THE BANISHMENT OF SERETSE AND TSHEKEDI KHAMA

HL Deb 27 June 1951 vol 172 cc380-448

2.57 p.m.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE rose to call attention to the situation in Bechuanaland; the banishment of Seretse and Tshekedi Khama; the need for an inquiry into the future of the Protectorate, and the effect of the Government policy on African opinion; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is with a sense of great responsibility that I have put down the Motion standing in my name on the Paper. I suppose there could not be any question so important to-day as that of race equality. It is against that background that I propose to discuss the whole matter. We are a multinational Commonwealth, and if we fail in recognising the rights of people of other races and other colours, then the whole basis of our Commonwealth is destroyed. It is something in which we may take some pride that the appeal to Parliament of two African princes who allege that they have been hardly used met with an immediate response. I should like to say to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, if I may do so without presumption, that I thought his forthright statement last week did something substantial to reassure our African fellow subjects in the Commonwealth and that the business in both Houses of Parliament should be devoted to this issue speaks well of the structure of the Government of the Commonwealth.

Of course, this issue is not in any way a Party issue. It is a very puzzling issue, and it is difficult to know at certain points how to make up one's mind. My Motion will command respect, I hope, not only amongst some members of my own Party but amongst members opposite, and possibly from the noble Marquess himself. I have here a letter from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester assuring me that, as he could not be here himself, he would be glad if I would make it known that, had he come, he would have spoken in support of my Motion. In this House we have this advantage: that we are free from the Party machine control. The real strength and power of this House lie in its lack of powers. In the other place, Members are bound always to bear in mind the fate of the Ministry. That is part of their duty, in considering how they should vote, and in the past I have often admired the strenuous devotion and heroism with which members of my Party have sometimes discharged that part; but here the position is quite different. I can look the Chief Whip in the face, without shame and without fear. I am ready to express what is my own personal opinion on matters, because nothing that we can do in this House can possibly bring about the disaster of the return to power of Mr. Churchill.

The plain issue is this. An African Chief who had had over twenty years of excellent service, who comes of an historic family going far beyond the Great Khama of 1895, who has been praised repeatedly by all qualified observers for the way in which he discharged his duties, against whom not a word had been said until recently, finds himself, by a decision of an inquiry to which he was not a party, an inquiry not entirely based on what he had asked for, banished from his country and his estate, and subjected to a campaign of criticism which is amazing when one considers what people justly said about him throughout his longreign as Regrent. The natural response of liberty-loving people, who are brought up—as are all noble Lords on both sides of the House —to believe in human rights, is to say: this man has been unjustly exiled: let him be returned to his home. That is a plain statement which, prima facie, would command universal respect. How can our people possibly go to Lake Success and talk about human rights and equality of race, and so on, if a man in this position has his name written on what I might call an Ace of Spades, has no appeal, and finds himself exiled from his own land. Yet that is the case.

If the case rested there I should have no difficulty, with the noble Marquess's permission, in following him into the Lobby, though of course at a respectful distance. But that is not the whole case. Quite frankly, I am puzzled. In another place yesterday, the Government spokesman made a statement, which I heard in which the Government produced much evidence, and in which they said that if this Chief went back to his own country there would be great disorder. I must say that not only did my right honourable friend Mr. Gordon-Walker give that as the opinion of the Tribe, but he added many opinions of his own and of other people attacking Tshekedi in such a way as to make it almost impossible in present circumstances, for this Chief to return in peace to his own home. I should like to ask the noble Marquess when he is dealing with the Motion which stands in his name on the Paper, to say exactly what it means. Does it mean that if the Government will institute a full inquiry the Motion is premature; or does it mean that inasmuch as the Government have not instituted a full inquiry he intends to press his Motion? There is a great difference between the two courses.

As I say, on the evidence which was given in another place yesterday, and on the passion which was put by the Minister into resisting the return of this worthy Chief, it seems quite impossible to suppose that he would go back to the Bamangwato Reserve without disturbance. The Government say that Tshekedi Khama is unpopular. They say they have just discovered that, and that they did not know it until two years ago. Apart from the propaganda efforts of the Minister, they base the major part of their case mainly upon a meeting of the Tribe which was attended by the Minister himself; and as your Lordships may have noticed, if you read the debate, those proceedings were arranged in a way that would have done credit to Lord Woolton or any other Party organiser. Everybody knew where he was to sit; everybody knew what he was to say, and the District Commissioner had, so to speak, issued a programme of the fête.

There were little songs of greeting for the Secretary of State—and very proper, too; and then there was the moment when the people present had to say "Pula"—which means "Hear, hear" or "Cheers." If that word could be introduced into our Parliamentary vocabulary I think it would add much to the brightness of our debate. The Minister was very quick to point out that these opinions were the opinions voiced by the speakers, and that the District Commissioner was putting down on paper only what they had already promised to say—that is to say, when speakers got up to say that they did not want Seretse back, it was what they had already decided. Can your Lordships imagine the District Commissioner, who is taking the place of the Chief who has been snatched away, being in the mere position of amanuensis? And when the Government policy is to keep Tshekedi and Seretse out, and to install a new Chief—because there is a Chief of a rival faction—do you not imagine that the tribesmen, seeing the Commissioner in the seat of authority, said "Pula" and did what they were instructed to do? If it is true that Tshekedi cannot be returned without risk of disorder—and I do not know whether that is true or not, because we cannot have an inquiry to find out—then it is dear that the Motion of the noble Marquess does not fully cover the ground.

One has to go a little further back in order to get to the root of the trouble. If your Lordships examine the circumstances, you will find that the real issue arose about a year ago. I appreciate that it is a tremendous difficulty, especially for the Commonwealth Relations Office. The difficulty is that the young Chief of the Tribe, Seretse, who was over here pursuing his law studies, went through a Christian marriage with an English girl and refused to do what many people unworthily suggested—namely, to make her me of many. He stuck to her as his own wife, and she stuck to him. And that was the source of the offence. It might not mean much in other parts of the world, but in South Africa it meant a lot. I think that is the real point of the whole matter. It is a possible conclusion that the tribe do not want Tshekedi back, because if Tshekedi came back it would be the end of the return of Seretse.

Why, after the inquiry into the marriage, did the Government exclude Seretse? There is no question about his not being Chief: everybody acknowledges that he is. Tshekedi acknowledges that he is Chief. That fact has never been challenged. The Government said last year that there was such a bitter quarrel between Tshekedi and Seretse that it was impossible to let them go back without dividing the Tribe into factions. To-day, that bitterness does not exist. No Minister will rise on the Front Bench and tell we that there is now a quarrel that would cause a public disturbance between the recognised Chiefs. Nobody, least of all Tshekedi, challenges Seretse's right to be Chief. No Minister will say that there is such a bitter division as to cause discord in the Tribe. In my Motion, I do not go so far as to suggest a solution. I think the most the Government can do is to make further inquiries. But a possible solution of this matter is that both men should be sent back. Why not? What is there against sending both back? Has Tshekedi committed any crime? Everybody admits that he was a model ruler. Seretse has committed no crime. If you think that a man who makes a white marriage is unfit to be Chief, you go in the face of what has been accepted by the Tribe and accepted by Tshekedi. If that is the reason, it must be stated.

I know the delicacy of the position, but I do not think it would hurt the Ministry to tell people in other States, as for example the Union, the opinions of many of the rank-and-file supporters of the Government in this country. We do not see how you can maintain respect for your own law if you are going to say that, because this hereditary Chief marries a white girl and sticks to her, he is thereby disqualified from being a Chief. Yet there was some suggestion of that kind. After reading all the documents it appears to me that the idea put forward by someone was that the simplest thing to do was to get rid of them both. That would mean getting rid of the white wife, getting rid of Tshekedi Khama and getting rid of Seretse Khama. Then the idea would be: "let us go ahead and organise the Tribe." But, as we now know well, if that was the idea it did not succeed. They did not organise the Tribe; the Tribe would not co-operate on those lines. I should think that the Bamangwato tribesmen feel very bitter that their own man, Seretse, has been excluded from his chieftainship. And, in any case, the idea that they were going ahead was quite useless. It is only recently that any progress has been made—if, indeed, it has been made—with the setting up of governing institutions in the Bamangwato Reserve.

Yesterday, the Government, seeing the feeling of utter misery reflected in the faces of Labour Members who were compelled by Party loyalty to march into the Lobby and support the Government, made an offer that they will arrange another meeting, an assembly of the Tribe, called a kgotla, with two British Members of Parliament as observers in attendance. I do not know whether any members of your Lordships' House are to go to observe as well. Let us say a word or two about this. I do not at all agree with Mr. Churchill, who said that this idea, if carried out, would mean a mob decision. I think one should respect the opinion expressed by the Bamangwato tribesmen in that kgotla. But it seems to me that certain questions must be asked about this special kgotla that is to be arranged. First of all, is Tshekedi to be there? It was stated yesterday that Tshekedi can go if the tribesmen wish it. It is not unlikely, I think, that some of the tribesmen will say that they do not want him; nor will they want Tshekedi's followers to go. Why may some not wish it? Because, in order to avoid civil division, Tshekedi and a number of his followers withdrew from the Reserve. Therefore, according to the Secretary of State, they are now disqualified as members of the Tribe. Furthermore, is Seretse to be allowed to go and state his case? These are questions which: the Government must answer if they wish anyone to take seriously this suggestion that there should be this special kgotla, which is to he observed by two, or possibly three, Members of Parliament.

Again, what are the Members of Parliament to do? Are they to come back and give us a travel talk? Or is it to be their job to go and investigate the affair? Will they be entitled to ask questions? Are they to be legally qualified Members of Parliament? Are they to come back here and present a report? If they are going to do that, why not grant a proper inquiry, and have the whole matter settled once and for all. To my mind, this conception of a special assembly, under the direction no doubt of this extremely efficient organiser, with the people saying "Pula, pula" every time the Government view is expressed, cannot be described as in any way an inquiry or as a concession to the public anxiety on this score. One thing does emerge, however, and it is important and useful. The Government have recognised that the case as it stands is not satisfactory, and they have recognised that something must be done. That is why they came forward with this offer yesterday. As they have recognised that an inquiry of some kind is needed to reassure public opinion, I think that something has been achieved, and I am in great hopes that one of the Ministers skill rise in the course of this debate and tell us that before going further into this morass there shall be a proper survey so that we shall know what firm ground there is on which to set our feet.

The sort of inquiry I think we should have would be something on these lines. First of all, it should be a broad inquiry. My impression when listening to the debate yesterday was this. It was a case of an extremely efficient civil servant and an extremely myopic Minister dealing with a local problem and forgetting that this local problem was part of an immense canvas. That is my general criticism of the debate. We do not want the thing judged from the point of view of Bechuanaland, or even from the point of view of the three High Commission Territories. We want it judged with this background—that His Majesty rules over the greatest African Empire in the world and that we owe a duty to our African fellow-subjects, whether in South Africa or in any other part of the world. One thing which I suggest an inquiry would do would be to produce the Harragin Report. No one knows what is in that Report. Why have we not seen it? We are told that something was said in the Report which would be falsely attributed to the Government. That, it is to be presumed, is the reason the Report was suppressed. But it is really a fantastic position, because if anyone had taken the trouble to take a note of the inquiry itself they could have produced a massive volume. What went on privately, in the office, has, of course, not been made known.

