?
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYPersonally I am prepared to investigate the subject with the greatest interest, and I hope it may be possible to secure such a growth of interest in this question throughout the Empire as may in the end lead to practical results. To proceed. Of course the incoherence of our exchanges in the Empire has had most serious effects. The rise of the Indian rupee has not only affected East Africa, but has affected almost every one of our colonies in that part of the world. The action of the Indian Government—whether right or wrong it is not my affair to say—undoubtedly has affected conditions in Ceylon and other colonies, such as Mauritius, which are on a rupee basis. In colonies on a sterling basis, like 910 the Straits Settlements, it has enormously increased the cost of living to the Indian natives in those colonies, as well as the cost of all goods brought from India. In Somaliland alone the increased cost due to the rise in the Indian rupee will, J believe, add something like £80,000 to the grant-in-aid. I mention these facts not by way of blame but to show some of the disadvantages of the incoherence of the system of exchange in the Empire. But now to come to the narrower issue of my hon. and gallant Friend as to the action of the Colonial Office. It is suggested in this respect as being contrary to law, that by law the East African currency was established on a gold or sterling basis—he used both terms as synonymous, which I am afraid they are not—
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLIdentical.
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYPerhaps, in the past, but not legally synonymous. As a matter of fact, the legal unit of value, the statutory unit of account in East Africa has always been the Indian rupee. In 1905 there was introduced a subsidiary nickel coinage for lower, and a paper currency for higher denominations, and it was also at the last moment decided to make the sovereign—not £l sterling—legal tender for 15 rupees. This was considered convenient in view of the large number of South African settlers and traders in the country. It was not done with the intention of fixing the Indian rupee. The rupee was undoubtedly fixed in India by the use of the sovereign as legal tender for 15 rupees, but so far as East Africa was concerned, it was not adopted for that reason. In any case, the legal basis of the currency and the statutory unit of account remained the rupee. It is perfectly true that for convenience the normal sterling equivalent has usually been given in Government publications alongside of the rupee. But my hon. and gallant Friend was not quite right in saying that the accounts were made up in sterling. They are always. made up in rupees, though the published estimates are given in the normal sterling equivalent of 15 rupees to the £l, which, I admit the point for what it is worth, shows that the departmental machinery of East Africa has gone on treating as purely temporary and transitory the changes in relative values which have actually taken place. The position of 911 the rupee in East Africa was, in fact, much the same as that of the £1 sterling here—which I might remind the Committee was also originally a silver unit, and only comparatively recently linked up to gold. Both were convertible into gold at a fixed rate, but in each case circumstances connected with the War made the maintenance of that convertibility impossible. But while sterling depreciated here, the rupee appreciated owing to the rise in value of its silver content. That difference, however, does not affect the legal position, and just as it is really impossible for a man here to claim that he shall be paid his debts in golden sovereigns to-day, or in rupees, at the old parity, so no man has any legal complaint in East Africa if he has to pay in rupees and cannot pay in British sterling.
You may say that in East Africa it is the creditor who gains. But a great deal of the business in East Africa, whether done by Indian or European merchants, is done by money borrowed in India which has to be repaid to India, and it would not be fair to force them to accept a very much lower sum in repayment to that which they themselves contemplated. You cannot disentangle the debtor and creditor's interest in this way, and you must not involve the whole currency system of a country in complete chaos.
As far as the legal situation goes, the position in East Africa was the same as in India, and by far the easiest course for the Colonial Office to have adopted would have been to have left things alone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and followed in India's wake. I notice that some hon. Members approve of that, but I felt that it was not the right thing to leave it alone. I did think that the depreciation of the rupee involved considerable hardship upon the producers of that country, and I have done the very best I could and I have gone to the furthest length which I conceived was practicable to help those people.
There are two things I wanted to secure. First of all, permanent stability with sterling, i.e., with this country with which East Africa has most of its business. Secondly, I wanted to go as far as possible in the direction of undoing the effect of the appreciation of silver, which when I first took the matter in hand had brought the rupee up to 1s. 8d. 912 My hon. Friend says quite truly that I did contemplate bringing the rupee back to 1s. 4d., and although there were practical objections to making the Treasury note legal tender we hoped, by the mechanism of an exchange board, and by the issue of new token currency which would gradually replace the silver rupee, to produce the same result and bring the rate back again within not too long a period of time. The hon. Member asked what caused my fall, what hidden hand influenced me in going back on that decision? It was the sudden steep further rise of the rupee at the end of last year. It was 1s. 8d. in July, and then rose to 1s. 10d. in August. Then suddenly it went up to 2s., 2s. 2d. and 2s. 4d. Not long after that, as a result of the heavy depreciation of sterling as compared with gold, and of the Indian Government's decision, it rose overnight to 2s. 10d. It was impossible to go back from 2s. 10d. to 1s. 4d., or ask creditors to accept a 1s. 4d. rupee as a settlement of their claims. It is not true that the creditor was profiteering. Throughout East Africa the creditor, whether bank or Indian trader, owed his rupees to India in turn. As a rule he has made nothing by the appreciation, and any steps taken to force down the price rate below India, do not inflict loss on him. Those representing the Indian community are a very essential part of the whole mechanism of trade in East Africa. They do the whole of the small retail trade and a considerable part of the wholesale trade. They live largely on goods imported from India, and any difference between the Indian exchange and East Africa raises the cost of living against the Indians. It is true that the Indian community have profited during the War, but that is not any reason for inflicting injustice upon them.
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLI do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend is aware of the report of the Committee appointed by the Governor which inquired into the increased cost of living there. They reported that in the opinion of the Committee there has been no appreciable increase in the cost of living of Asiatics. The Committee which made that report consisted of six members, including a banker, an Indian, two officials, and two commercial men.
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYIf that is so I am very glad to hear it; but that is not 913 in accord with various telegrams which I have received from East Africa. In any case you could not put the whole burden of the exchange position on any one particular section of the community. We arrived at the fairest possible compromise. But this question is not only one of exchange, but one of currency. The whole of East Africa uses a silver currency, and though a certain amount of paper is circulated the natives do not like it. We have had very difficult times in West Africa owing to our depending on paper there. I almost think if I appealed to those hon. Members who know and have interests in West Africa and asked them if they could be given the alternative of having an abundant silver circulation at the risk of appreciation of the exchange or of having stability with sterling with a paper currency, as they have had, they would prefer the former. It is quite impossible to bring the rupee down from 2s. l0d. to 1s. 4d. without the disappearance of the currency, and that would have paralysed the whole trade of the country. The bringing of it down to 2s. has been the cause of much anxiety in this respect, and it is only with the greatest difficulty that we have been able to find enough currency to purchase the Uganda cotton crop. I would remind the Committee that the interests of the European settlers, important as they are, are, after all, smaller than the native producers' interests, who contribute the bulk of the exports from East Africa; I am including Uganda as well. Anything that would have caused the currency to disappear, would have stopped the cultivation of Uganda cotton, possibly for years, and would have thrown back one of the most successful and promising experiments in the British Empire. We had also to consider that we were dealing with three territories, and not one only. It was impossible to put down the rupee to 1s. 4d. in East Africa, whilst across an invisible frontier of 500 miles you had it at 2s. l0d. Those who represented the Tanganyika territory were absolutely against any drastic change; Uganda was prepared to accept a reduction to 1s. 4d. when the rupee stood at 1s. 8d., and is, I believe, satisfied with the change now being carried out.
Lastly, I wish to make this point. The whole question is one of degree. The arguments of my hon. Friend, and those 914 which have been used outside, would imply that appreciation of the currency is in all circumstances an unmitigated curse, and that a depreciation of the currency is a panacea for all ills. If that were true how foolish is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to issue more "Brad-buries" to bring down the price to 10s. or less in terms of gold. I may point out that the Committee which dealt with Indian currency, a representative Committee, were with one exception in favour of appreciating the rupee. I do not say that I agree with the conclusions of that Committee, but I do suggest that there must be something to be said for a view which they expressed so unanimously. The whole of the arguments which have been thrown at the Colonial Office as to their hopeless incompetence and scandalous betrayal of East Africa in not bringing the rupee down to 1s. 4d. sterling, convict us of no less incompetence for not going further and bringing the rupee down to 1s. or even down to Id. If it really were true that depreciation is in itself good, and that local costs never alter, however much you depreciate the exchange, then undoubtedly we were foolish not to go much lower than 1s. 4d. And on the same line of reasoning I could prove that, by reducing the rupee to a Id., we should show an enormous profit on our reserves, and that our labour for constructing railways, etc., would cost hardly anything. I must insist that this is a question of degree. Legally we were not bound to do anything except to maintain the rupee standard. But we have tried to meet a very difficult position, and we have gone as far as it was possible without defeating our object. The effect of appreciation or depreciation is largely psychological. When the exchange goes up by imperceptible stages, the cost of production rises, because local wages and prices remain, for a shorter or longer time, unaffected, and it did so rise in East Africa to an extent which made it desirable that we should help. But when you attempt—and suddenly attempt—by Government action to reverse that process and to turn a coin whose exchange value is 2s. 4d. into one of 1s. 4d., then it becomes obvious to all the world, and you set about creating a general dislocation of local prices. Our only hope of achieving the object we had in view, and of mitigating the evil effect of the rise 915 in the rupee, was to do something which was so moderate in its effect as not to upset the whole range of local prices. I was prepared last year to bring it back from 1s. 8d. to 1s. 4d., though the information I have since had is to the effect that even that would probably have led to a considerable change in local prices, in view of the great demand for labour and the tendency towards higher wages. If to cut the rupee down by 4d. was not unlikely to be followed by an increase in local prices, I am quite certain that any attempt to get back from 2s. 4d. to 1s. 4d. would have meant a complete upset and reversal of local prices, and the settler would have been no better off than he is to-day. What we are doing in respect of bringing the rupee down to 2s., is going just as far as is possible to help the settler on the exchange without defeating our whole object, and, incidentally, giving him permanent stability of exchange with this country.