The next thing which I think the inquiry should find out is the real attitude of the Bamangwato Tribe to Tshekedi and Seretse. The inquiry should find out whether the Bamangwato people really want Seretse or whether the real reason they are afraid of Tshekedi is because they think that if Tshekedi comes back the Government will then say: "That is enough," and they will never get their proper Chief, Seretse, and his wife. Mrs. Seretse Khama—the former Miss Ruth Williams—by her behaviour in Serowe has shown herself a woman of quality. When Seretse was brought home to England—I must not say, in your Lordships' House, by a dodge, but when he was brought here—his wife, a pregnant woman, preferred to stay out there and face the thing out. That is the sort of woman she is. We should like to know what the Tribe really thinks of the Chieftainship, and of the marriage of Seretse, and of his wife.

Finally, I think the inquiry should ask whether the administrative machine which was set up many years ago—in 1926 I think—which treated these Protectorates, these High Commission Territories, as though they were something separate and peculiar, is really suitable for our modern conception of the Commonwealth. I wonder if your Lordships noticed one thing which was said in the course of the inquiry. Mr. Ellander, one of the witnesses, mentioned that Seretse, having married a white woman, had been subject to an order declaring him a prohibited emigrant in Mafeking. Therefore, it would be very difficult to deal with him, because he was prohibited in his own capital. I could hardly believe it when I read that. I found out—though apparently everyone else knew it—that Mafeking is the administrative capital of Bechuanaland.

LORD HARLECH

My Lords, may I make it clear that Mafeking is wholly in the Union of South Africa? It merely happens to be the place where the office of the Resident Commissioner of the Bechuanaland Protectorate is situated. Mafeking is not in the Bechuanaland Protectorate.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

The noble Lord, who speaks with the highest authority and experience is quite right, but what he says does not affect my point. These people are having their affairs administered from a town which is not in their own territory. That is to say, a man who passes from his own territory, where he is treated as an equal citizen—as all Africans are in our part of Africa—has to pass into a town where he is treated as an unequal citizen. That, I suggest, throws a real light upon the question as to whether this arrangement that the service of these two Protectorates is a part-time job for a man whose main job is to represent us in the Union, is a suitable arrangement. These Protectorates are part of His Majesty's Colonial dominions. In my opinion, their peoples should be subject to exactly the same policy as is applied to Africans in any other part of the Empire and Commonwealth. That should be made perfectly clear on this occasion. I am not criticising the policy of the Union. The Union is an independent country. But the policy which the Union has pursued makes it doubly necessary that on this occasion we should make it clear that British policy for the Protectorates is the same as our policy for the Gold Coast and for Africans everywhere. If we do not do this, I do not see how we can possibly keep the Commonwealth together.

That is all I have to say. When we are looking for man-power for our Commonwealth, we have to bear in mind that these are men we should not exile. The Khama family is a family of distinguished men who are great administrators. Can we afford to drive them out at the whim of some official who is taking just the local view? I should say the reverse. I should like the decision of this House to be such as to encourage the Government to try and find a way of reconciling the undoubted difficulties and differences that exist and bringing into the service of the Commonwealth two of our most distinguished African Chiefs. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the situation in Bechuanaland; the banishment of Seretse and Tshekedi Khama; the need for an inquiry into the future of the Protectorate and the effect of the policy of the Government on African opinion.—(Viscount Stansgate.)

3.22 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had given notice of his intention to move to resolve, That, on the facts as hitherto presented to Parliament, in the opinion of this House the banishment order against Tshekedi Khama should be rescinded and that he should be at liberty to dwell within the territory of his tribe. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Motion which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has tabled and to which he has just spoken, is, if I may say so, speaking moderately, of a fairly general character. In his speech, especially in the latter portion of it, the noble Viscount raised fairly wide issues of native policy. With these I do not propose to deal this afternoon. If the noble Viscount will forgive my saying so, I think that, in spreading the debate too widely, there is a real danger of clouding the immediate issue with which Parliament is confronted—that is, the banishment of Tshekedi Khama. It is to that issue that my Motion is confined and it is on that issue, and that issue only, that I propose to speak to you this afternoon.

For a great many of us on these Benches, and I believe for a good many noble Lords in all parts of the House, it raises a fundamental principle of British justice—namely, that a British citizen should not be deprived or restricted in his rights and liberties except as the result of some offence of which he has been convicted under the law. There is nothing new about this principle. It goes back to very early times in our history. There is a Charter of Henry III dated 1224, which I should like to read to your Lordships. It says unequivocally: None shall be condemned without trial. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be desscised of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any other wise destroyed, nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him, unless by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. That, stated briefly, is the broad principle on which our British way of life has been founded. It applies without distinction to British citizens of all races, religions and colours. Tshekedi Khama is a British protected person, which for this purpose, is exactly the same thing, and it is our submission that this justice has been denied to him.

Tshekedi Khan a, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has already told your Lordships, is a distinguished member of the Barnangwato Tribe. He acted for a great many years as Regent of his country, and during that period, from all the inquiries I have been able to make, he earned golden opinions from higher authorities. His loyalty to the Crown was undoubted; his word was his bond. Like any strong ruler, of course he made enemies, but there is no evidence I have heard that he committed any crime. On the contrary, his integrity has been above reproach. I understand that the Government themselves recently underlined this fact by offering him an important post under the Crown, as agricultural adviser for the whole Protectorate. In 1949, as the result of certain events into which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, entered to some extent, but into which I do not think it necessary to go to-day, after retiring from the Regerrcy—to which it may he said he has no ambition to return—Tshekedi Khama decided voluntarily, of his own free will, to absent himself from the tribal territories for such period as he thought proper. It was clearly his right to do this. This was a matter for his own individual decision. It did not result from any offence on his part. It was a purely personal matter which, I submit, gave the Government no right, if I may use the words of the statement which was made by the Under-Secretary of State in this House on June 19, to "confirm" this decision. It was his decision, not theirs. Yet, as the result of an inquiry into other matters which did not involve any charges against Tshekedi himself, and purely on the grounds of public and general policy, it was decided, at the end of March, 1950, to refuse him permission to return to the tribal reserve. He was, in fact, banished.

The Government contend, if I may quote the Under-Secretary of State again, that Tshekedi Khama's presence in the tribal area "might lead to disorders." They do not even say, "would lead" to disorders; they say only, "might lead" to disorders. Nor, so far as I can see, have they produced any effective evidence that such is the case. In fact, I believe it to be true that since his banishment he has entered the territory on several occasions, under conditions, I agree, of great inconvenience; but he has entered under permit to attend to private affairs, and no disturbances of any kind whatscever have occurred. Yet now, since that date, the sentence of banishment has been tightened and he is not permitted to enter the area at all.

The Government base their decision on the grounds of public order. They say—and I quote again the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, last week: My right honourable friend was faced with the situation in which he had to balance the private rights of an individual against the public good of the tribe. I must say that that statement fills me with alarm. It seems that in the view of the Government and their supporters the individual has no rights at all. In the past, an individual, unless he had committed an offence, was not only secure against the deprivation of his civil rights and liberties, but he was entitled to the, protection of the law. Now it seems, in Bechuanaland at any rate, that that is no longer true. If he is inconvenient to the powers that be, if he is unpopular, as is alleged in this case, or equally, if he is too popular in another case, he can be proceeded against by administrative order, though he may have done nothing wrong at all. It is not what he does, but who he is, that matters. That is a doctrine we are very familiar with in countries east of the Iron Curtain. It has been used to justify the banishment, or imprisonment, or worse, of any citizen of whom the Government or a majority in the country happened to disapprove. I always understood it was the doctrine par excellence that we who believe in freedom are most concerned to fight for freedom. If we once accepted this other doctrine in British territories, I believe the whole basis of our civilisation would be undermined. What becomes of the liberty of the individual? What becomes of the rights of the minorities? They are all swept away, and everything if left to administrative convenience.

It is perfectly true, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said earlier this afternoon, that in the debate yesterday in another place the Secretary of State proposed a compromise to meet the admitted difficulties of the case. Tshekedi is to have another chance. It is proposed that a new kgotla will be called to consider his return to the tribal area. At this kgotla two or three Members of Parliament are to be present—presumably to ensure that the proceedings are fairly conducted—and Tshekedi himself is to be present, if he is willing to appear. The decision is to be reached, I take it, in the light of this kgotla; otherwise, there is no point in holding the kgotla at all. Superficially, this may appear to some an attractive offer, but, like the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I am quite unconvinced that the proposal meets the needs of this particular case.

For one thing—though I am sure it was not his intention—the decision of the new kgotla has already been prejudiced by what was said by the Secretary of State in another place yesterday. First—and I must say that I deeply regret it—he repeated the allegation which he had heard when he was in Bechuanaland, that if Tshekedi returned, the Tribe were frightened that he would get hack to a position of power and then revenge himself on them. It is true that the right honourable gentleman did not say that he personally accepted that view, but he did not repudiate it; and by the mere fact of repeating the allegation, he gave a substance to it which it did not have before. Secondly, he said quite definitely that: there was no doubt that if Tshekedi went back, not only would there be no further progress, but we should find the present good relations replaced by non-co-operation. Is it not certain that these remarks will be repeated in the Bamangwato Tribe? Will it not be pointed out by the opponents of Tshekedi that the Government are behind them? His enemies will be encouraged; his friends will be discouraged. In such circumstances, the kgotla will be a farce, and the result will surely be a foregone conclusion.

Moreover I personally do not like the idea of justice arising from a mass meeting. I do not say that in any term of offence against the meeting, but as objective comment on the character of the meeting. There are a great many legal authorities in your Lordships' House. Would any of them say that that emotional atmosphere was likely to produce unbiased justice? Nor am I convinced by this new idea of the infallibility of the kgotla on which the Government now base their case. After all, it was not so very long ago that a kgotla was held to decide whether Seretse should be Chief, and they decided definitely against it, in the first instance. But His Majesty's Government never showed the zeal which they now show to accept that decision. They hesitated; they vacillated; they waited until the views of the tribe had changed —and, presumably, because the decision of the Tribe was not acceptable to their own supporters in this country. Why are they now so ready to accept the decision of a further kgotla?—unless it is that they think it is likely to coincide with their own views. That is not the way in which we have always been accustomed to administer justice in this country.

This, to many of us—because this is not a Party issue—is a fundamental issue on which we do not feel we can afford to compromise. I most sincerely—and I mean it sincerely—beg the Government to retreat from the course on which they have so unhappily entered; to rescind the order of banishment on Tshekedi Khama, and to allow him to return to his tribal area with the full rights of a private citizen, to carry on his private affairs as a private citizen. As your Lordships know, he has considerable properties there: he is a rancher on a large scale; he has developed his properties; he has bought cattle—on which he is an acknowledged expert; and he has sunk boreholes. His presence is vital if his estates are to be properly administered. That is all he asks for, and that, surely, is mere justice. If the Government are willing to do this, we on this side of the House, I am certain, shall be very happy, and we shall not seek to delve further into the past, which I agree it is better, in such circumstances, to bury.

I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who asked me a direct question on this point, that it is the restoration of Tshekedi Khama, and not merely an inquiry, to which we attach importance. But if the Government were to refuse to reverse the decision, if that were their attitude to-day—although many of us would find some considerable difficulty in supporting the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on account of the wider issues he has raised, both in the words of the Motion and in his speech, which, in our view, are not relative to the plea which we are advancing—then we should have no option but to press our Motion to a Division. The issue to many of us is too great for any other course to be possible. On the ore side, as we see it, there is principle; on the other, there is expediency—and. in my experiency of public affairs, such as it is, expediency is the most dangerous of all counsellors. It very often means sacrificing everything for which you stand to gain some temporary advantage. Yet the long range results of expediency may well be disastrous, as in this case. What will be the position of other African Chiefs in the future who wish, and ought, to rule with a firm hand? They will know that they will make themselves unpopular, perhaps with wide sections of their people, and they will say to themselves: "If we do that, when the day of trouble comes the British Government will not stand by us, but will abandon us." What could be worse than that? What could be more damaging to our prestige and reputation?

We are told—and this is a point of importance—that our representatives on the spot have supported the Government's view. I am not in the least sur- prised about that, nor do I blame them: indeed, like others of your Lordships, I have the highest respect for Sir Evelyn Baring and those who work under him. I believe it is natural that in the position they occupy they should take this view. Their job, as local administrators, is to secure the smooth administration of the territories for which they are responsible, and on that purely limited basis the advice which they have given may he well based. But we here have to take account of far wider considerations than merely local administration. They, the local administrators, are not concerned with fundamental principles; but we here in Parliament are concerned with those principles. One of the main purposes of our existence as a legislative Chamber is to maintain the high principles and repute on which our Commonwealth and Empire rests. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that this is not a Party question: it is a question of conscience which cuts across all Parties. It is because I believe that so profoundly that—unless the Government change their view, and I still hope that they may—I shall have no option but to ask the House, which has so high a standard of conduct, to go into the Lobby in support of my Motion.

3.40 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF LUCAN)

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Stansgate has said, we can take a great pride that, in a time of such stress and tension, this Parliament can devote time to a case of injustice, as it is held to be by some people, towards two members of an African tribe for whom we have responsibility. We know that on this matter deep public feelings have been aroused, and they exemplify a public opinion which is always so very sensitive on the question of the rights of the individual and which has so often been led by my noble friend Lord Stansgate over many years. I think it is due to the depth of this public feeling that several serious misconceptions have arisen about the whole nature of the dispute, and I do not think they have been dispelled by the two speeches we have heard this afternoon.

First of all, the conflict of interest has been represented as one between the interest of an African tribe and the British Government; the interest of African people, helpless and far away, against the whole power of the British Government. I submit that that is entirely wrong. The conflict of interest—which is a very real conflict, raising very difficult problems—is one between the Bamangwato people, a small tribe in a small Protectorate in Southern Africa, on the one hand, and, on the other, a single man, a distinguished, powerful and very able Chief, a member of their own ruling family. That, as we see it, is the conflict, and that is the conflict which had to be resolved by the Government. There have been allegations of injustice, and I think it has not been generally recognised that conditions in the Bechuanaland Protectorate are different from those in this country. Six or eight centuries ago there were certainly charters of individual liberty in this country, but it is only sixty years since the Great Khama sought the protection of Queen Victoria for his people. Shortly afterwards he made a journey to England, and accepted the Constitution whereby his country became a Protectorate under the Government; and that Constitution, with modifications at certain times, has remained to this day.

In matters of individual liberty that Constitution is not the same as ours in this country, and it is the responsibility of the Government to maintain order and good Government in the Protectorate within the Constitution. That responsibility is exercised through the High Commissioner and his staffs. The question of banishment without trial is entirely within the Constitution of the Protectorate, a Constitution which has been in force for forty years and more, and which has been applied by Governments of every complexion in this country. It is no new thing, as the noble Marquess was implying. There is no change of policy, and the noble Marquess must know that for many years this territory has been administered under precisely these conditions, and the power of banishment is specifically included in that Constitution. It is a power which dates from time immemorial in African tribes and in other societies, and has been exercised on certain occasions (which were mentioned in another place) by rulers of the Bamangwato and sanctioned by His Majesty's Government.

This question of banishment is not considered as a sentence called forth by a crime. There is no question of crime. There has never been a mention of crime, and I regretted that my noble friend spoke, I think, of the campaign of criticism against Tshekedi Khama. There was nothing which my right honourable friend said in another place which could be construed as criticism of Tshekedi Khama. Here may I digress and mention the question of supposed prejudice to the forthcoming kgotla which may be caused by the Secretary of State's speech yesterday? On two grounds, I think it is a complete misrepresentation to speak of any prejudice to Tshekedi's case being caused by yesterday's proceedings. In the first place, the Secretary of State was under a personal attack, and when we talk of campaigns one might say that there was a campaign of criticism against the Government and the Secretary of State. He was under severe attack and was required to justify his actions. His justification for his actions was the state of feeling of the Tribe, which he quoted. That cannot be considered as prejudicing the case; moreover, the Bamangwato are not so easily convinced. They are not so pliable as to accept everything that a Secretary of State says. A number of cases have occurred where the Secretary of State would have liked a kgotla to be held, or a certain decision to be taken, and the Tribe took the contrary course. The suggestion that there has been anything done or said to prejudice the forthcoming kgotla is completely without substance.

I hope that I have said enough to show that there is really no question of injustice. Tshekedi Khama's interests unfortunately conflicted with those of the Tribe and it is the Tribe that we have in mind. As your Lordships know, under the existing Constitution the responsibility rests with the High Commissioner, and the High Commissioner is ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State who has to make up his mind whether and in what conditions a risk to law and order in the Protectorate or in the Reserve would exist. To make up his mind he must take the best evidence available. What was the evidence at his disposal? How could he find out the state of feeling in the Bamangwato Tribe? First, there are direct expressions of opinion by tribal leaders and headmen, who have volunteered statements to the officials, either individually or at kgotlas, which are the traditional means of expression of public opinion in African tribes. Secondly, the Secretary of State can take into account the views of his officials.

Here I would join issue with my noble friend, who spoke in what I thought was a very unfair way about these officials. These are men who have voluntarily devoted their lives to this service, which means that they give up their lives to the welfare and good government of the African tribes. Nobody has forced them to do that; there is no reason why they should have done it; and it is reasonable to assume that they wanted to do the job as well as possible and that they have the interests of the African people at heart. I regret the suggestions that they were motivated by self-aggrandisement or of the exercise of dictatorial power and the currying of favour with their superiors. All this has been implied with regard to the kgotla held in February. I must protest, on behalf of these servants of the Government and of the African people, against the bandying about of such irresponsible accusations—for I can only call them so. That is the second form of evidence as to tribal opinion that the Secretary of State had at his disposal.

He had also his own eyes and ears to assist him, for he himself spent some days in the Protectorate, met large numbers of people, attended various tribal meetings, and formed certain opinions, as he was entitled to do. Fourthly, there are other African peoples living in Southern Africa in roughly comparable conditions, and it is good evidence to hear what they think. Leaders of African opinion in other pares of Southern Africa also have their views.

LORD HARLECH

Where?

THE EARL OF LUCAN

In Basutoland and in South Africa.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Were they invited to give their opinions?

THE EARL OF LUCAN

That I cannot say. The opinions were given, in the case of Basutoland, with the greatest sense of responsibility. The Paramount Chief in Council gave her opinion with every sense of responsibility and with willingness that it should be quoted. Other tribes, too—and remember that we are now talking about only one tribe, numbering some 20,000, out of a population of 200,000 in the Protectorate—in the other Reserves in the Protectorate are entitled to their views; they have expressed similar views. All the weight of African and official opinion I have mentioned was to the same effect: that there would be a risk to law and order if Tshekedi returned to the Reserve. Against that the Secretary of State had the views of Tshekedi himself; and surely no one would suggest that a responsible Minister having to make up his mind on an important matter would ignore the whole weight of African opinion and take that of the most interested person himself.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But is it not a fact that on the occasions when Tshekedi did go back there was no disturbance?

THE EARL OF LUCAN

Those were limited visits, undertaken for specific purposes while the banishment order was in force. The people had no reason to fear that Tshekedi would be returning as Regent, or that he would be returning permanently to live in the Reserve.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

This is a very important matter and I should like the noble Earl to deal with it as he goes along. He admits that when Tshekedi returned—I think for four months—while the order of banishment was in force, there was no disorder of any sort or kind in the Reserve. Is it not a fact that Tshekedi has made an offer to the Secretary of State that he will continue to live outside the territory, provided that he is able to return to look after his own affairs, exactly in the way he did during that four months' period last year? Will the Secretary of State accept that offer?

THE EARL OF LUCAN

The visits referred to were undertaken purely for the purpose of looking after his own interests in the territory. The offers made by the Secretary of State during his talks with Tshekedi early this spring were for similar visits. I cannot at the moment give the exact details or the exact conditions, but they were for conditional visits. In addition, if my memory serves me aright, it was requested that certain of the more distant cattle, stations should be withdrawn and concentrated into one area of the Protectorate, instead of being scattered over a number. Those conditions, admittedly, were proposed by the Secretary of State, but Tshekedi did not feel able to accept them. I cannot agree with the statement that the fact that no disturbances followed the visits to the kgotla last year is a proof that disorders would not follow Tshekedi's permanent return.

Now, my Lords, the criticisms that have been made of the Government's policy have, for the most part, consisted of throwing doubt on the genuineness of tribal opinions which I have mentioned. It is clear that many people in this country are very deeply and sincerely disturbed by a doubt whether these repeated expressions of opinions of the Bamangwato have been correctly interpreted. To allay these doubts—and it is obvious that doubts on such a matter must be allayed —the Government have agreed to invite the Bamangwato people to express their opinion again on the matter of the return to the Reserve of Tshekedi. The proposal is that a kgotla should be held in the fairly near future. Some words of the noble Marquess rather implied that this kgotla was of little value and, therefore, that it was not be relied upon as an expression of opinion. But, of course, the ballot box has not yet penetrated to the Bechuanaland Protectorate. The time-honoured, traditional tribal method of expressing an opinion on important matters is the tribal meeting, or kgotla. The noble Marquess, who has been in the Dominions Office, must know that that is the only known method of obtaining the views of the tribesmen, and, moreover, the method best known to the Bamangwato people.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, because I know he has a difficult speech to make, but he is really misapprehending the point I made, which was that the result of the kgotla had already been prejudiced by the strong expressions of view by the Secretary of State himself in another place yesterday.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

It may have been that the noble Marquess was out of the House when I mentioned that point. I cannot agree that the Secretary of State's speech yesterday prejudiced the case. I do not believe that the Bamangwato people pay all that much attention to the words of the Minister in Parliament.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Oh!

THE EARL OF LUCAN

There have been many cases where they have not been as compliant as the noble Marquess may think. Moreover, the Secretary of State was putting his case against a Motion which he thought, if carried, would have a very grave effect on the Protectorate. He was bound to give all the evidence on which the Government policy was based, and it cannot be accepted that the future—in this instance, what will happen in an African meeting a month hence—was prejudiced by yesterday's events. The Government hope that the kgotla will be held sometime in the near future. Consultations about the date and the mechanism of calling it are starting immediately. It is obviously desirable that the state of uncertainty should be ended as soon as possible. At the same time, there are physical limitations for the Members of Parliament who, it is suggested, should go out and attend this kgotla. It will probably be some weeks before the kgotla can be summoned.

A very important question is the presence or otherwise at this kgotla of Tshekedi Khama and his followers. The view of the Government is that they would wish Tshekedi to have every possible facility for presenting his case fully to the kgotla, and they will not put any obstacle in his way. The banishment order allows for visits to the Reserve under permit for special purposes, and the Government would, of course, give such facilities. As to the followers of Tshekedi who are now resident in the Bakwena Reserve, from the Government point of view there is no ban and no obstacle to their going back. There is, however, the question of tribal law and custom. It is not for us, the Government, to override anything in tribal law which might say that someone who has left the Reserve, taken up residence and become a member or citizen, so to speak, of another tribe, is still qualified to attend. All the Government can do is to say that they hope that Tshekedi will be given full facilities for presenting his case.