Now as to the position of the soldier settlers. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke of misunderstanding. He said he would not use the word "misrepresentation," though pamphlets outside have spoken of "betrayal." The original Committee of 1916, dealing with the then price of the rupee, recommended £700 as a reasonable outlay for the settler. When the scheme was actually carried out the rupee had risen to 1s. 8d. But we raised that £700 to £1,000, practically in the ratio of the increase from 1s. 4d to 2s. Since then, measures have been taken to revise the rate of payment for the settlers' land, measures which I think to a large extent will help them. It has been suggested that by reason of the assurances given by me, a great many settlers did not make the money they might have done by sending out the rupee.
§ Brigadier-General COCKERILLThey did not avoid the loss as they might have done.
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYI do not think there can be many cases in which loss occurred. Very few settlers, if any, owing to the shortage of shipping, went out till the rupee had reached 2s., and I do not think the ordinary settler was likely, if he were a wise man, to have remitted his money to Africa until the last moment when he knew he was actually going. Therefore, I do not 916 believe there can be any but a small number of cases where there was actual loss. Now as to the settlers' future cost of production. If it is true that the cost of production and wages have risen 50 per cent. in East Africa, where in the world have costs of production not gone up in terms of sterling? Settlers here at home who have had to put up cottages and have had to buy farm implements, have found the cost increased by more than 100 per cent. In West Africa the cost of labour has also increased, and there is nowhere where you can get entirely away from the effect of this depreciation of sterling. Moreover, as far as coffee and sisal—the chief products of these settlers—are concerned, they sell these in competition with Mexico and Brazil, both countries suffering from an appreciated currency. Where they sell their goods locally the price of the rupee does not affect them.
I am afraid that owing to the complexity of the subject I have spoken at much greater length than I intended. But to sum up: By the action we have taken, we have done the most we could to help the soldier settlers in East Africa without inflicting undue hardship or injustice on others and without upsetting the whole financial and currency systems of the country. We have done that and we have linked up East Africa permanently with British sterling. That seems to be far more in the interests of the producer of every class of goods in East Africa than if we had gone on keeping the whole thing unsettled for years, in the hope that we might ultimately get back to the 1s. 4d. level.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI will be as brief as I can, but in view of the fact that the three speeches to which we have just listened have occupied so much of the time available for the discussion of this Vote, I will only say that, as far as I could understand the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is merely a question of exchange. In business where exchange comes in, you sometimes get a loss and sometimes make a profit, but nothing could be more fatal than for the Government to try and alter the natural course of exchange. What took place when the rupee was fixed in India at 1s. 4d. illustrates that point. It was Sir William Harcourt who fixed it at 1s. 4d., and the exchange of that day was so bad that 917 when the officials out there remitted their savings to England, they lost by the transaction. It would have been far better to have left things as they were, for, as I repeat, nothing could be more fatal than to interfere in these matters, and nothing could be more fatal than to introduce paper currency which seems to have been the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government has left the Chamber. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that my hon. Friend having risen after only two Members had spoken, and having occupied the attention of the House for a period of 45 minutes, has now left. Nothing, I think, could be more discourteous than that. It has always been understood that when an occupant of the front Bench has spoken, whether he be in charge of the Vote or not, he should remain in the House to hear the criticisms, if any, on his speech.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel L. Wilson)May I explain that my hon. and gallant Friend has been seriously indisposed and only came to the House at great personal inconvenience? Having spoken, he had to go out because the condition of his throat needed attention.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI accept that of course, although the hon. Member seems to have spoken at great length, and having been able to do so could not have been suffering very seriously. At any rate, we certainly ought to have someone here to represent the Government. There is I see on the Bench an hon. Friend of my own who occupies a prominent position as Junior Lord of the Treasury, and he and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping are the only two people representing the Government in the Committee at the moment. That fact shows a great want of courtesy to the Committee. I should like to know to whom I am to address my questions. I see another Junior Lord of the Treasury has come in, but I do think we ought to have present &? Member of the Government.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury)May I explain that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping is representing the Government? The Under-Secretary 918 for the Colonies is seriously indisposed and my hon. Friend has undertaken to represent him.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am sure I have no wish to say anything discourteous of my hon. Friend, but I do think we ought to have someone of more experience, a Member of the Government in the House during this discussion. There is an enormous number of people in the Government now. Could we not have had one of those right hon. Gentlemen who are without a portfolio, and are getting £5,000 a year? I notice that the Opposition are equally slack. There is no one oh the Front Opposition Bench, and the maintenance of the privileges of the House is left to my hon. Friend near me and myself. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government certain questions. This is the second year after the War, when, in view of the enormous taxation that is going to be imposed upon us, we ought to reduce and not to increase expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to page 34 of the Estimates, he will see that there are now nine principal clerks in the Colonial Office instead of eight last year. Why is that principal clerk added, at a salary varying from £850 to £1,000? There are also an additional senior clerk and two more junior clerks. Then there are 21 assistant clerks this year, as against 16 last year, and 19 charwomen as against 16 last year. Why are those three additional charwomen wanted, at a moment when the Government ought to be doing all they can to reduce expenditure? It may seem a small thing to the House, and the salaries of the charwomen are not very great; one gets 16s. and 18 get 14s. a week; but it all shows that, instead of there being an effort to economise, there is, on the contrary, an effort to expend more money and to have more officials. All of these instances I have mentioned are instances, not of any increase in the salaries of officials, but of a greater number of officials.
Under the heading "Oversea Settlement" there is an Editor of Publications at £50 a month. There is only one at the present time, but last year there was none. What does he do? Then there is a Chairman, Society for Overseas Settlement of British Women, at £500 a year, and there are "Incidental Expenses, including Travelling, Laundry, etc.," £610. Under the heading "Minor 919 Schemes connected with Oversea Settlement, including Grant for Hostel," the amount is £9,000. Last year there was nothing of this sort at all. To sum up, as far as I can make out, the administration to pay the passages of certain soldiers for the purpose of oversea settlement, which passages are estimated to cost £500,000, is going to involve an expenditure of £30,000. If the passages of these soldiers are going to be paid, surely arrangements could have been made with the shipping companies to send in their charge for the passages, which could be quite easily checked, and then it could be paid. What is the necessity of starting all these secretaries and clerks and other people, at a total cost of £30,000, apparently only in order to pay for the tickets of certain soldiers who are going overseas? I do not know what the grant of £5,000 for the Society for Overseas Settlement for British Women is, nor why the nation should thus contribute to that society. All these things ought to be run on their own basis, and not subsidised by the taxpayer. It is rather curious, after the Debate on the Budget a few days ago, and in view of the fact that we are going to consider to-morrow the Resolutions putting this gigantic burden upon the taxpayer, that we should find that this Vote, which surely ought not to have been increased or extended, shows no effort or sign of economy, but, on the other hand, shows increased, and in many cases extravagant, expenditure. I conclude, as I began, by making a very serious protest against the way in which the Government treat this House in Committee of Supply. The most important thing at the present moment is for this House to keep a hand upon the expenditure of the country, and the only way in which we can do that is in Committee of Supply. Look at the Front Bench!
§ Mr. INSKIPSir Frederick Lugard has recently written a report of absorbing interest concerning Northern Nigeria, and I think that all who have read it must have welcomed the declaration he made concerning the efficiency and loyalty of the native administration. It is, however, impossible not to overlook the fact that statements do reach this country from time to time from which one would infer that everything is not quite as harmonious and happy as Sir Frederick Lugard's report would lead one to expect. 920 I do not know whether such statements may be treated as the complaints of persons who think their interests are not sufficiently attended to, but undoubtedly some people from Nigeria report that there are matters which require attention in connection with the administration of the country by the Fulani Chiefs It is impossible not to observe from Sir Frederick Lugard's report the bias, possibly perfectly justifiable, which he exhibits towards Moslem influence. Mr. Temple, a distinguished public servant, has recently written a book concerning the administration of Northern Nigeria, and there is at least one passage in it in which he attributes many of the difficulties which are experienced there to the irresponsible and ill-informed interference of the House of Commons. I suppose, however, that it is our duty, notwithstanding those criticisms, to interfere to the best of our ability when we think that interference is desirable. No one wishes, and I least of all, to resort to what may be described as the direct system of government in our great Protectorates, under which European officials exercise authority, and minor posts alone are held by native officials. I suppose that indirect rule is the system which we have adopted for good and for all, namely, the government of the natives through their own institutions. It is obvious, however, that this system has disadvantages, or perhaps difficulties, which it would be idle not to realise and to face. For one thing, it tends to stereotype customs and institutions which are associated with a backward race, and which are not consistent with the progress of that race towards a higher state of civilisation. It gives permanent effect, at any rate, in Northern Nigeria, to the domination of the Fulani Chiefs, which is not an old-established influence in Northern Nigeria, but a comparatively new authority. Yet our system at the present day tends to fasten this influence, not always wisely exercised, upon the natives of Northern Nigeria.
The anxiety to which I desire to give expression is lest this influence and the Moslem influence should tend to prevent the proper development of the country, and arrest the progress of its people to the higher state of civilisation which I hope they will reach in time. This anxiety is not decreased by some of the passages 921 in Sir Frederick Lugard's report, which are confirmed by statements which I find in Mr. Temple's book. They tend to show that the missionary is to be excluded from any part or influence in shaping the destinies of Northern Nigeria. If I thought the German model was the model of British missions, I should certainly not be intervening now with these observations. I fully accept what I understand to be the determined policy of the British Government, namely, that there shall be no pressure on native races in favour of Christianity I think, however, that I am justified in saying that Nigeria, and Northern Nigeria especially, could never have become what it is at the present time had it- not been for the moral forces which are largely the fruit of Christianity introduced by missions into Africa.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODOh!