My noble friend asked for what reason the Members of Parliament would go there? Why should there not be a proper inquiry instead? As I have said, the object of this second kgotla is to allay the doubts which exist in the minds of so many people, particularly in the minds of Members of Parliament. If some Members can be present at the kgotla, they can satisfy themselves that it is a genuine expression of opinion. Whatever decision is come to by this forthcoming meeting, will be taken very seriously by the Government. Noble Lords will realise that the Government cannot abdicate their functions, give up the whole of their responsibility and leave matters to be decided by a tribal meeting. What they will do is to treat any expression of opinion by that kgotla as important evidence of the feeling of the tribe. There are other considerations that also have to be taken into account but, so far as the public opinion in the tribe goes, that kgotla will be taken as evidence of genuine public opinion.

There are many other speakers, and your Lordships will not want me to go into great detail. Some of the details of the evidence mentioned were largely dealt with during the debate in another place yesterday. I will not deal with all of those, but should like to end by saying that the Government's policy in this territory has been set out, I think I may say repeatedly set out, both in the White Paper and by the Secretary of State, and by the Prime Minister yester day. Some of the criticisms directed against the Government seem to assume that the main object of the Government is to introduce direct rule of the most autocratic kind, to perpetuate that rule and to pay no attention to the wishes and the social, economic and political development of the African people. That is entirely contrary to the fact.

LORD HARLECH

Nobody has suggested it.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I must say in a most emphatic way that these accusations are completely unfounded and that the object of the Government has been to introduced democratic forms of government to lead the people steadily towards increasing self-government. To that end, the first thing that has to be done is the ground work, the setting up of the local government system and the gradual devolution to local authorities of powers proper to their, so in time building up a politically mature society in these tribes.

There has never been any change in Government policy on this matter. I realise that the people who accuse the Government of high-handedness and the wish to suppress native institutions hold their views, no doubt with complete sincerity. But perhaps I may be permitted to say that it is a matter for regret that this anxiety for the well-being of the Africans should take the form of accusations of deliberate bad faith on the part of the Government and of Ministers, and of reflections on the integrity of the officials who are serving the Government in Africa.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I never made any accusations such as that. I do not know what the noble Earl means by saying that. I paid a tribute to Sir Evelyn Baring and all the people who acted under him. The noble Earl's accusation is monstrous.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

If the noble Marquess says that, of course, I accept it. I thought the noble Marquess implied that the civil servants out there were concerned only with administrative convenience and not with principles.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Earl will forgive me, I said they were concerned with local administration. It is true that I said that it seemed to me that if the Government swept away all the other principles to which we have always adhered, they were leaving nothing but administrative convenience. That I said of His Majesty's Government. I hold that view and I repeat it. But with regard to Sir Evelyn Baring, and those who worked under him, I said they were concerned with local administration, and not with principles.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH

I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I am quite sure that we do not want this debate on such an important matter to be conducted other than in the best possible spirit. I wrote down the words that the noble Marquess used. He said: The Civil Service are not concerned with fundamental principles. We hold the view that under the Constitution of a country the Civil Service do not make recommendations, apart from what is required of the administration in the observance of fundamental principles. The noble Marquess's observation sounded rather like a criticism.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Viscount will forgive me for saying so, but that is not true at all. The local officials are not concerned with the fundamental principles which dominate the policy. It would be absurd if they were. Supposing they disagreed with their Ministers or superiors, they would all the time have to be resigning from their job is. Their job is to carry on the practical administration of the territory concerned. It is for the Government to be concerned with fundamental principles, and it is our complaint that they are not.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I must apologise to the noble Marquess if I misunderstood his words. But I was struck by something that Lord Stansgate said when he spoke of some decisions having been come to through the whim of an official. I must express some resentmentat such an attitude to the Government and to officials.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I am sorry to have attracted the fire which was directed against the noble Marquess, and which I was enjoying very much. I cannot regard the fact that I said that some decisions were come to through the whim of an official as a very serious attack upon the Civil Service.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I would only say that in a matter like this, which so vitally affects the view of the African tribes under our control, we should give credit to those who disagree with us for having methods at least no worse than our own.

4.14 p.m.

LORD HARLECH

My Lords, your Lordships have just listened to a most amazing reply. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has fought stalwartly all his life for ultra-liberal principles of all kinds, quite rightly and naturally has raised this very human issue regarding the treatment by successive Ministers of Tshekedi Khama. My noble friend Lord Salisbury did not go into or enlarge upon a number of the details which appeared in the departmental brief given to the Minis ter, which took up most of his speech and which were entirely irrelevant to the two speeches that had gone before. The noble Earl sat down without saying one word on this broad issue of the consistent "cat-and-mouse" banishment of Tshekedi Khama. Why has Tshekedi Khama been banished periodically and allowed back under proper surveillance? To make it worse, where can he go? Do you want him to go to the Union? Do you want him to go to Central Africa, or to East Africa? He has many friends, even in Nigeria, Uganda and the like, for he is one of the most celebrated and admired Chiefs in all parts of Africa. He has a great reputation among Africans.

Here is the remarkable example of a Lovedale boy who, with great merit and great knowledge, has brought forward his own tribal area on his own initiative by building schools and engaging in entirely new ventures. He has made many improvements in agriculture, and, above all, he is renowned for his great leadership in the war. I have personal knowledge of that because I was High Commissioner. He recruited throughout the High Commission Territories and in Rhodesia. He made many visits to African troops of all tribes, who regarded him as one of the great leaders at the Front. As an ex-High Commissioner, I must say that it makes one sick to hear the kind of inadequate speech that your Lordships have heard from the Government Front Bench—a sort of departmental brief—when a great human and a great constitutional issue is at stake. I speak with feeling on this matter. I have worked with Tshekedi. I have the greatest admiration for him. I owe him a great personal debt of gratitude.

Then there is the way in which the High Commissioner is treated. We get these letters exploited by Socialist Ministers. There is the honourable gentleman, Colonel Lipton, who objects to Tshekedi going to Bakwena. Where is he to go? The Bakwena are kinsmen of the Bamangwato. It is one of the smallest and the weakest and the humblest of the native Reserves. He cannot even go there. That has been criticised in a letter in The Thnes from this Socialist Colonel. I really think that the way in which first Mr. Noel-Baker and now Mr. Gordon-Walker have personally treated Tshekedi is one of the blackest spots in the history of the treatment of the African people. Having been Secretary of State for the Colonies and having worked amongst these people, I want to say that emphatically. I feel most bitterly on the subject. What I want to know is whether the kgotla is going to be fairly conducted. Is it going to be really free? I hope so. Of course, it will have to be a very large kgotla to deal with all the Bamangwato Tribe. As a matter of fact, the Bamangwato are a minority in the Bamangwato Reserve, as we delimited it. The Bamangwato proper in the Eastern part are outnumbered by the elements of other tribes. who are resident in that Reserve, including quite a number of Damaras from South West Africa, the Bakwena, and the like. After all, this Reserve is a comparatively modern creation. Chief Khama, by his skill in war, saved the whole of the Northern Bechuanaland people from being over whelmed by the Matabele, and by his ability as a statesman he created the Bamangwato, who are a comparatively small people.

It is absolutely essential that when the kgotla is called we should know beforehand who is going to preside. I hope it will be an African. But let it be an African who is not known to be a partisan of one side or another. We could not carry on the business of the House of Commons unless there was an impartial Speaker. I think it is all-important that the President of this kgotla which is to be summoned should be absolutely impartial, and that it should be a very large kgotla. There should be a minimum of 6,000 or 7,000 people in attendance, and there should be no hurrying of its deliberations. And be sure it is absolutely fair. I think it is probably as good a device as any, in view of the mess that this matter has got into. After all, the mess goes back to the refusal to publish the report of the judge. The judge was asked to carry out an inquiry, and everyone in Basutoland, Swaziland and the other Protectorates—I was in Rhodesia at the time—said: "Thank goodness there is to be a judicial inquiry! We shall hear the objective truth from an impartial judge." But the Government have suppressed the report of that judicial inquiry and have declined to publish it, though repeatedly pressed to do so. Why they have refused I cannot understand. I think that among all the instances of tragic mismanagement in Africa for which this Government have been responsible, this is one of the cardinal examples of maladministration.

The conclusion one comes to about all this is that there is perpetual difficulty as between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. I was for three years under the then Dominions Office, as High Commissioner. Before that, during all my official life I was under the Colonial Office. The bulk of the officials in the High Commission Territories are Colonial Office people, seconded from the Colonial Empire for service there; but when they are in the High Commission Territories they are under the Commonwealth Relations Office. I more and more feel that the time has come when, if we are to go on administering the High Commission Territories in South Africa, they must he dealt with by the same office, the same people and treated with the same policy as Central Africa, East Africa and West Africa. The duality cannot go on. It is extremely difficult, too, for the High Commissioners. One staff is entirely a Commonwealth Relations Office staff. The Commonwealth Relations Office people have had nothing to do with the Territories, though they are very able and have had great experience of Australia, Canada, Newfoundland, Eire and latterly of India, Pakistan and Ceylon. However, they have had no African experience, and they have no obligation to take an interest in that Continent. Then there is another staff of people, drawn from the administration of the three High Commision Territories and from the Colonial Service in the Colonial Office. The result has been that two completely watertight compartments have existed. I find it difficult to believe that we can indefinitely go on organising those three High Commission Territories in that way.

I had always hoped that the Dominions Office people would visit the High Commission Territories, so that when they returned to the Dominions Office they would have some first-hand knowledge and some opinions formed at first-hand. But no, they were much too busy dealing with the Union Government and the Union point of view on all these matters. And quite right too, for that is their job; it is an ambassadorial function. It is high time the administration of the South African High Commission Territories was transferred from the Commonwealth Relations Office, with all its new policies and new world-wide responsibilities, to the Colonial Office. That is my considered opinion. I can see that the change Would be beset by certain practical difficulties, but I think it is necessary. What has brought matters to a head is this extraordinary treatment of one of the outstanding Africans.

I have one other point to raise. Why did the Government, when all the trouble was going on about Seretse's marriage—that is now, rather wisely I think, forgotten—never stop the Press of this country calling him "His Highness." Tshekedi was never "His Highness." None of the other Chiefs in the High Commission Territories—the Paramount Chief of Basutoland or the Paramount Chief of Swaziland—is entitled to such a title. But it was: "His Highness Prince Seretse" and "Princess Ruth," or "Their Highnesses." When all that was going on in the British Press, without any interference from the Government, I happened to be in Uganda. It is the case, of course, that only the native rulers of Uganda and Zanzibar have been recognised by the British Crown as "Highnesses." It caused a great deal of feeling when the people in those countries suddenly saw all these references in British newspapers and other publications to Seretse as "His Highness." Tshekedi has never claimed the title of "Highness." Many people can have no idea how much harm that kind of thing causes, not only in the Union of South Africa and in the High Commission Territories but also in East Africa and West Africa. Again, I say, the handling of this tragic affair in this one Reserve of the Bechuanaland Protectorate shows that our whole set-up, our whole machinery for governing these territories, must be reconsidered. I feel bitterly that Tshekedi Khama, one of the outstanding Africans of his time, has had shabby treatment from successive Socialist Ministers. I sincerely trust he is not going to be let down in the future. We owe him a great debt of gratitude; at least, we owe him fair play. I trust that you will not go on encouraging the campaign to "do him in."