§ Mr. INSKIPMy hon. and gallant Friend indicates that he dissents from the opinion I have expressed. Perhaps, if he were more familiar with the history of the missions in Southern Nigeria, he would know the part that they have played in the development of that country. Northen Nigeria is either held by purely material forces, which cannot be permanent and must sooner or later break down, or it is held by moral forces. If it is held by moral forces, surely it is the duty of this country to see that those moral forces are of the highest possible character; and we, as a Christian country, believe that moral forces infused with the true spirit of Christianity are most likely to be successful. I would venture to suggest the principles which I think should be followed in this connection, and to which I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to make some assent. The first is that the native race has a right, just as a white race has, to choose its own religious teaching. That is absolutely consistent with what Sir Frederick Lugard himself said in 1903. The second principle is that, if social laws or customs are to be enforced by the ruling authority, they must be such as to disassociate civil obligations from any religious purpose or meaning. The chief of an important township in the Bauchi Highlands of Northern Nigeria was deposed for neglecting to offer sacrifices and perform heathen rites at the time of the sowing of crops. I apprehend that that is absolutely contrary to the principles 922 which I have presumed to suggest. Why should a man be forced to perform heathen rites and offer sacrifices, if he has come to a better state of mind, which is the hypothesis upon which I proceed?
§ Major Earl WINTERTONWere they heathen rites or Moslem rites?
§ Mr. INSKIPThey were heathen rites. The country is a pagan country; I am speaking of the Bauchi region of Northern Nigeria. Again, the headman of a village was summoned for sowing crops before the usual rites had been performed. I apprehend that that is perfectly justifiable. It is not right that because a man is not in agreement with the faith of another he should be privileged to secure an earlier opportunity of sowing his fields. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to say this principle will be adopted by the Governor of Northern Nigeria, that if these customs of the country are to be enforced they shall be distinctly dissociated from the religious ceremonies and rites with which they have been in the past connected. The third rule I suggest is that people shall be free to ask for and to receive religious teachers, and Christian teachers, are of course, those I have in mind. I am encouraged in putting this forward because I find that Sir Frederick Lugard in his report says the Government cordially recognise mission activities in pagan areas, and yet in that very pagan area of which I have been speaking I can give cases time after time in which the native authorities in particular districts have asked for religious teaching, which is connected partly with education and partly with their desire to learn something better than their native superstition, and those requests have been resisted and their petition refused without any reason being assigned by the authority who gives the refusal. That is wrong. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will give an assurance that in future the native people shall be free, at any rate in pagan areas, to choose religious teachers of a Christian influence if they so desire.
I wish to refer to the Rhodesian natives. It is beyond controversy that there is not a single native in Southern Bhodesia who owns a single acre of land. That is admitted in a document put forward by the Colonial Office in defence of the position at present. There are a large number of natives who have had reserves marked 923 out for them, but they are not secured to them. There are large numbers of natives who are living on inalienated lands. Those natives are not allowed to possess any secure tenure of a single kraal or acre of land which they and their forbears may have cultivated. They are subject to be dispossessed or forced to pay a premium at the whim of the white settler, or possibly of the South African Company, or some other person who has appropriated rights which surely belong to the native. What is the justice of this system? Is Southern Rhodesia to be one of the countries in which the natives have no rights at all? I know the defence is made, at any rate with regard to the reserved areas, that they are so immense and so extravagantly beyond anything that the natives could require for their proper needs that it is justifiable for the British South Africa Company to take the surplus and apply them for other purposes. In this country that would be called Socialism. What is Socialism in this country—namely, the doctrine that when a man has enough the rest shall be taken from him—apparently becomes Imperialism in Southern Rhodesia, and the request which we, who take some interest in this matter, are justified in making is that the reserved areas in the first place shall be finally marked out and assured to the natives. Can my hon. and gallant Friend give an undertaking that that will be done at the earliest moment? It is overdue. In 1903 it was recommended by the South African Native Affairs Commission. It was again recommended by the Reserve Commission of 1917, and yet, at present 35,000 natives are on the verge of being evicted from reserved areas marked out for the native population, because an area 12 miles wide is to be taken from it for the purpose of a railway without compensation being paid to them.
I apprehend that the only safe principle on which we ought to proceed, as responsible for the administration of this country, is that whatever rights the native has shall be made clear and shall be assured to him—that he shall have access to the Courts to enforce those rights, and that if for public purposes the reserves are required, for railways or public works, they shall be taken from the tribal community that owns them and occupies them only upon payment of such proper com- 924 pensation as some competent Court may award according to well-known principles. As regards those who are living upon the unalienated lands and do not go into the reserved areas I make a similar petition, that they shall not be left at the mercy of any company or any settler, but that if they have, by a period of occupation, whatever it is, held a kraal or lands, those possessions shall be assured to them without the liability to pay something in the nature of a rent either to the white settler or to the representative of the company, and that they also shall know what their rights are and shall have access to the Courts, and shall be entitled to own property on which they may live according to their customs, and on which they may die and be buried according to their desire. At present these natives are precluded from even owning the land in which they may be buried. That is not a state of things which is creditable to the administration of the British Empire. I am not suggesting that it is the result of any want of sympathy on the part of the Colonial Office. I am claiming no extravagant rights for natives. I know perfectly well the defects from which they suffer. All we are asking is that whatever system the British rule is responsible for, that system shall make clear the rights that the natives have, that those rights shall be assured to the natives and that they shall be given rights rather than grants. Their possessions may be few, but they shall be assured to them. Their privileges may seem slight and insignificant to us, but at any rate the privileges that they value they shall retain. If we follow some such rule as that, then alone is Southern Rhodesia likely to be as happy and well ordered a Protectorate as I believe other parts of the British Empire are.
§ Earl WINTERTONOwing to the abnormal length of the speeches this afternoon—against which I enter my most emphatic protest, as it is extremely wrong that the time of the Committee should be occupied at such length by a few speeches—it is not really possible to get questions discussed as fully as they should be. I wish to make one remark confirming what has just been said by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Inskip). This country has a great responsibility, not merely in Rhodesia, but in all parts of Africa, in seeing that the natives are not dispossessed of their lands. It would be tactless and undesir- 925 able to refer to the case of the Union, which is infinitely worse, but I have always foreseen, if one may look ahead, that within the next 20 years a most serious state of affairs will arise through the whole of South Africa over the question of native land. I regret that more attention has not been given to the subject by the Colonial Office. The only way in which it can be solved is by some form of conference between the responsible representatives of the different Governments of South Africa, the Union Government and the representatives of the Chartered Company and the representatives of this country, and I should like to see it discussed between General Smuts and the Prime Minister, because, sooner or later, we shall, through the whole of South Africa, be up against a difficult situation with regard to native rights. That is not endorsing the foolish accusations which are sometimes brought by people against the Rhodesian settlers. Those who know anything about Rhodesia or the Union strongly resent them. On the whole I believe the natives are treated in the Union and in Rhodesia as well as in any part of the world.
I wish to refer to the conditions in the Civil Service of Northern Nigeria. I asked a question the other day with regard to leave for officers in the Nigerian Civil Service. I gather from the answer that my hon. and gallant Friend admits that there is at present a good deal of dissatisfaction at the conditions prevailing, but he treated the matter as not of very great importance. I am certain, from my own experience of administration in different parts of Africa, that there is no matter of more importance to Civil Servants than the question of leave. For example, in the Sudan, with which I am fairly familiar, leave is granted on the basis of three months every year to every Civil Servant on the ground that without such leave it would be impossible for him to retain his health. I do not quite know why my hon. and gallant Friend gave the impression that this was not an important question. It is most important. It should not be at the discretion of the Governor, but should be laid down as a hard and fast rule. I am informed that 20 per cent. of the total emoluments and pay for officers of the Service is in the form of allowances and those allowances are at the discretion of the Government. If that is so, it is absolutely wrong. I hope the 926 information I have been given is not? accurate, but that is what I am informed by a member of the Civil Service. My hon. and gallant Friend gave the impression the other day that the conditions of service in Nigeria were easy because the health of the white man in the country had been steadily improving and the health standard was a good one. The health of white men in all parts of Africa has been improved, but I hope the Committee realises that men who go to administer native territories are chosen from men of the best class of physique. They are only men of the finest physique who are chosen. If hon. Members look at the figures of disability and casualties, death and sickness among the members of the Colonial Civil Service they will see what a tremendous strain it is upon the health of members of the Civil Service. While I am glad to hear it has improved, I hope neither the Committee nor the Government, especially the Government, are going to suggest that Nigeria, or any part of Africa, except possibly some portion of East Africa, is a health resort. The actual administrators in the Colonial Civil Service—I do not mean the head administrators, the clerks, etc.—are subjected to conditions which are harder than those of the settlers. Located at one place the settlers can make themselves fairly comfortable, whereas the administrators have to be constantly travelling from one part to another. I hope that, in order to meet the position of these civil servants who have to import food and other materials from this country for their own use, that they will be allowed to import them at the ports in Nigeria free of duty, considering that it is absolutely essential for white men out there to import food from England.
I want to know whether the Committee which is being formed to consider the conditions of service there is not a mere Departmental Committee. I hope it is not merely a Departmental Committee. This House has always had a dislike for Departmental Committees to inquire into conditions of the Service, and I am quite sure I shall have the support of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) in objecting to a Departmental Committee to inquire into the conditions of the Civil Service in Nigeria. I should like to know whether the Association of European Civil Servants in Africa has any representative on the Committee. I appeal with confi- 927 dence to the Committee to support the claims of these men for whom I speak, who are not able to bring pressure to bear upon the House as civil servants can do in this country. I am assured that their conditions are by no means satisfactory, and I trust that we shall have an undertaking from the representative of the Colonial Office that, as soon as he has received the reports which I understand he is to receive from the different Colonial Governments on the condition of the public service, he will make a full statement, telling us whether or not the recommendations which the Committee in question make are accepted by the great bulk of civil servants in Africa.
§ Mr. SPOORI beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £100.
I have no intention of following the line of technical discussion with which this Debate opened. I am not much concerned about what the Under-Secretary for the Colonies described as the incoherence of our Exchange system and its result, but I am more concerned about what we may regard as the incoherence of our Colonial policy and its results. I wish to deal with certain places which are a long distance from each other, though the problems are not dissimilar. I will deal first with the situation which exists in Trinidad. For years agitation has been going on there for representative government. Again and again appeals have been made to the Colonial Office, and these appeals have sometimes met with a sympathetic response. I believe as far back as 1909 the then Under-Secretary for the Colonies said, in answer to a question, that the grant of representative government to Trinidad was receiving most sympathetic consideration. Eleven years have gone by and there has been no measure of representative government conferred upon this people, and the result is that the working classes are absolutely powerless to defend themselves and to secure any real improvement in their conditions. Despite all the appeals that they make, their position, instead of becoming better, is becoming steadily worse. I do not know whether this House quite realises what is happening in that part of the world. Only this year a Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Council there, which is described as a Seditious Publications Bill. Members will have a distinct recollection of the debates which 928 took place here with regard to the D.O.R.A. regulations in our own Colonies, and yet at the present time, when the War is over, and for reasons that so far have not been given either to this House or to any other assembly of which I have heard, we have a proposal to pass legislation in Trinidad of a most coercive and repressive character. There are some clauses in this Bill which are certainly reminiscent of D.O.R.A. One of the crimes for which very severe punishment will be inflicted is described in this manner:
to excite any person or class of persons to attempt to procure an alteration of any law, or any matter in the State by law established otherwise than by lawful means—whatever that may mean. It is also a crimeto advocate, teach, or defend disbelief in or opposition to organised government.It would be rather difficult to find quite so comprehensive a sentence as that, because it really covers everything and gives to those in authority power to imprison practically anybody in the place. There is no liberty of the subject whatever. Of course, it is a crimeto seduce any member of His Majesty's naval or military forces, including the local forces, or of the constabulary, from his allegiance to His Majesty, or his duty.One might have quoted other examples of a kind of legislation that would not be tolerated in this country. I want to know why it should be imposed in a place and under conditions where the workers at present have absolutely no power to defend themselves. Will the Under-Secretary tell us the reason for this proposed legislation, or, better still, it would be in the interests of peace in the West Indies, and in the interests of those who live there and ourselves if he could give us an assurance that the ordinance to which I have referred shall not become operative.The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Inskip) referred to the situation in Rhodesia. Like him, I have no wish to go into the history of the acquisition of Southern Rhodesia, though looked at from any point of view, it would be extremely difficult to find a more disgraceful record. The way in which advantage was taken of an untutored African King, the pathetic appeal that Lobengula made to the Government and the late Queen, the almost merciless persistence of those who sought the exploitation of that country 929 for the benefit of British capital and British industry, and the expropriation of the natives, all these subjects have been discussed in this House before. They remain to the eternal discredit of our country. But we are there, and I am quite prepared to admit the immense difficulties that are bound to arise in the government of a country like Southern Bhodesia. One has some idea, even though one may not have been in that part of the world, of the character of the problems that face the administrative officers in colonies of that kind.
§ Major-General Sir NEWTON MOOREAnd the pioneers.
§ Mr. SPOORYes, I believe the problems that face the pioneers who go there. What is our future policy going to be? We are prepared to admit that many representatives of our country have rendered magnificent service in that part of the world, and have made a real contribution to the development of it But at the same time, I do not think that the policy at present being pursued is one which is likely either to contribute to peace or to a better understanding between the natives and ourselves. I do not want to enter into any discussion of the claims of the Chartered Company for the millions which they are asking the British taxpayer to pay. Until we have had the report of Lord Cave's Commission it would be out of place to discuss that point. But I would like to have from the Under-Secretary an assurance, if he is prepared to give it, that before any claim is paid, before a single penny of British money goes to those who are in control of the Chartered Company, the fullest opportunity will be given to this House to discuss that claim in all its bearings. There are many of us who believe that probably the bulk of those claims, if not all, are without justification. I do not think it will be seriously argued that we have not taken the land from the natives. The complete restoration of that land may not be practicable at the moment, and it may never be practicable; but, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bristol, is it not possible to secure—and surely when one asks for this one is making a very modest and reasonable demand—the granting of secure tenure to the native communities of land in those areas where there are no white men, subject, if necessary, to 930 these native communities being able to show that they are beneficially occupying their land? If the Chartered Company insists upon their claim, and there is no doubt they will, it would be a wise thing for this House to say that no claim should be paid except for the granting of a concession of the kind I have just indicated. We can only justify our occupation of Southern Rhodesia as we regard our position there as a trust, not to exploit the natives of that country. Unfortunately, we believe that they are being exploited, and we ask that they should have a fuller freedom than they have yet known.
I would like to raise another point which is of perhaps even greater importance than those to which I have already referred, and that is the situation created in East Africa by the publication of Mr. Ainsworth's circular to which reference has been made by question and answer in the House. It appears to me that the policy that is being followed there is perhaps an excellent touchstone upon which we can test the ultimate results of this policy if it is pursued. A circular has been issued by Mr. Ainsworth, apparently with the approval of the Governor, and with regard to certain suggestions in that circular I find it extremely difficult to discriminate between them and veiled slavery, if, indeed, an adjective is necessary. This circular has been sent out to the administrative officers in the area. One paragraph states—
As regards native policy, we must recognise in the first place that no hard and fast rules can be laid down as applicable to each and every tribe. We can only lay down a general policy allowing for elasticity to suit the various conditions of tribes. Our ideal must be to combine the progress and prosperity of the protectorate with the welfare of the natives. The white man must be paramount.
§ Mr. SPOORI thought we believed in Britain for the British and Africa for the Africans. I thought that the ultimate goal of our colonisation was not to impose necessarily British rule and conditions on these parts of the world, but to develop the progress of the natives. We read further on—
We must give the natives reasonable education, especially technical, industrial, and agricultural.Are we to understand from that suggestion that education has to be of a kind most favourable to British capital. 931 I agree, and every sane Member of this House agrees, with the desirability of doing all that can be done to educate the natives, but I have a very shrewd suspicion that the motive behind the suggestion contained in this circular is not altogether the benefit of the native, but in order that the native may become a better wealth-producing machine. Further on we read:With regard to native labour, there are two points to consider. First, that native labour is required for the proper development of the country, and, secondly, that we must educate the native to come out of his reserve and work for his own sake, because nothing can be worse for the young native than to remain, according to his inclination, idle in the reserve. Those who do so are likely to become vicious and effete.Probably there is a great deal of truth in that, but how do they propose to get them out? By offering larger wages than they are receiving, or by giving them an opportunity of real development? We read further on:The Government should, I believe, have the power to call out the idle. I believe that there should be an increased tax on young, able-bodied men. Our policy, then, I believe, should be to encourage voluntary work, in the first place, but to provide power by legislation to prevent idleness.Apparently the Colonial Office has been sitting at the feet of Lenin and Trotsky. At all events, these indications of Bolshevism will probably cause some stir in certain quarters. Labour is needed to develop the country undoubtedly. We, the Labour party, say that that labour should be secured if it is there, and we understand that it is, by offering improved conditions and higher wages.The position of the party with which I am associated in regard to the whole question of subject races is, first of all, to abolish altogether all economic exploitation; secondly, to educate the native so that he may take his place as a free man in the economic and political life of the country. We decline association with the policy that rests on the economic slavery of subject people. Nobody can seriously argue that the natives of the parts to which I have already referred are not at the moment living under conditions of economic slavery. We stand in this party, and, indeed, the whole international Labour movement, not simply for the application of new principles to our Colonial policy. We stand for a new spirit altogether. That is the spirit of 932 freedom and equality. The African native may be untutored. According to our restrictive use of the word, he may be uncivilised. But he is a human being. He has certain inalienable human rights. We believe that the domination by white men of these peoples in the interests of British shareholders is a denal of those rights Allowing for all differences that may exist between the worker of this country and the primitive peoples of Africa, I say, and I am sure that I shall be backed by the Labour movement when I say it, we feel we do not stand above the coloured man. We stand by his side.
After all, labour knows that the struggle of the coloured man, however undeveloped, however primitive may be his present conditions, is essentially the struggle of labour the whole world over. We are engaged in this country, and indeed all over Europe, in fighting the capitalist system, because we believe that the capitalist system is a bad one. We believe that it is responsible for the greater part of the injustices that scar our national and international life at the moment. We are fighting capitalism in Europe, and, with the natives, we propose to fight capitalism in Africa and everywhere else. The Labour party, at all events, has an international outlook and does believe in fundamental unity in the whole of the Labour movement. Again and again reference has been made, especially during the last twelve months, in this House to the loss of Parliamentary prestige. We have heard Members on the opposite side of the House declare that for some reason or another Parliament did not stand so well in the eyes of the public and of the world as it used to do in past days. It appears to me that the predominance of commercial interests in this House has not only made Parliament a much less effective exponent of the public will, but has imperilled, and is imperilling, our place and our power amongst the peoples.