4.28 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, I rise to speak for noble Lords who normally sit on these Benches, in support of the Motion on a matter which has been discussed fully, not only in another place yesterday but also in the Press and, indeed, in every corner where intelligent argument takes place. When I say that we support the Motion, I feel that, after listening to the debate to-day, we preferably support the Motion of the noble Viscount. Lord Stansgate, because it seems that there is a certain amount of confusion about the question of banishment itself. Many of us may not like the penalty of banishment or the fact that it can exist in the British Empire, but it does exist in certain corners of the British Empire, and we cannot consider to-day whether that position should be changed. It is a very big matter which should be submitted, I suggest, to a Select Committee or some such appropriate body to take a decision upon it. My second point is, given that this penalty of banishment still applies in parts of the Empire, has it been properly and fairly applied in this particular case? It seems to me that Lord Stansgate's Motion takes that question rather more widely than does the Motion of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. For that reason I, for one, would follow the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, into the Division Lobby at an even more respectful distance than he is following the noble Marquess.

I am very glad—as I am sure all noble Lords are—that no element of Party spirit has come into this matter, controversial though it is. And May I be forgiven if I say that it gives me great pleasure to know that the lead which the Liberal Party gave last night in another place by putting down a similar Motion or Question, has been so enthusiastically followed by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, whom, if I may say so, I always regard politically and affectionately as a sort of prodigal uncle. I hope that, unlike the weary, plodding ploughman, he will hasten his steps much more quickly on the homeward way. I was also pleased that noble Lords on my physical left, and political right, should also lend support to the Liberal view, whether that word be spelt with a large or a small "1" or, as in some parts of the country, with a double "Ll."

In the course of this regrettable dispute a great deal of detail has been made available to those who care to read it. But at this stage your Lordships should get rid of details so far as possible and look at this matter in the broad. A case has been made out on one side and a case has been made out on the other. In neither instance is the evidence presented in a form which would be accepted by a British count of law, but in each instance there appears a strong prima facie case for investigation and examination, to ensure that injustice has not been and will not be done. There are two parties to this dispute and one of them appears to have assumed additionally the rôle of judge, and has given a verdict in his own favour. I do not say that this is a fair summary of the position, but it is an impression that is widely held in this country and cannot be ignored. That seems to me to be the crux of the matter, and it is quite immaterial and irrelevant that one party is a powerful Government Department and the other is an African from a far-away part of the British Empire.

The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, would agree with me that, much as we admire the very fine record of Tshekedi Khama, as a matter of propaganda (if I may use the word in a kindly sense) we should have preferred to see in his place some poor African coloured farmer, without influence, wealth or position, so that we could demonstrate even more forcibly than we are doing that any citizen of His Majesty in any part of the Empire, whether white or coloured, can have behind him the full weight of both Houses of Parliament in London. I am not trying to prejudge this matter. Many of your Lord ships, though not all, I gather from the last speaker, will feel that the Secretary of State has discharged a particularly difficult task with good will and good intention. But the point is: Has he done it with good judgment? He brings evidence to show, of course, that he has used good judgment, and the other side brings evidence to show that he has not used good judgment. This is a perfectly normal position in any dispute; and surely the next step after that is to put the matter before an impartial judge or tribunal. It is for that reason we consider that an official and impartial inquiry should be set up to look into this matter.

One of the matters that should be looked into is the propriety of setting up another tribal congress to decide a question which had already been dealt with on two or three occasions. Even if this inquiry were in the nature of an appeal against earlier decisions, it would make no difference. There is no stigma in the action of appealing, no stigma on either side, whatever the conclusion may be. In this country, where in many cases the laws are very different from those in Africa, it is open to any citizen to pursue his appeal through all the courts of law right up to your Lordships' House. I stand open to correction, if that is not so. The only thing which would debar a citizen from taking that course would be that his appeal was either frivolous or unduly vexatious. I do not think any of your Lordships would consider either party was other than sincere. It is for this reason, for the right of any sincere man or body of men to have a case judged impartially, that we on this side of the House support the Motion proposed by the noble Viscount.

4.35 p.m.

LORD HAILEY

My Lords, I cannot pretend to be an expert on the dynastic aspect of Bamangwato affairs, nor have I a ready-made solution that I can offer to your Lordships for the complicated situation that has arisen. Early in the present year, I spent about a month in Bechuanaland, about ten days of that period being at the headquarters of the Bamangwato and the rest of the time travelling about to various other centres. During that period it was impossible to avoid hearing a great deal about the complications that had arisen through what I might call the Seretse-Tshekedi affair. In the kgotla which I attended, I tried, so far as possible, to lead the discussion away from that; but, as your Lordships will realise, if you want people to talk freely about matters that concern you—and in this case the matter concerning me primarily was the technique of native administration—you must allow them pretty considerable latitude in talking about matters which concern them and in which they are primarily interested. Though I did not make any deliberate attempt to inquire into all the facts, or to ascertain what was the general opinion on this subject, nevertheless I could form certain conclusions.

I formed the conclusion, first, that there was a very considerable state of tension in the Bamangwato area. I formed the conclusion also that it would be wise if we could proceed now with the scheme for the institution of local councils and, so long as there were no other native authority, of a Central Council. These are the three conclusions I formed. I am bound to say that I formed them partly on the particular ground of the existence of this tension, and partly on the general ground of the necessity of pushing forward with a policy of instituting local councils in the interests of the promotion of systems of local government. I know that if I attempted to go any further than that, I should be reminded that, after all, I was dealing with the same officials and probably for the most part the same "unofficials" of the Bamangwato people as the Secretary of State. He was there only a fortnight before me, and I should not be able to pretend that I had any independent source of opinion that was not open to him. I naturally saw the ex-chief, Tshekedi, for whom I have as much admiration as the noble Lords who have spoken. I saw him in the Bakwena Reserve, but I did not see any of the members of the group who went with him to Bakwena, and whom I know to be some of the most distinguished and experienced men who have been concerned in the administration of the Bamangwato Tribe.

Therefore, if I can offer any suggestion or advice in this matter, it is simply this. It would be expedient to proceed as soon as possible to a decision on this case and, having once done so, to stand by it. I think that much of our trouble in this case has come from variation of policy. As to the various abstract questions that have been raised in correspondence, to my mind these are considerations of a wider import than that with which I have been dealing—namely, the return of ex-Chief Tshekedi to the Bamangwato area. Contrary to some opinions I have heard here this afternoon, I think that they are of minor importance compared with the necessity of securing peace and orderly progress in the Bamangwato area. That, at all events, is my immediate and most urgent preoccupation. I look at yesterday's debate in another place, and I fear that the only impression it conveys to me is of a large number of people of good will propounding a great variety of different remedies for the situation that has arisen in the Bamangwato area, but being unable to decide on any one line of action. I suggest that that is because on this occasion Parliament has gone somewhat beyond its natural functions. It has not confined itself to a discussion of principles, but has gone into a field in which its tread is always somewhat uncertain—namely, the field of administrative practice. But it is a legitimate function for Parliament to discuss these questions of wider principle in their own connection, and I think that on occasion it should do so.

I would say, in regard to some of the pleas put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the question of the validity of the procedure by which people can be moved from their tribe to another area without trial, that it is one that has been in force for many years throughout the Colonial Empire. The noble Marquess himself as Colonial Secretary must have given sanction to a number of ordinances that embody this principle. Our concern must be not so much with that principle as with safeguarding its application—and I agree that it is the function of Parliament to see that in its application there is no injustice and no abuse of power. But can the Government, for this purpose, insure themselves against any abuse of power, or any misuse of an ordinance of that nature, by sending out a commission of inquiry? After all, there have been numerous cases throughout the Colonial Empire in which this power has been used. It does not seem to me at all reasonable that there should be a commission of inquiry upon this particular occasion and not on the other numerous occasions on which this power has been exercised. Many of your Lordships have no doubt received a number of memorials in the past regarding its recent application in Uganda.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but I take it that he is now addressing himself to the Motion moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. It is no part of the Motion of my noble Leader and myself to have an inquiry. We feel that that would be quite wrong.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

If that is the case, may I ask the noble Viscount why, if an inquiry is not part of the scheme, the noble Marquess's Motion refers to the fact that this man was banished without inquiry?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I will deal with that point when I come to wind up the debate. I only desire that my noble friend Lord Hailey should not be under a misapprehension as to what is in our minds.

LORD HAILEY

Your Lordships will see the difficulty which some of us feel at the moment; we are never quite sure to which Motion we should address ourselves. The course of action suggested in the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is somewhat different from that suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and in consequence of these two combined or allied Motions one can become confused as to what immediate action it is proposed to take. Just now I find myself very mach in the position of the amiable Irishman who wanted to know whether what he saw was a private quarrel, or whether anyone could join in. I feel in the same difficulty but I will leave that to other noble Lords.

My immediate point is that, if I take this case in particular, I see no reason to suppose that we should achieve any better resualts from a commission of inquiry than would be obtained from the opinion of responsible and experienced officials on the spot. I am perfectly well aware that no criticism has been made this afternoon of the good faith of these officials. After what has been said here, I think we may take that as common ground to both sides. But, both in correspondence elsewhere, and to a certain extent, I feel, this afternoon, some doubt has been cast on their judgment. My point is that a commission of inquiry would not be a commission to ascertain facts—as a rule, facts are well known, or easily ascertainable—but would be charged with the task of determining whether a particular course of action to be taken—namely, the removal of a particular Chief, or a particular person, from his tribe—would be necessary in the cause of peace. In other words, the commission would require to answer a rather speculative question as to whether or not this precaution was necessary in the cause of peace and good order. My point is that we are as likely to obtain a reasonable answer to that question from responsible officials on the spot as from any commission that may go out to make an ad hoc inquiry.

I now come to the major point I wish to make—namely, that all these discussions in Parliament have shown an undue lack of confidence in the judgment of officials on the spot. Who are these officials? Some of their names have been given here this afternoon. Everyone has expressed the greatest confidence in the High Commissioner, Sir Evelyn Baring, and I am certain that no one who has seen his work in India, in Southern Rhodesia, or in the High Commission Territories, would have any doubt whatever that in this matter he has been actuated only by one consideration—namely, a sense of responsibility for the future of the Tribe. It may he that he has not dealt with some of these more fundamental questions to which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred, but his primary duty has been to consider the well-being of that Tribe. Nobody who knew him would for a moment suggest that he was guilty of anything like partiality, prejudice or arbitrary action in anything he has done in this matter. There is the Resident Commissioner, as Lord Harlech said, a member of the Colonial Service, who has had a good career in other parts of the Colonies; who when he was transferred, for a time to Swaziland, left it with almost universal expressions of regret and affection from the people. He is new to Bechuanaland, but he is in an admirable position to form a judgment. Then there is the District Commissioner, who has spent many years in Bechuanaland. It is true that he has only recently come to the Bamangwato Reserve, but he served there for some time many years ago. He has a wide experience, and has the additional advantage, all too rare in Africa, as Lord Harlech will agree, of knowing the language well and being able to address a kgotla at some length without an interpreter. Let me add this, from my personal knowledge of him: that anyone less arbitrary, less dictatorial, less inclined to impose his will on a tribe. I have seldom met. It is only fair that I should say that to your Lordships, in view of some of the criticisms which have been made in another place of certain actions he took in regard to the kgotla at which the Secretary of State attended.