It may be that we British people are great colonisers, but if our colonisation has no other motive than a commercial one, or colonisation will fail in the result. We believe that the exploitation of people, either black or white, can be no permanent basis of an empire or commonwealth that desires to last. And in the Labour party we desire to see a colonial policy which will aim, not at the fettering of 933 people, but at their freedom. We believe that that policy and that alone can lead to the commonwealth of free peoples about which we talked so much during the last few years. Moreover, I submit that that is the only possible line of progress. If we refuse to recognise that, if we refuse to make our goal freedom and liberty for man all over and absolute equality, then no human progress is going to be possible. Labour has not forgotten its own struggle in this country. It has not forgotten that only a very short while ago people in Britain were living under conditions of most miserable economic slavery, while only 70 years ago in the pits of England there were women doing work as pit ponies. And it is less than that since boys of seven years of age were taken to work. There was no freedom but absolute slavery. The masses of our people have only been winning emancipation very slowly. We realise that labour everywhere, regardless of colour or the differences of language, must travel together. There are two courses open to the hon. Gentleman opposite and his Office. Our colonial policy must either express the old spirit of tyranny and slavery or the new spirit of freedom and equality. We want the latter. We want it partly because it is expedient—we believe it will make for the stability and peace of the world—but we want it mainly because we believe it is right.
§ Sir NEWTON MOOREI listened with a considerable amount of interest to the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat. If he expresses the views of the Labour party here, I can assure him that if he made that speech in Australia he certainly would not win the Labour selection there, nor do I think that he would in South Africa. He states that he does not stand above, but by the side of the black. The white Australia policy was brought in by the Labour party and has been maintained there ever since, and we have never found any reason why we should make any amendment. The Labour man who goes out to Australia, when he comes into touch with various problems, takes a different view of the question than the man who has but a mere academic knowledge at home. Many of our Labour friends who have gone from here, men who have worked in the mines, men like Andrew Fisher and Hughes, who have sprung 934 from the ranks, are the men who have been responsible for the white Australia policy.
§ Mr. LAWSONWe drove them away from here.
§ Sir N. MOOREThey went out there, and starting from scratch, rose to the highest position, put there by their fellow workers, and they are men who have done credit, not only to their own country, but to the Empire generally.
§ Earl WINTERTONThey fought in the War and were not Bolshevists.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Sir N. MOOREI take the opportunity of congratulating the hon and gallant Gentleman in charge of these Estimates for the very lucid and concise way in which he dealt with the very complex question of exchange and currency in East Africa, but I regret that it was found necessary to deal at such great length with it in order to bring the matter under his notice, and which will have the result that many parsons very anxious to speak on various subjects, of which perhaps they know something, will be prevented owing to the time limit. I take the opportunity of recording on behalf of those of us who have been brought into touch with the Colonial Office a high measure of appreciation of the administrative skill, practical sympathy and tact which distinguishes the hon. Member's regime at the Colonial Office, where he has fulfilled for a considerable time the dual position of Minister and Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and has won for himself the esteem and confidence of the overseas representative. I have every reason to believe that I am expressing their views in paying this small tribute to a very hard worked Minister who has a most important department to preside over. Before, however, referring to the items in this Vote I would like to take the opportunity of expressing on behalf of a large number of residents from overseas appreciation of' the action of the Government in their redemption of promises made by a previous Chancellor in connection with the duplication of the income tax within the Empire. The hardship and the anomalies of the situation have been evident to all thinking Members. Apart from the hardship on the individual in making him pay a double tax in direct war contributions, it has 935 necessitated a severe strain on the bonds of patriotism and of Empire unity. There is a grievance I want to refer to. It is the increased rate of postage, and I would draw the special attention of the Under-Secretary to it. The late Sir John Henniker Heaton, one time Member for Canterbury, devoted the whole of his life and energy to the institution of imperial penny postage. The recent Budget proposals, increasing postage, I fear, would suffice to make him turn in his grave. I am aware that the State cannot afford to have a postal service that is other than self-supporting. At the same time, I would urge a sympathetic revision of postal rates.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir F. Banbury)We are now upon the Vote for the Colonial Office. I cannot understand what the Budget has to do with it.
§ Sir N. MOOREI take it, it is the only opportunity I shall have of introducing a matter of this kind, and some latitude has been given to the discussion of the Colonial Office Vote. I hope that on some other occasion there will be an opportunity of bringing this important question again before the House. It is a real hardship to those who have gone overseas and still have connections in this country. A grant which comes within the Vote of the Colonial Office is the £500,000 provided for settlement of soldiers overseas, free passages for ex-service men, women, and their dependents. That sum, I understand, will be expended under the direction of the Overseas Settlement Committee, of which the hon. and gallant Member is the Chairman. The expenditure is, in my opinion, well justified, especially in view of the fact that it is safeguarded by the proviso that all those who are anxious to settle within the Empire must first be approved by those who represent the Agricultural Settlement Schemes of the various Governments and must be going to assured work beyond the seas. I am glad also to know that this privilege will be extended to the wives and dependents of ex-service men. I understand that this scheme is to be restricted, that it will include applications received at any time up to December, 1920, or one year from date of release from service. That will mean, with the shortage of shipping to Australia and New Zealand, that very few will be able to take advantage of the privilege. I would 936 suggest that the privilege be extended to some later period. In this respect Canada is much more fortunate, in view of the fact that shipping facilities are greater. It is apparent that large numbers of ex-service men desire to emigrate. That is borne out by the large number of applications made to the various Overseas representatives. The desire to go abroad is undoubtedly largely due to the fact that these men have been in association during the War with comrades from beyond the seas and also to some extent to the fact that Service life has created a desire to follow some open-air occupation. Many men hitherto engaged in sedentary work are reluctant to go back to their old jobs, and in many instances the same applies to women.
On Friday last in the "Times" there was an intimation that no fewer than 8,000 ex-officers were unemployed in London. That should bring home to each and every one of us the fact that we should do everything we can to enable them to emigrate and make their homes within the Empire. The War has indisputably proved that even when the Britisher emigrates to outposts of the Empire, he maintains his unquenchable love for the Mother Land. Among the first to volunteer when the War broke out, alike in Canada, in Australia and in New Zealand, were the emigrants from Great Britain, and their imperishable deeds as fighting men have thrown a mantle of glory over the country of their adoption. Let us not forget that those countries have given the best of their manhood to the fight for civilisation, and that they have also pledged their children's children with a huge debt for war material and equipment. Sixty thousand Australians have laid down their lives. These young men were the flower of their country, and the loss of them is incalculable in a land where every man is needed in connection with the primary industries, in order to increase production and to meet heavy indebtedness incurred through the War. For this reason, if for no other, the Government and Parliament must not only take a sympathetic view in regard to emigration, but co-operate with the Dominion Governments in giving financial assistance to enable men and their wives to be transported to those parts of the Empire where they wish to settle. It is certain that many thousands of men have deter- 937 mined to go abroad. Unless facilities are given them to enable them to settls within the Empire, they will go to countries outside the Empire. £500,000 is provided for this particular purpose, but when it is remembered that a passage now costs something like £36 per head, as against £12 per head before the War, it will be realised that the half million of money is not going to provide for a very large number of people. Emigration was practically at a standstill during the War. The average emigration before the War was something like 300,000 per annum. Allowing for casualties of a million, it means that in the ordinary way there would be 500,000 who are now anxious to go abroad.
Quite recently I had the opportunity of visiting some of the West Indies, as well as Canada and other places. One hon. Member has referred to the difficulty associated with the provision of freeholds for natives. I think that those who have any knowledge of Jamaica will agree that there the position has been dealt with well. There are something like 60,000 freeholders in Jamaica out of a population of 800,000. The freeholds range from about a quarter of an acre to 10 acres, up to as much as 100 acres. While they cannot go in for closer settlement in the particular portion of the Empire referred to, that is, Rhodesia, there is no reason why legislation should not provide for the natives securing freeholds of their own if they are willing to work. In connection with the visit to Canada, I had the opportunity of judging the effect of the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who indeed proved himself an Ambassador of Empire. After receiving an enthusiastic welcome in the West Indies and the Pacific, His Royal Highness has now arrived in New Zealand, where he is being offered again demonstrations of affection and universal tributes of loyalty such as he received in Canada. As part of a policy to cement the scattered portions of the Empire, it was a happy inspiration which prompted whoever was responsible in inducing the Prince of Wales to make this visit. I feel sure that it will do much to bind closer the ties of Empire. One point I want to emphasise. No one would attempt to dispute the fact that when the call came, our brothers overseas offered their help, their treasure and their lives willingly in the cause of freedom. Now 938 that the War is over they look to the predominant partner, to whom they are cemented by the closest ties, to stand by them in peace as it stood by them in war. I refer particularly to the recent critical position. So far as Australia and the other Dominions are concerned, they realise that in regard to France we are bound to do everything we possibly can to give her support in the present crisis.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe speeches to-day emphasise the fact that our Colonial policy is a particularly wide subject and that everyone could speak for an hour on it, were he allowed to do so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down began with a violent attack on my hon. Friend (Mr. Spoor) because the Labour party in England is not anti-colour. Would he really prefer the sort of Labour party they had in Australia to the sort of Labour party they have here? Does he really want a Labour party which persistently cuts the throat of any competition with itself from any sort of coloured man, which persistently insists on the superiority of the white and the inferiority of the black? Is that his idea of culture or civilisation, or even of Christianity?
§ Sir N. MOOREI say that is the ideal of the Labour party.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODHe prefers that to a Labour party based upon internationalism. But I believe that in this House still you will find a majority who prefer the Labour party as we see it in this country to the Labour party which the hon. and gallant Member enjoys in Australia. The majority of the speeches we have had to-day emphasise the fact also that the business of a Colonial Empire is somehow to make the nigger work. Wherever you look in speeches to-night the main subject is, how can we induce the native to work?
§ Mr. JESSONHe will become extinct if he does not.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODSuppose we permit him graciously to work on his own land, in his own way, and to produce what he wants for himself. In that case he might not be so anxious to work for a master, but he might at the same time produce sufficient to keep himself and his family in comfort. The whole point is that in our British Empire we do contem- 939 plate the native developing himself and his own land, building up his own civilisation, and in other parts of the Empire we regard the native merely as a beast of burden, who should be divorced from the soil as quickly as possible. Those two rival methods are going on at the present time in the British Empire. Along the Gold Coast, generally speaking, and in Sierra Leone and Nigeria, and particularly Northern Nigeria, we have tried to build up a system whereby the native himself develops the land and becomes the producer and exporter on an ever increasing scale. There the White does not go in to acquire great tracts of land and to expropriate and force the native to work for him. Over most of the British West African Colonies we are gradually building up what I believe in the future will be a self-governing dominion in the British Empire. The people are acquiring our culture without any of the disasters of being first of all exploited in order to be taught the dignity of labour. What we have done there is probably the finest thing we have done in the whole of our relations with the coloured races of the world. None of the other countries—Germany, France or Belgium—have attempted to do what we have done there. We have built up a monument of what the white man can do when he allows the black to develop himself. The palm kernel and other trade of Northern Nigeria is in native hands and has developed enormously of late years, partly owing to the services of Sir Frederick Lugarde, and partly owing to the services of Mr. E. D. Morrel, and partly, I hope, owing to my own. At any rate, you have there in Northern Nigeria a system of land tenure and of government through native administration which has worked peacably all through the troubles of the War, although the bulk of the population consists of fanatical Mohammedans. The revenue has increased, and railways have been built; and we were not required to pay a penny piece by way of subsidy. I do join with the Noble Lord, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in asking that the very best terms should be given to the public officials in Northern Nigeria who are a class of civil servants who, I am convinced, are doing not only the hardest work, but the best service possible to the British Empire.
It is necessary to emphasise the difference between what we call the African 940 system which has been adopted in developing the West Coast and the European system which has been adopted on the East Coast of Africa, because the two are fundamentally different. The West African system has been a success, but there are signs unfortunately, plenty of them, in the present Colonial Office government of the East African European development system being now transplanted to the West Coast, so that there too the native may not be allowed to work for himself, but forced by the deprivation of his land to work for a master. The signs of it on the West Coast are, of course, the export duties on kernels and other produce of the land. That is the thin end of the wedge of taxation without representation, not in the interests of the people of the Colony, but in the interests of the manufacturers of this country. Under the old administration of the Colonial Office under Lord Harcourt, the principle was always adopted of governing these places solely for the advantage of the people who lived in the country, the natives, and not in order to benefit manufacturers or exploiters in this country. That is now changed, I will not say altogether, but a beginning has been made in imposing these export duties in the interests of the manufacturers of this country. It is a bad beginning. The Banchi lease of land for agricultural purposes is another sign in the same direction. In Nyasaland, the new export duties are another beginning of this new system of governing the Crown Colonies, not, as has been the case in the past, in the interests of the natives, but in the interests of European exploitation. Let us leave Nigeria and the West Coast, and look at British East Africa, Nyassaland and, I am afraid, the great new Colony of Tanganyika. There you have an entirely different system introduced. You have every pressure being brought to bear to deprive the natives of their land and by special taxation to force those natives to work for a master. Even the deprivation of their lands and the special poll tax levied have not been enough, and we have this wonderful Ainsworth circular devising still further means to compel the native to work.
The Labour party appointed a year ago an advisory committee to go into the Colonial policy of the Labour Ministry if and when it is ever formed. They have 941 drawn up a programme in detail after hearing eminent and expert evidence. So far as the West Coast is concerned they wish to continue along the present lines and to develop the native administration, and gradually, whenever possible, to introduce into it an element of representation, particularly in local government, in places such as Lagos, so that out of native administration, very largely an autocratic local administration now, you may develop on to more representative government. So far as land system and labour they will carry on the existing system and leave the land in the communal tenure of the natives where it is so, or, as in Northern Nigeria, secure the native individual tenure, and give him that right of permanent tenure which has done so much to develop the province, coupled with a rent which is based on the unimproved value of the land, and which rises as the land becomes more valuable. So far as East Africa is concerned, they will have nothing whatever to do with the present system of exploitation. We say, and in this I hoped we had the agreement of Mr. Ainsworth, that the first thing is to get the reserves demarcated so that those are large enough, not only for the present, but for any possible expansion of the native population, and, above all, that the reserves shall be so demarcated that there can be no longer this eternal pressure brought to bear by the white settlers to keep the reserves down. I observe that the white settlers' point of view, and that of the officials, is stated perfectly frankly, and it is diametrically opposed to ours. They advocate that a special commission should be appointed to delimit the reserves and to devise a scheme for concentrating the natives in a number of areas distributed as widely as possible throughout the reserve, and sufficient, but not more than sufficient, for their requirements.. They state they are convinced that this method will be conducive to the general welfare of native and European alike by permitting contact between them and stimulating the education of the native and increasing the labour available for scientific production besides immensely increasing the yield of the land. Beautiful, but interested you will admit, their idea being to teach the native the beauty of labour. They are not confining their views on labour to the men, for women and children are equally to be educated 942 in the virtues of labour. Any chief who does not send in native labour will be reported upon. Unfortunately for this Committee we are having this Debate without the exact wording of Mr. Ainsworth's circular before us. It is in the Colonial Office, but it cannot be produced. It is difficult to produce such a circular to the House of Commons and even to such a House of Commons as this. At the same time we have the advantage of the comments of the Bishop of Uganda and the Bishop of Mombassa upon this circular. I do wish to say if I have ever commented severely on the efforts of bishops as a whole or in particular as to the legislation of this country I withdraw those criticisms absolutely so far as these two excellent bishops are concerned. They have had the moral courage to denounce what was popular throughout the country in which they lived. They say:
When native chiefs are charged with the business of recruiting labour the door is flung wide open to almost any abuse. In the words of the circular, 'the necessity for an increased supply of labour cannot be brought too frequently before the various native authorities. They are to be reminded that it is part of their duty to advise and encourage all unemployed young men in the areas under their jurisdiction to go out and work on the plantation'.Women and children are also to be used for this form of labour. The bishops very rightly protest that if women and children are sent on to the plantations you may get very deplorable moral conditions. What can be said for a system which proposes that native women and children should go on to the plantations where they are housed like hop-pickers in Kent, and where desertion is punished as a criminal offence, and where the punishments imposed by the managers of the plantations are such as could not be contemplated in this country, and where you have helpless native population unrepresented in any way in the Government of the country? This Ainsworth circular has been introduced into the British Empire before. I would like to call the attention of the Under-Secretary to the previous use of this circular which was introduced into Bhodesia in 1911. It was found unworkable there and the chiefs and settlers came to the conclusion that semi-compulsory labour, such as this, could not be carried on. But since they have seen this circular introduced into East Africa they 943 are asking in Rhodesia, "Why should we not have it too?" and the settlers are now recommending its re-introduction into Rhodesia with the same method of coercing the chiefs into providing labour for the benefit of the settlers. The Labour party policy is quite clear. We will have no slavery or sham slavery whatsoever. We will reserve for the natives their own land for them to cultivate, so that if they prefer to remain cultivating their own land they will not be driven to work for somebody else. They may be tempted to do so if the wages offered are higher, but as long as they remain as they are to-day no self-respecting native would be so tempted. The natural law of supply and demand has got to regulate the labour supply.I know the difficulties of the present Colonial Office in dealing with these settlers in East Africa. It is true there are only 2,000 adult male settlers in that country, but they are an extremely noisy section. They have threatened over and over again to secede from the British Empire if we will not give them their way, and the Colonial Office is a little nervous. I do not think they need be nervous. There are not really enough of them to cause much trouble, but it is vital that the Colonial Office should consider the interests of all the people in East Africa, and not merely of the white settlers. Hitherto in this Ainsworth Circular and in their action on the currency question they have considered only the pressure of the white settler. In this economic report and all its monstrous attacks upon the Indian population, with its suggestions of different ways in which the natives can be exploited, only the settler element is represented. I do not know whether there is an official or not, but I think they are all settlers, and, anyway, there is nobody representing native interests. In spite of the Ainsworth Circular, I see there is very severe criticism upon Mr. Ainsworth himself. That is not the way in which East Africa will ever be got to pull together or will ever be developed. We have not only to consider the interests of the settlers, but of the two or three million natives, and also of the 15,000 or 20,000 Indians in that country. Of course, when you have a country like that developing, it is very difficult to know how far it has got to be wet-nursed by the Colonial Office.
944 To begin with, the Colonial Office has to do everything, but it gradually drops its interference, and the local administration takes more and more hand in the Government. The Colonial Office has got to interfere in the early stages, but gradually it must slacken its hold on these colonies, and the tendency always is to hand over control to the white settlers. The Labour party view is that control has got to be handed over to the representatives of the whole of the community, and not merely to the white settlers. Last year, all unknown to Parliament, a constitution was given to East Africa by the Colonial Office. They gave representative government to all the whites in that country, but no votes whatever were given to Indians, even to educated Indians or propertied Indians, or to educated natives. The franchise was confined strictly to the white population, and the policy of the Labour party has been laid down to give the franchise not only to the whites, but also an educational franchise to anybody who is an Indian or a native who might qualify for it, and not on special lists, not so that they may have one or two special representatives, but so that everybody who stands for the new Council at Nairobi should have to go to an Indian elector or a native elector and ask for their votes, even though he be a white man; and that, of course, is the only way in which you can get community of interests instead of the rivalry between different communal representatives. That is the policy that has been laid down for East Africa, and that is the policy, generally speaking, that we lay down for any colony where there is a mixed white and black population. There must be no permanent colour bar, no permanent separation of the races. By all means, make your educational tests stiff, so that at first the whites are not swamped by uneducated people of another race, but they must have a chance of coming in, and only then can the Colonial Office throw off its responsibility for the natives in these colonies, and allow the colonies to look after themselves and manage their own business.