These, then, are the men who have to deal with this question. I put it to your Lordships that, as Parliament has attempted a solution of this question and have been so hopelessly divided upon it, we can get little real guidance from its debates on the subject. I put it to your Lordships also that a mere acceptance of this Resolution, followed by a return of Tshekedi, is not in itself a solution. It is necessary to ensure that he should return with something like reasonable good will from the Tribe itself. What is the best way of ascertaining this? I know of no other way than that which I think has already, perhaps subject to conditions, gained the assent of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—namely, referring it again to the Tribe. I agree that if this is done, the kgotla should have the widest possible representation, not only of the Bamangwato themselves (because they are only 17,000 out of a total of 100,000 in the Reserve), but of all the tributary or allied tribes concerned. I think it is essential that it should be arranged that the group to which I have referred, one of the most responsible groups of people in the Bamangwato Reserve, who went into temporary exile with the ex-chief Tshekedi, should have the fullest facilities to return under something like a safe conduct from the Government itself.

The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said that we must not override native law and custom in this respect, and that native law and custom may not approve of the temporary return to the Tribe of men who have taken up their residence elsewhere. I do not, however, regard that as a very difficult question. I have read in the past so many cases in which ex-Chiefs or Chiefs or members of the ruling family of the Bamangwato themselves, have taken refuge in another country. Indeed, in the course of history it has become almost a family habit of the Royal Family to take refuge with the countries next door. So I feel quite certain that that would not he anything like an insuperable objection. I say that it is possible to have the widest possible representation at this kgotla. Given a reasonable time for it to meet. given reasonable facilities to the ex-Chief Tshekedi to attend himself and put his case to the Tribe, then I can think of no better way of ensuring a decision on this question. May I add this? It was stated yesterday in another place that this would enable disaffected members of ex-Chief Tshekedi's Tribe permanently to banish him. It could easily be arranged that the decision of the Tribe on the question of permanent banishment need never arise. It has not been suggested here, as, unfortunately, it was elsewhere, that the consultation of the Tribe in this manner would mean yielding to mob rule. It was a very unfortunate expression, and I think it will be very much resented by the whole of the Bechuana people.

It is difficult to describe how deeply attached the Bechuana people are to the kgotla system, not only for the management of their administrative affairs, but also for the management of their judicial affairs. What are described as Chiefs' Courts or decisions of Chiefs' Courts are invariably described by the Bechuanas themselves as decisions of the kgotla. Those who have sat with the kgotla, and seen them try their proceedings, will realise how orderly is the procedure, how deeply interested the people are, and how readily the decision of a kgotla is accepted—far more readily than decisions of any of the European courts that I fiave seen in that area. The kgotla is regarded by the Bechuana as the central feature of the whole of their constitutional and political system, and I think they themselves would say that there is no better way of deciding a question like this than another reference, under the most careful precautions to a kgotla. As I have said, they themselves would be the first to resent the idea that this involved anything like condescending to mob rule. I myself see no other possible solution at the moment of this immediate question than another reference to a kgotla, under the most careful precautions to secure that it shall be of a fully representative character. I have not the smallest doubt that the responsible officers of Government on the spot would not merely be able to secure this but would be deeply interested to see that it was managed in this way.

4.57 p.m.

LORD AMMON

My Lords, your Lordships must pay every attention and respect to the experience and knowledge of the noble Lord. Lord Hailey, on African affairs, and if we dare to venture some difference of opinion in certain matters it is because some of the things which he has praised seem somehow to have been interfered with. I am glad that this matter has come to this House. I view it with mixed feelings of pride and humility—pride that our fellow citizens in different parts of the world can appeal to the highest court of public opinion in this country. That it has aroused such feeling in the country shows that the spirit of liberty and the desire for full freedom for all citizens is not yet dead. That has come at a very opportune moment, when one felt that the prestige of the country was involved in other directions. But I am bound to say that I feel a sense of humility that this question should have arisen during the regime of the present Government. After all, we can do no other than endeavour, by discussion and clash of opinion, to find a solution to this problem, if we possibly can.

At the first I was inclined to support the Resolution submitted by the noble Marquess, but I feel that the debate yesterday in another place has made it impossible foe Tshekedi to go back at the present time and for us to consider the matter on those lines. Therefore I rise to give my modest support to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Stansgate, that some fuller inquiry should be made. If one expresses a little doubt about the meeting of the kgotia as suggested, it is only because of the experience we have gained from the trouble which has arisen over Tshekedi and Seretse. After all, there was a tribal gathering in December, 1948, when Seretse's wife was not allowed to enter tribal territory. In June, 1949, the Tribe again met and agreed that she should enter as his wife, with succession of issue, but no notice was taken by the Government. The Government banished Seretse not only from the tribal land, but out of Bechuanaland. No reflection whatsoever on the officials concerned has, I am sure, arisen in the mind of any noble Lord to-day, but it cannot be far from the minds of some of us that there has been some degree of racial prejudice. Yet when the tribe met—within ten months—and discussed the Tshekedi feud and the reason for his banishment, that decision was accepted by the Government. It seems to me that this was a matter of convenience, and it gives great cause for disquiet and ground for the suggestion that has been made that the meeting was "rigged" before it assembled. Tshekedi himself was refused permission to attend that meeting or to state his views. These are the things that create doubts. One cannot help wondering why the unanimous tribal decision to ask for the return of Seretse was ignored. Such actions cause unease in the minds of those who are concerned about the freedom of speech and the administration of justice in the British Commonwealth.

I understand that there are eight main tribes in Bechuanaland. There are also Crown lands administered direct by Commissioners. Why has there been no attempt to train the tribes in democratic government? Tshekedi himself has asked, "Why so slow?" and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, raised the same point to-day. In sixty years nothing has been done in this matter. I was interested to see a letter in The Times the other day from a lady of great authority on African matters, Miss Margery Perham, in which she said that there was a case for inquiry at once. At any rate it is good that the matter has been raised here to-day. It is not a question of finding fault with officials; it seems rather to be one of misconception or misdirection at the highest level.

I should like to support the suggestion made by Lord Harlech that it is time that the administration of these tribes was removed from the Commonwealth Relations Office and placed under the Colonial Office, which seems to me to be the proper Office for the purpose. As Tshekedi himself has said: Most fundamental is the question of transferring the High Commission Territories from the Commonwealth Relations Office to the Colonial Office, which has the experience, the machinery and the trained first-class men for the job. There is a further point. It was suggested by the noble Marquess that Tshekedi had probably been offered a position as agricultural officer. It is a fact that Tshekedi has proved of very great value in that particular respect and that we have lost a great deal in the loss of his services. He has done much for agricultural education; he has improved the breeds of cattle, and so forth—things which are very much needed in Africa. For that reason alone we ought to try to avoid losing his valuable experience and help.

It is now some years since I was in Africa, but I remember well my impression that these people were awakening and beginning to take a deep interest in their affairs, and were expecting a larger share in their government. One rejoices to see the greater sense of confidence that they have in the Home Government. At the same time, they will take notice of such matters as those we are now discussing. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said truly that we in this country and Commonwealth are responsible for the largest measure of government over African tribes. I believe it is true to say that in West Africa we have the largest Commonwealth population outside India. We do not desire to place our relationship with these people in jeopardy by such actions as we are discussing this afternoon. I hope the matter will be thoroughly sifted and, in particular, that the suggestion of the transfer of Colonial administration to the Colonial Office will be carefully considered.

5.8 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, it might have been thought that the full discussion which took place yesterday afternoon in another place, and the decision which the Government anounced they had taken on this particular matter, would have rendered a further discussion unnecessary, if not, indeed, futile. But I think it would be true to say that we have had a most valuable debate on this matter this afternoon. When matters of civil liberty are at stake, as they are in this instance, it is impossible to have too thorough or too complete a discussion. Considerations much more fundamental than the mere exile of this particular Chief are at stake, because this a matter which has its repercussions all over the world. It is a significant thing that in the debate this afternoon all noble Lords who sit on these Benches and who have spoken from behind the Government Front Bench itself are taking the same line, and that yesterday afternoon in another place, if the Whips had been taken off and the debate had been completely free, there would have been no doubt at all where the overwhelming opinion of the Party which supports the Government would have been. This is a very serious matter from the point of view of the Constitution of this country and of our system of Parliamentary Government: that it should be im possible for the mass of the Party to bring its opinion sufficiently to bear upon the Government to see that the views which are undoubtedly the views of the Party are carried out by the Government who depend for their position on the votes of those Members.

The Parliamentary institutions of this country upon which our political life and our liberties have been built from the time of Magna Charta, which was so appositely quoted to us this afternoon by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, are much older and more fundamental than the Parties which happen at the present time to conduct the politics of this country. If those fundamental liberties are once to be thrown overboard and disregarded, then the whole of the institutions upon which the civilisation of this country is built will be in grave danger of falling by the way. It is undoubtedly true that the Executive power in the State is always the great enemy of civil liberty. It is a natural thing, because administrators are concerned with getting things done, and when you are concerned with getting things done you are likely to disregard the rights and liberties of other people. That is the reason why Parliament must keep a jealous eye and constant vigilance over what is going forward in the Executive Departments of Government. It is rather an irony that at the present time the very Minister whose decisions have led to these infractions of liberty should himself have been preparing for the Press a book with the significant title Restatement of Liberty. Restatements of liberty are dangerous things. The traditional views of liberty which date back to Magna Charta are the views of liberty on which our culture has been built up, and we know that liberty can be restated in some parts of the world in such a way as to mean that liberty ceases to exist altogether. I am not suggesting that that sort of state has been anything like reached here, but, unless Parliament is constantly vigilant on these matters, it may be reached, because the Executive is always the enemy of liberty.

There is a third institution of State also which comes in the last resort to defend the civil liberties of the people—that is, the courts of law which in this country have to pass upon a man before he can be put away from among his fellow citizens. One of the really serious aspects of this particular business is that, under the Proclamation of 1907, a man in Bechuanaland, just as much a subject of His Majesty as you or I, can be banished from the territory by mere executive decree, without any court of law passing upon him at all. I suggest that one of the first things that should be done is to rescind the Proclamation of 1907. In the earlier stages of our rule in those parts, it may have been necessary to have such a Proclamation when decisions had perhaps to be taken very quickly and when it may not have been possible to hold a proper judicial inquiry before such action was taken. That such judicial inquiry is felt now to be needed is proved by the fact that the new Proclamation of 1943, which would have applied to this case if it had been made only a few weeks before, while Tshekedi was regent, applies to chiefs and, under that Proclamation, a chief cannot be banished without a judicial inquiry held, at any rate, within six months of his banishment.

I suggest that that shows conclusively that in all these cases there ought to be a proper judicial inquiry, because surely one would not say that an ordinary citizen of Bechuanaland should not have the same right as a chief to have his case passed upon by a court: for this, I will not say privilege, but common right of everybody in any modern country, has been conferred upon the chiefs. In order to be effective, a judicial inquiry should be held in public and its decisions should be made in public. It is inconceivable that in our own country inquiries in which the liberty of the subject are at stake should be held behind closed doors and that sentences should be passed by judges without the general public having any opportunity to know what they are—and yet that is what happened in this particular case. An inquiry was held into something quite different from Tshekedi Khama's rule over the Bamangwata—something which had nothing to do with whether he ought or ought not to be banished. So far as one can make out from the White Paper, as a sort of incidental recommendation it was recommended that not only should Seretse Khama be banished from the country, but also Tshekedi should be banished—a kind of attempt, possibly thought of on the spur of the moment, to balance an injustice to one person by an injustice to another.