The question before us really is this: is the British Empire going to be purely a white Commonwealth, spreading all over the world, but confining its citizenship to white people, or are you going to follow the wider plan of absorbing into the British Commonwealth all the races 945 who can be absorbed and who are willing to be absorbed into it? Is India to be part of the British Commonwealth, or are the Indians to have no reason for remaining part of Britain whatever? Are they going to have British citizenship on the same lines as we have it, or are they going to be excluded? Soon they will be a self-governing Dominion of the Empire. Is it possible to conceive that as such they will go on submitting always to the sort of disabilities that we impose upon them in East Africa, or that the South African Dominion imposes upon them in South Africa? They can deal with South Africa themselves, but their question to us will be, "What inducement do you hold out to us to remain part of the British Empire? If we are not to be treated as other British citizens are treated, we will go outside the British Empire "; and you will have in India what you already seen in Egypt, a tendency not to become a self-governing unit within the British Commonwealth, but a tendency to separate off, just as Ireland asks to separate off to-day. I want to see Egypt and India and Ireland all part of the British Commonwealth. That is impossible as long as there is a colour bar, as long as there are distinctions drawn between one British citizen and another. The Labour party stand for the wider view of Empire—an Empire extending to all the world, whoever will come into it, extending to all colours, to all classes, and to all people, and that is the British Empire which we are out for. We are not Little Englanders. We do not want to see a Commonwealth composed of one colour and one class, but the wider ideal is our ideal, and the turning point has now come in the Colonial Office.
§ Mr. BIGLANDI wish to rise to voice on behalf of some of my Friends one or two views with regard to this Vote, and I am only grieved that the discussion has closed so quickly. We should very much like to have it continued another day. The principal item in the Vote is this one of £500,000, which is provided for Overseas Settlement. I congratulate the Secretary of State for the Colonies on that happy expression, " Overseas Settlement," rather than emigration, which, in some way, rather stinks in the nostrils of English people. I would make the suggestion that, in addition to this wide view that they take in regard to Overseas Settlement, we in this House and the 946 people of this country should take the view that it will be absolutely necessary in the days to come for a certain number of our sons and daughters to leave this country for Overseas Settlements, and I would suggest to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that he take counsel with the Minister of Education as to whether it would not be possible for a special course of three or four years' study to be given to our young men and women who desire to emigrate, that they may be fitted to take places in the Colonial work of this Empire, and that these free overseas passages, which are now given to the soldiers who have served in the War, may be extended to those who take certificates after a course of study, eminently proving that they are fitted to take part in our Colonial work abroad. Many of us in this House, who last Session rather pushed the Under-Secretary to form a Committee to investigate the development of Empire resources, want to thank him that he was as good as his word, and we notice with pleasure that a Committee has already been set up with this object, namely:
to enquire into the opportunities of economic development, to make recommendations as to the principles and methods to be followed in such development, and to examine and report on any particular schemes and suggestions which may be submitted to them.I am glad to know, too, that two Members of this House have been put upon that Committee, and I want to assure the Under-Secretary that many of us here are exceedingly pleased with this line of action on the part of the Government, so much so that a group of Members called upon me and asked me whether I would become the Chairman of an Empire Development Committee, which I agreed with pleasure to do. I met men so full of enthusiasm on this great subject of Empire development that I was amazed, and so largely has it taken hold that I am sure the Under-Secretary will be delighted to know that to-night we have 145 Members of this House who are all pleased to join in the work of our Empire Development Committee. I can assure him that where his Department undertakes well-considered and well-thought out enterprises in regard to the development of the Empire, these 145 Members will stand behind him, and he can have confidence in going forward with this great work of developing our Empire to know that in the House of Commons itself there are 947 men who will bring him ideas and suggestions and schemes as well as backing up the schemes that he himself proposes to the country. I regret that I have not more time in which to develop many of the points I should like to have raised, but in deference to the request made to me that I would be very short, I will bring my remarks to a close by saying, in regard to Lord Milner and the Under-Secretary, that we have every confidence that they view the great responsibility of this Empire development work and that they will continue it in every possible way. I again wish to say that I trust the Government will give a further day to this great question of the consideration of the Colonial Office Vote.
§ Major-General SEELYI rise only to put two questions to the Under-Secretary of State, and first on the big question which has been raised as to the real object of our government of our great Dependencies. There are two different views which have been very clearly stated in the course of the Debate, and one of them very clearly by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor). If you leave out his references to a capitalist system, I imagine there is not one word of what he said with which most people in the Colonial Office will not agree. When I held the position which the hon. arid gallant Gentleman now holds—one of the most interesting positions a man can hold—for four years before the War, the policy of the Colonial Office was the policy, first of all, that indentured labour of all kinds was to go, and I want a very definite statement on this point from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I think he will be glad to give it. Is the policy of the Colonial Office the same as it was during the time that I have referred to, the same as it has been, at any rate, up to the War, namely, that indentured labour of all kinds should go, whether veiled under the term of forced labour or whether by means of an indenture ordinance? Is it the policy to give the maximum of freedom to the labourer? Secondly, does my hon. and gallant Friend accept the view that our object in all these countries—in East Africa, West Africa, or elsewhere—is not the benefit of any particular body of speculators or financiers, although they all have their rights, but for the benefit of the inhabitants as a whole, even although the 948 great majority may be of another colour from ourselves. Special reference has been made to-day to the Ainsworth Circular and the Trinidad Labour Ordinance, and I agree those two things taken together would seem to indicate a change of policy on the part of the Colonial Office. But I do not believe that is so, and I am sure the House as a whole will rejoice to hear from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the whole policy of the Colonial Office, which has held good for the last 20 years, that we govern for the benefit of the population and natives as a whole, and that indentured labour should go, still stands.
Next, I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will please remember—I am sure he will—that there has been a war, and that a great many people in our Dominions fought very hard; that as a result of the War we have got a very much bigger Empire than we had before; that we should not have an Empire at all if we had lost the War; and that in the vast patronage which lies with the Colonial Office, although I agree he must consider the claims of those who have been in the service before, he will not turn a deaf ear to those well-qualified persons who apply to him for responsible posts in his Department. Those are the questions I rise to ask, and I hope we shall have a satisfactory answer, especially on the first question.
§ Mr. JESSONFirst of all I wish to associate myself with everything that has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member. I think we ought to determine the question on the lines of self-government, and I believe we are doing that as an Empire. It is all very well for us in this country to talk about the colour line. We are not affected by this, as they are in America, where they do not look upon the coloured man exactly as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite does. That is one of the problems we have to face. In Australia the workers have decided that they will have a white Australia, and we have no right to interfere. But when it comes to the administering of affairs in the Colonial Office, we get a totally different spirit from what they have in America or Australia. The point I want to make is this, as against what was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor). He spoke as if everything we did in regard to the natives was in order to exploit them. That is not so. 949 Last year there was a deputation in this country from British Guiana. They wanted to get the assistance of the Colonial Office to bring natives from India, where there is tremendous overcrowding, and get them settled in British Guiana, where the climate is much the same and where the facilities for production are extraordinary. They offered to give them free passages, or assist them, and to give them free grants of land, to help them in cultivating the land, and marketing their produce. That does not look like exploitation. I understand the British Government would have given assistance had it not been for shipping difficulties. That does not look as if we are out as a Colonial Office to exploit the native.
Another point we have to consider is that we as a country are not self-supporting. We have to import practically all our raw materials, with the exception of coal. One of the things in which we are interested, particularly in Lancashire, is cotton. In the past we have been getting the bulk of our cotton from America. The American market is now being closed because America wants practically all the cotton she can produce for herself, and we have to get that cotton from somebody else. We are trying to get it in the Empire, and by encouraging natives to work for themselves, as in British Guiana. There is nothing in the way of exploitation there. Supposing—and it is a fact—that these native races do not work or will not work, they die out. Supposing we had in this country a number of young men and young women who would not work, what would you do? Would you say they must not be coerced; that they must not be penalised in any way
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThese natives have plenty of opportunity of working, if they are allowed to remain in reserves.
§ Mr. JESSONI am talking of natives who refuse to work, particularly male natives who exploit the labour of their women. If we had the same kind of thing here they would have to put up with the consequences if they did not work. There is nothing wrong in encouraging the native to work on the lines; he has brought it about himself. There are a good many points I should like to raise, especially the question of power alcohol being raised in the Empire, the question 950 of our fish supply, and many other questions which would be of enormous assistance to the workers of this country, but time does not permit. I only wish to associate myself with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) as to the good work which has been done by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYI must begin with a very sincere apology to the Committee for the time I took up before. I was not in the House when the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) obtained leave to move the adjournment, and that this Debate was to come to a conclusion at a quarter past eight, or I certainly would not have spoken at such length. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) criticised the extravagance of the Colonial Office, more particularly for spending all this money on overseas settlement. I do not propose to deal with that matter now. It has been dealt with, and I think satisfactorily answered by one of the speakers, and I dealt with the whole subject very fully on the Supplementary Estimates a short time ago.
The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) raised the question of leave conditions in Nigeria. I can assure him I do very much appreciate the importance of this question in view of the unhealthy conditions in West Africa. The whole object of the Leave Committee, which included two distinguished retired members of the West African Civil Service, was to introduce more satisfactory leave conditions. They purposely advocated making those conditions more elastic so that those who live in the least healthy districts or are personally in bad health should be given a larger measure of leave when required. As regards pay, I hope things will be put right in a very short time, and that I shall be able to announce new conditions of pay in the West African Service.