My Lords, we are not able to discover whether any reasons were set out in the decision of this court of inquiry, because it has been kept secret. The Government have refused to publish it. How can such an inquiry really be called "judicial" at all? The fons et origo of all this trouble seems to be that a recommendation of this court, the names of whose members we do not even know except that it is no doubt called after the name of the Chairman, was accepted by the Government without a great deal of thought. Now the last months and years have been spent in trying to find all sorts of reasons for upholding a decision which, in the first place, was a wrong one. When the Minister comes to make his long and elaborate statement in another place, although no doubt delivered with the best will in the world to be fair to Tshekedi Khama, in effect, as the noble Marquess pointed out, it becomes an indictment of him. It stresses points here and omits points there.

For example, reading that speech, one would fail to gather that a great deal of the trouble that is going on in Bechuanaland arises from an old family feud. That hardly appears from the Secretary of State's long speech. The Sekgomas, who challenged the chieftainship of the House of Khama, are now actually put back into power by the Government, and one of the reasons why it is so difficult to be satsfied that these so-called opinions expressed in the kgotlas are genuine is the fact that the chieftain who rules this rival group of the Sekgomas, Chief Keaboka, is at the present time entrusted by the Government with the chief judgeship of the whole Tribe. As the Secretary of State himself said in his speech yesterday in another place, Serowe is the principal centre of Tshekedi's enemies, and it is the place where this chief holds his court. So I suggest that, no doubt quite unconsciously, the Government have, in fact, played into the hands of the rival faction in Bechuanaland, and without the, sort of inquiry for which my noble friend is asking it becomes very difficult For anybody to discover exactly what are the facts of the situation.

It appears that the main elements of the Tribe are passionately loyal to Seretse Khama who is, by primogeniture. their Chief. It also appears that the reason why there is possibly some feeling amongst the Bamangwato at the present time against Tshekedi Khama is the fact that they have been stirred up by allegations that he, Tshekedi Khama, has pretensions to the chieftainship. He has, as clearly, specifically and expressly as anybody possibly can, renounced his claims to the chieftainship, not only on his own behalf but on behalf of his children. That slander (because slander it is), was repeated against him by the Secretary of State in his speech yesterday afternoon. I think the criticism made from the other side of the House against the Secretary of State when he takes a line of that kind is perfectly valid. If people of eminence and authority in this country make statements of that kind, it naturally follows that credence will be given to them among the Bamangwato.

What is said by eminent people in this country is certainly repeated in those far off parts, and a great deal of attention is paid to it. That slander has been put about from time to time by the officials on the spot, and undoubtedly it is one of the main causes for this unrest in the country. One wonders whether it is merely an accident, or whether the officials are not working on the old policy which for a very longtime was used in India and which gave rise to a great deal of trouble—namely, the policy of "Divide and rule." One reason why one would like an inquiry is to make sure that that is not being done, because it is a pernicious policy to try to set one part of the Tribe or one religion off against another. In the long run it leads to the awful things which have happened in India, and a state of affairs is created which it is impossible to put right.

As opposed to that sort of action, we find what your Lordships all agree has been most statesman-like conduct on the part of Tshekedi Khama himself. He realised that a great deal of trouble had been caused by the marriage of his nephew to a white woman, and he himself had been taking the line that the offspring of such a marriage would not be in the line of succession. That matter was hammered out at no less than three kgotlas, and he accepted the decision that was given against him at the final kgotla. He has never been given credit for that. He went into voluntary exile in order to avoid further trouble and dissension in the Tribe. Surely, that was a most statesman-like action. Yet it is now held against him. Indeed, this is one of the most distressing aspects of this case. It is said against him that he cannot go back now because he voluntarily exiled himself, and that, because he has done so, the Tribe will not have him back.

I now come to this kgotla which, as a concession, is to be held in order to discover whether or not the Tribe will have him back. I was very glad indeed that the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Hailey raised various questions about the way this kgotla is to be held. Much suspicion has been thrown on the earlier kgotlas, and on what occurred; doubt has been raised whether their decisions were not, so to speak, stage-managed, and whether there is not in advance a meeting of the sub-chiefs at which decisions are reached which are afterwards (if I may use the term) "given the O.K." by the kgotla itself. So many matters of that kind have been raised and argued in the course of this discussion that I regard it as essential that in respect of the coming kgotla no suspicions of that kind should be raised. I think that is of the greatest importance, and as a matter of fact I have asked my noble friend who is to reply for the Government to answer specifically these questions: Who in fact is to preside at the kgotla? Tshekedi himself is in exile, and I believe that one of the other men of chieftain stock who would come next in order of seniority is with him in exile, and so presumably he cannot preside. The man who is actually in the Reserve, who has been acting as judicial Chief, and who comes next, Keaboka is the head of the rival faction. Obviously, it would be quite wrong that he should preside over this important kgotla. But if he is not to preside, who is?

I suggest that this is a matter of very great importance, and that this question ought not to be answered off-hand. I believe that it would be a good thing to have some kind of preliminary meeting on the spot of the officials and of the leaders, the chiefs of the allied tribes and possibly Tshekedi Khama himself ought to be allowed to be there. It could be an informal meeting, which could thresh trout this matter—because it is of outstanding importance. Of almost equal importance is the question of what is to be the procedure at the kgotla. This is an assembly of thousands of people and, as we have seen from what happened before, what will happen is to a large extent decided in advance by the selection of the speakers who are to address the Tribe and by the formulation of the questions which are to be put. Unless we can be satisfied that that is to be done in a proper and above-board manner, the sort of suspicions which have been cast on the previous kgollas will undoubtedly fall on this one.

Therefore, I suggest that it is very important that these matters should be properly cleared up before the kgotla is held. I think Lord Hailey's suggestion is a very sound one—namely, that not only the Bamangwato, who are only a fraction of the people living in this Reserve, should be brought into the kgotla. I hope the Government will accept that suggestion. In fact I hope that the Government will ensure that Tshekedi Khama is allowed to attend and is given audience at the kgotla. As has been said, it is all very well for them to say that he has their sympathy, and that they will do everything they can, and so on. But is it not obvious that if the Government insist that he is to be there—and this will not be a fair business unless he is there—then undoubtedly he will be there. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will therefore make it perfectly clear that the Government will say that Tshekedi must be there.

The difficulty in this matter—and it appears very clearly from the difference between the speeches of my noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Marquess—is whether it is possible to break up this case, so to speak; whether the case of Seretse Khama can be dealt with on its own merits or whether the whole complex situation is not so wide that it must be considered at the same time. Is not the action which has been taken against Tshekedi Khama largely due to the feeling that his case cannot, in fact, be disentangled from that of Seretse Khama? That is why I think it is necessary to have this inquiry. Can Tshekedi be allowed to go back without Seretse going back? That is a difficult question, and one upon which different people take different views. If the answer is in the affirmative then we are immediately in the domain of Power politics, and it ceases to be a question merely of what happens in Bechuanaland, because although the Secretary of State himself could hardly deal with this matter in his speech in another place, undoubtedly the feeling in the Union of South Africa about Seretse, as my noble friend Lord Stansgate has pointed out, is on quite a different footing from the feeling about Tshekedi.

My noble friend Lord Lucan, who earlier in the debate made a speech on behalf of the Government, made great play with the fact that some of the local chieftains—as, for instance, in Basutoland —were supporting the policy of the Government in respect of Tshekedi. What can the people of Basutoland do about this sort of thing, entirely surrounded, as they are by the Union of South Africa and knowing well the sort of views which are held by the Government of South Africa in respect of this matter? It is not to them that one must go to ascertain the great mass of opinion in Africa about this matter: one must go to parts of Africa which really count, and which were alluded to by the noble Lord. Lord Ammon. That is the opinion with which we are concerned to-day. It may well be that a time will come when we shall have to choose between that opinion and the opinion in the Union of South Africa. I hope that it will not come to that, but our policy—and I think I am speaking for all Parties in this country when I say this—is a policy of bringing the Negro populations into full responsible government in due course. I remember being deeply impressed by a speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in which he quoted a remark about the harmony of the black and the white keys." It was a remark which I had not previously heard, and it seems to me to put the whole of this policy in the most admirable way. The policy of the present. Government of the Union of South Africa is not the policy of the harmony of the black and the white keys. It seems to me that it is only on the basis of that harmony that our Common-wealth can survive and go forward in Africa, and I regard this case of Tshekedi Khama as being the acid test of our faith in that policy.

5.36 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

My Lords, may I first of all dispose of a question which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, put to me? It was clear that he thought that in putting it he had scored at any rate an "outer." He asked why, seeing that within our Motion we said that Tshekedi Khama had been banished without an inquiry, my noble friends were disinclined to support him in his claim for an inquiry. If he had done us the courtesy of reading the Motion standing in the name of my noble Leader, he would have seen that there is no reference to an absence of inquiry into the banishment of Tshekedi Khama. That Motion reads: To move to resolve, That, on the facts as hitherto presented to Parliament, in the opinion of this House the banishment Order against Tshekedi Khama should he rescinded and that he should be at liberty to dwell within the territory of his tribe. There is no mention there of his being banished without inquiry. I shall proceed to show, in a brief speech, why I do not think that an inquiry was necessary under the Proclamation, and why I certainly think that no inquiry whatsoever is necessary in order that Parliament may do justice to-day. I do not think we need any further witness. I am going to ask this House to take its decision upon the facts; and there are ample facts before us at the present time. I think—and to this extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hailey—that further inquiries are not only unnecessary but might well be mischievous. I hope that the noble Viscount will feel, if not satisfied, that at least I have given him a conclusive answer from our point of view.

This debate has ranged very wide, but I am going to cover only a limited field, because I feel that the issue before us to-day, though of tremendous importance, lies within a narrow compass and is fairly simple. In our opinion, the responsibility is that of the Secretary of State, and of the Secretary of State alone. It is not the responsibility of any kgotla or tribal meeting; it is his responsibility. That is perfectly clear from the Proclamation of 1907, under which the Secretary of State acted. The noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State, told us, in a rather odd phrase, I thought, that banishment was inherent in the Constitution of Bechuanaland. Banishment, believe me, is not inherent in any Constitution. If there are any powers of banishment, those powers do not exist under custom or common law. Those powers are conferred upon the responsible Government by a Parliamentary instrument or its equivalent. There need be no dispute between us here, however, because the instrument under which the Secretary of State has acted is the Proclamation of 1907, and that the Secretary of State admits, is the power under which he acted.

What is that power? It is very carefully defined. This is how it is stated: The High Commissioner on its being shown to his satisfaction "— And he is, of course, responsible to the Secretary of State— that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any person for the time being living in the Protectorate is a danger to the peace thereof"— That is, a danger to the peace of the Protectorate— may instruct the Resident Commissioner to issue an Order under his hand directing that person to leave the Protectorate within such time. … The High Commissioner and the Secretary of State are entitled to act under that Proclamation if it is right so to do. But when the Secretary of State does act under that proclamation, he must justify his action under the terms of the Proclamation. This power of banishment is a very great power. It may well be that it is a power which the High Commissioner, who is in effect the Governor, and the Secretary of State should possess —I do not challenge that. It is a power which, in the past, as Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, I exercised, or authorised a Governor to exercise. But am bound to say that, before exercising that power, I did not think it necessary to have a mass meeting and take my decision on the "hoop-las," or whatever is the correct expression, given at the mass meeting. Even forty-five years ago, when this Proclamation was made, this power was given only where there was a danger to the peace of the Protectorate. I submit the Secretary of State has no right and no power to extend its scope.