Another point about West Africa of great interest was raised by the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip), as to whether we were not going too far in our consideration for Moslem sentiment. It is a very difficult question indeed. We are under Treaty obligations to the various Moslem chiefs not to interfere with their religion, and it is undoubtedly true that the sending of white 951 missionaries, who are very much identified with the Government, into a Moslem centre to preach Christianity would look as if the Government were deliberately behind Christian propaganda. It is very difficult to know exactly where to draw the limits, or how long you ought to go before you consider a population like that can reasonably be expected to welcome a missionary in their midst. If it is true, as my hon. Friend suggests, that there are pagan districts in which we put difficulties in the way of Christian missionaries, I should be very glad of any information he can give me, for certainly our policy all through, except in Moslem districts, is that we wish their educational and Christianising work to continue. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland raised the question of Trinidad. Undoubtedly, as he knows, there has been very serious trouble, riots and outbreaks in Trinidad, and, in view of the very dangerous situation, I do not think he can complain of the Government taking measures to put some sort of check on seditious propaganda deliberately advocating lawlessness, because there is no check on ordinary constitutional propaganda in Trinidad. As regards the actual industrial situation there, he may be aware that a special Wages Committee, on which employed as well as employers have been represented, have been going, district by district, into the whole question of the relation of wages to present conditions, and I think in most cases with satisfactory results.
I come to the main points of discussion which attack the whole policy and principle on which the Colonial Office is administered, and I should like to say straight away that there is not any departure in the principles of the Government and Colonial Office in the administration of subject territory. Our policy is exactly what it was before, that we govern these colonies, not in the interest of this country, not in the interest of any one section of population, but in the interest of every section of the population.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThen why not give votes in East Africa to Indians and natives?
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYI am coming to that. All people who do live and can live there, and develop their welfare there, are equally entitled to the con- 952 sideration and care of the Colonial Office. And certainly I can also answer the other question as to any form of compulsory or indentured labour. Our policy there has not been changed. As a matter of fact we have made considerable progress. Indentured labour was last year abolished in Fiji, and within the last few weeks in British Guiana, and it only exists now, I think, in one or two of the West Indian Colonies, and there it is due for extinction very shortly, when there will be no indenture labour in any part of the British Empire under the Colonial Office. Another question was why, after the War, we should not, in the Colonial Service, consider the appointment of ex-service men, not excluding those coming from the Dominions. I have been at particular pains to try to get any Dominion officers into the Colonial Service, and I think we have got some very good men into the service.
§ Earl WINTERTONHow does the hon and gallant Gentleman get them? What steps are taken to make it clear that ex-officers of the Dominion armies can obtain work in the Colonial Service?
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYWell, means have been taken both in regard to the universities, where a good many Dominion young ex-officers have been studying since the war, and also we received very valuable help from the Imperial Education Committee and from Colonel Lascelles, a New Zealand officer on that Committee, who I believe took particular pains to bring the matter to the notice of Dominion ex-officers through the various representatives of the Dominion education systems who were in London till quite recently.
Let me briefly deal with the native reserves of Rhodesia in reply to the questions by the hon. Member for Central Bristol. I do hope we shall now be able to give to this matter that finality that he desires. There has been delay arising from the fact that certain points have been raised which we hope now to settle satisfactorily. Let me say, in the first place, that the whole of the changes that have taken place, with two exceptions, have met with general approval. The natives have themselves acquiesced and are carrying out the changes willingly, entirely without any complaint. There has been no complaint from anyone except in these two 953 cases. The numbers affected in these two reserves, the Chiduku Reserve and the Sabi Reserve, is 2,000 in the one case and three or four thousand in the other. As regards the latter the main point of objection seems to be the taking out of the reserve a narrow strip of land for a railway 12 miles wide. There was a very natural reason in favour of this in the fact that the white settler needs the railway more than the natives, because he has his goods brought to him over it and sends them away by it. There is also the point of view of the revenue of the country, because the white man uses the railway much more. It has been suggested by the missionaries and other interested that this strip may interfere with some of the more populous old kraals in that part, the area of which is 290,000 acres out of 1½ millions. We have been in communication with the High Commissioner, and he is perfectly prepared to consider how far steps can be taken to mitigate any possible hardship in that respect. We do not want to make the reserves other than secure for the whole of those natives who wish to live under tribal conditions, and in living under those conditions are free in a way in which no one in this country is free from that economic slavery to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. He is not in any sense obliged to do anything except to cultivate his own land as far as he needs just to sustain his own existence; and the fact that there are always the reserves to go to makes it impossible for the Rhodesian farmer to ask for exorbitant terms from any native who lives on his lands as tenant or labourer. I believe this House can with confidence endorse the very high testimony of Lord Buxton to the native administration of Rhodesia and the attitude of the civil population generally towards the natives. It is a model, not only in Africa, but for any part of the world where you have the very difficult problem of the white settler living side by side with the native.
I now come to the Ainsworth Circular. We have every right, I quite agree, to be watchful and anxious whenever anything is done in any part of our Dominions to suggest the possibility or the danger of compulsion, direct or veiled, being applied to the natives. But I would point out that there is nothing in this circular— 954 framed by an official to whom my hon. and gallant Friend opposite paid such high testimony, and who has always been a friend of the native—there is nothing in the actual wording that necessarily involves anything beyond advice or encouragement to work or discouragement to be idle.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThen why will you not let us see it?
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYI will come to that. It is quite natural and reasonable that in dealing with any circular which involves giving advice to the native chiefs or giving advice to the chiefs to give to their followers that we should be anxious lest there should be, in fact, though not in intention, compulsion. My hon. Friend referred to Rhodesia. There, I believe, a result of a not quite identical, but somewhat similar policy was that in one or two cases undue pressure was used and the policy discontinued. Anxiety in this respect was expressed by the Bishops, though they approved in general terms of the policy.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODNo.
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYTheir letter begins by saying, "We are in entire accord with the main purpose of the Memorandum." But they did express the fear that the chiefs might use a form of compulsion which they thought could only be safely entrusted to Government officials. I may say that I have received a copy of this circular unofficially, though I am till waiting for the copy which has been on its way from East Africa, and which will contain the acting Governor's comment on the actual carrying out of the policy. But I confess that when I first heard of it I felt some anxiety. The Secretary of State shared the same anxiety as myself. But we have had a long discussion on the- whole subject with Sir Edward Northey, the Governor, who is here, and he has made it quite clear to us that whatever may be the interpretation of the circular at this end, compulsion was not his intention out there. He was dealing anxiously for many months with the problem of the demoralisation of the natives in the reserves as well as outside created by post-War conditions, not of natives who work their own plots, but of the young idle natives who are neither working their own plots nor working for anybody else.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIs it not a question of wages?
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYHe made it quite clear that there was no idea of pressure to be brought to bear on the natives working in their own reserves for themselves. There was no intention of forcing women and children to do anything other than that which would be akin to hop-picking in this country, i.e., pick coffee in the immediate vicinity of the reserves, to which they can always return the same day. In any case he insisted that the native commissioners are there, and their purpose is to see that the native chiefs did not go beyond purely lawful persuasion. He has no objection to sending out a further circular to the native commissioners making these points quite clear, and putting it beyond doubt that the object of his policy is not compulsion to work for white employers, but only the discouragement of idleness. He also made clear to us that his policy in this respect was only part of a general policy of improving labour conditions so as to make work more attractive to the natives. At the same time as this circular was issued a Masters' and Servants' Ordinance was passed, under which inspectors of labour were established whose particular task it is to see that contracts between employers and the men are properly observed, and to take up the interests of the native labourer as against the employer, and to see that the labourer is properly housed and paid and sent to hospital when necessary at the employer's expense. Another object of the Governor's policy is to secure that proper compensation should be paid to natives for accidents. In all these ways I submit that the policy of the East African Government is not in any way reactionary, but is a progressive policy We have to face a very difficult problem in dealing with education and development of the natives. It is not enough to say that economic inducements alone will bring the native to see the advantages of work and of raising his standard of living. There are some native races, the American Red Indians, for instance, or many of the splendid tribes in Polynesia, who have shown no inclination to take any interest in any form of economic development, and who, for this very reason, have tended to die out. I quite agree that the most desirable form of work is that where the native is an active and willing 956 cultivator or worker on his own, and for his own direct profit. But it is no injury to him if he should work for a certain number of weeks or months in the year as a labourer for others—not, of course, under compulsion. Whatever may be said against the industrial system in this country—it has had very great defects in the past, and in the present, too—who can deny that the skilled working man of this country has gained enormously in intelligence, knowledge and self-confidence by the skill which he has acquired under the industrial system. In all these matters progress is a matter of great difficulty. We have to maintain, and the Colonial Office will maintain, the general principles on which it has aways proceeded in looking after the interests of the people committed to its charge. We have to deal with the actual facts before us, and deal with them to the best of our ability.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWhat about representation in East Africa?
§ Lieut.-Colonel AMERYAt this moment there is no representative or responsible government for East Africa. The unofficial members on the council are there in a purely advisory capacity, and it makes no essential difference for this purpose whether they are elected or non-elected members. If you took the new franchise in India and conferred it on the Indians in East Africa you would only get the very smallest fraction of them entitled to vote, and for the present, at any rate, we believe the best form of representation will be found in the three nominated members, Indian and Arab, who are taking part in the East African Legislative Council. They are men who know the interests of their particular community; they have defended them with ability and skill, and we do not see at the present moment that it is in the interests of any section of East Africa to have an indiscriminate and uniform franchise, entirely ignoring the whole difference of past traditions and experience between the different races. I am afraid I have not been able to answer adequately in the time at my disposal, many of the interesting points which have been raised.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREI hope we shall keep this Vote alive, in order that we may resume the discussion.
§ It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.