We have to decide here to-day, on ample evidence, whether in our opinion the Secretary of State was so justified. What is the justification which is alleged? I am going to put it as fairly as I can—indeed, I think it will be agreed that I put it with absolute fairness, because I have taken this from the Secretary of State's speech in another place yesterday. It is that Tshekedi is unpopular and that the majority of the Tribe wart him to be banished. What the Minister now proposes is that there should be yet another kgotla, at Which I think nobody in his right senses (I was almost going to say) could deny that the issue would be completely prejudged before it started. I imply no disrespect to kgotlas. I am very familiar with these meetings all over the Empire, in. the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast and elsewhere. They are not a substitute for the responsible executive judicial act of the Secretary of State. We cannot substitute for ministerial responsibility the vocal plebiscite of meetings of thousands of people. To do so is inconsistent with the Proclamation: it is an abdication of the Minister's responsibility; and it is inconsistent with British justice.

The Secretary of Slate says that he fears there will be local disorder—meaning a riot—if Tshekedi returns. Assuming the Secretary of State is right, and that there is a risk of a riot if Tshekedi goes back, is that really a threat to the peace of the Protectorate under the language of this Proclamation'? There is a risk to people in this country whenever anybody gets a bit "above himself," when windows arc broken End the police go into suppress the trouble. But that is not what is meant by a threat to the peace of the Protectorate. If that should occur, it would be for the police to suppress it. 'That is the elementary duty of Government anywhere. Even assuming that there is a risk of some local disorder, that would be no ground for action under the Proclamation. What is the evidence on this matter? We are told now that some unknown person in Cape Town sent a telegram last night saying he had consulted them—he could not say who "they" were—and they had said there would be disorder. If we are to assess this risk of disorder—and it is upon that we are asked to condone and justify the action of the Secretary of State—surely the best evidence we could have is the evidence of what has happened in the past. Last year, when Feeling ran equally high, if it does run high, Tshekedi Khama returned to his own property in the Reserve, Not a clog barked at his coming or at his going. There was no disorder. What evidence is there, then, of disorder which amounts to a threat to the peace of this Protectorate, which justifies the Secretary of State in his strong and arbitrary action? At all events, the responsibility is that of the Secretary of State. He must accept it. He must not shelter behind local officials, however distinguished, or behind mass meetings, however large. Our responsibility, if we think him wrong, is to say so.

I think the issue is simple, but fundamental. Has the Secretary of State done right? Tshekedi has a. long and honourable record of service, to which the Secretary of State himself has paid tribute. Tshekedi has renounced all claim to the chieftainship. He has been an outstanding pioneer in the develcpment of his land and of native agriculture. In words common to all of us, he has been a model landlord. The Secretary of State has been so impressed by all that he has done, that he offered to make him agricultural adviser to the whole Protectorate. Perhaps Tshekedi will have a seat on one of the nationalised boards before long! Tshekedi does not seek to live in the capital. He does not seek to take part in politics. He was even prepared, although all his property lies within the tribal area, to stay outside the tribal area, provided that he is free to visit his own property and to manage his own business. Even that offer the Secretary of State refused to accept. I asked the Under-Secretary of State, during his speech, whether this offer would be accepted. I now repeat that question to the more senior Minister, and I beg him to consider it without pride and without prejudice. In view of the great anxiety which this case has aroused and of the grave issues which are involved, will not the Secretary of State even now accept this solution? If he did, I believe that it would bring the whole unhappy business to an end.

It is said that this ex-Chief is unpopular —I dare say he is—and chat because he is unpopular he must be exiled. That is a very strange doctrine in the mouth of a British Minister. Let me take an analogy, which is really not too remote. My noble Leader, Lord Salisbury, has a great estate at Hatfield; it is a model estate, as well as an historic monumelt. But imagine that it is said that a mass meeting held in Hertfordshire has declared that he is unpopular and that there will be a riot if he shows himself at Hatfield. So the Home Secretary, or the Minister of Town and Country Planning, decides that my noble friend must be banished to Yorkshire. What is the justifieation? It is said that his private rights must give way to the public good. That sort of thing is not the public good, and it never has been, under the British Constitution and the British way of life.

Our justification in our rule all over the Empire, which is our trust, is that we have brought freedom and justice to all the subjects of the King; and protected persons are as much entitled to those rights as any other of His Majesty's subjects. Indeed, it was that protection, that freedom and the guarantee of that liberty, that the Chiefs of Protectorates sought when they came to the great Queen, offered their allegiance and asked for her protection. That freedom and that justice is what we mean by the King's peace. One noble Lord supporting the Government said that what is really necessary is to secure orderly progress. It is; but you will not base orderly progress on personal injustice. I speak, as did my noble Leader and my noble friend below the gangway, with the responsibility of one who has held the office of Secretary of State. With the full sense of that responsibility, I feel bound to say that on all the evidence before us a wrong has been done, and we should right that wrong.

5.54 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD OGMORE)

My Lords, the subject which we are debating to-day is one upon which your Lordships feel strongly; and rightly so. In my view, it would be a sad day if a matter of this kind were not debated in your Lordships' House. It is right and proper that the case should be put from the various sides —in fact, from all sides, both in front and behind me—and that the Government should have an opportunity of giving their reply to the House. Before I start on the general question and the main principle at issue, I should like to say a few words about the personal position of the Secretary of State, because he has been under very heavy fire, not only here, but in another place and in the Press. Some have said that he acted in ignorance; others have said that he was a Machiavellian character, who had some subtle plan of his own—though why any Secretary of State should want to stir up trouble, I cannot understand. To-day, a new allegation has been made against him, I regret to say, by my noble friend Lord Stansgate: that he was myopic—that is to say, that he does not see straight on this matter.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

I did not mean "not straight," but "not far."

LORD OGMORE

The noble Viscount has added a new definition to the term, as I understand it.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No.

LORD OGMORE

Whether he does not see straight, or does not see far, however the noble Viscount defines the term, at all events it is a new allegation against my right honourable friend. Therefore, I want to put this matter in a proper perspective, and to say that, having served with him for one year in his Department, during which time this matter and its other related matters were frequently discussed, I can say that all charges of that nature are entirely erroneous and nothing more than nonsense.

In my view (I must say this, since he has been attacked, and I regret that I have to say it in the presence of other noble Lords, and in the absence of other right honourable gentlemen, who have already held the office) my right honourable friend has done more in his short time in the Territories than any other Secretary of State who has ever held the office. There is only one other area in the whole of the Colonial Empire that was in a worse state of neglect than the High Commission Territories when we came into office, and that is British Somaliland, where conditions surpass belief. These were part of our neglected estates when the noble Lords opposite were in power. We did not hear all this talk on these different ordinances then; nothing was ever said in those days. To-day I am being attacked from two directions. I have two Motions to meet—Motions which Lord Rea, in a very reasonable and, if I may say so, happy speech, described as being incompatible. That is my view, and I am glad to have it reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. They are incompatible, and I do not know how one Minister is expected to answer an attack from two fronts on incompatible grounds. However, I will do my best.

The Motion of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, seeks to pre-judge the issue. According to the noble Marquess, and the noble Viscount who has just spoken, they are satisfied: they have all the evidence that they need, and they are going ahead, and will force the Government to go ahead and take the action that they think fit. They are in opposition. We have the power. We shall do as we think fit.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

There is the evidence on which you banished Tshekedi.

LORD OGMORE

The interpretation that the noble Viscount has put on that evidence is not the interpretation that we have put upon it. He is quite satisfied on the evidence that Tshekedi should not be banished; we say that he should be. I am not denying noble Lords the right to hold that view; they are perfectly entitled to hold it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If I may interrupt the noble Lord—

LORD OGMORE

I did not interrupt a single noble Lord during the whole of the debate, and I cannot, in a difficult matter of this kind, make my case if I am constantly interrupted. However, from time to time I will sit down and give any noble Lord who wishes to intervene the opportunity of doing so. The Government are responsible, and we must accept that respons bility. The Government cannot have it said that the Opposition of this House or another place determine their actions. Once they do that, then the sooner we go to the country, the better.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD OGMORE

Exacly—that is my view. When you are in government, you rule; and if you cannot or will not rule, you get out.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

LORD OGMORE

I am glad we are at one there The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, or the other hand—a very helpful friend, I may say, in this matter—after making a series of allegations about Ministers and others, proposes a course of action which would throw the whole of this matter into doubt and would lead to that delay which the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, so definitely deprecated. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, is not here, and I am sorry that there were very few of your Lordships here to hear him. It was the tea interval, I know, but Lord Hailey made a remarkable speech, and one which impressed the few of us who heard it. It was really excellent, and I shall refer to it again a little later. One of the things which Lord Hailey deprecated was the use by the Leader of the Opposition in another place of the phrase, "mob rule." He told us that the use of that phrase would have a most unfortunate effect upon people in the Bamangwato Reserve, in the Protectorate and in the High Commission Territories generally. With his vast experience in India and Africa, the noble Lord said that the kgotla, and the system which it represents, was one particularly dear to the hearts and minds of the African people in those areas. He deprecated, and I deprecate—as I am sure will all your Lordships—the use of a term like "mob rule" or "mob law" for this ancient system, which corresponds very nearly to the system in this country in Saxon days.

The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, made a happy little joke, which added humour to an occasion like this, about the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and his position in Hertfordshire. Now I do not know what the state of affairs is in Hertfordshire—being a Welshman I would not know—but I should hardly think that the system in Hertfordshire could be compared to that in the Bamangwato Reserve. We have surely developed a little further than that in the hundreds of years in which we have had the opportunity of development. They have not had the opportunity in Bechuanaland, and that is my complaint. Anyway, in Wales we have had the opportunity since Tudor times, and we have made the best use of our facilities.

One has to consider this problem—and this is really where a lot of people have gone astray, if I may respectfully say so—in the light of a tribal society, and in a tribal society the individual's rights must always be subordinated to the welfare of the community as a whole. In a tribal society, all except the purely personal property, such as clothes and things like that, often belong to the tribe. They sow the land in common, they reap in common, and they share the benefit. Practically everything in a tribal society is held in common, and the individual counts for very little. It is only with more advanced societies that the individual himself is to some extent regarded as having superior rights to those of the tribe. Your Lordships can take any tribe you like, and you will find that that is history. I have studied this matter; it applies on the frontiers of China, Borneo, Africa, and in my own country of Wales, where we had tribal society up to, say, 300 years ago, which, after all, is only a breath in our long history. In all cases, the tribe is the dominant factor, and it is only at a much later stage of civilisation that the individual takes priority over the tribe.

Another aspect of this matter with which I am sure most of your Lordships will agree, is that the Chief or ex-Chief or ex-Regent can never slip back into the obscurity of a private individual. It is impossible for him to do that in an area in which for a great many years he has been the dominant personality. In many cases in the Colonial Empire—as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, covering himself from possible attack from me, admitted—this right and power of banishment has been freely exercised. We have exercised it in Malaya. There was one old gentleman who used to write to me from time to time before I became Minister, pleading to go back to the State in Malaya from which he had been banished. There are a large number of such people throughout the Colonial Empire, because it is the inevitable consequence of a certain state of society, just as in this country the King banished people at a certain stage in our society. Often, of course, they did not stop to be banished; they went quickly, not knowing what would happen to them otherwise. But Kings and Princes and rulers took pretty prompt action against those who might be a danger to them.

This rule of banishment in the Bamangwato Reserve is not a modern rule. Your Lordships might imagine, from the fulminations of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—who in these matters has great experience, to which I pay tribute—that this Act was passed in 1947, and not in 1907. He was the High Commissioner in South Africa for some years during which this Act was in operation, and I venture to suggest that cases arose under it, or at least under the native law or cstom, in those times. I have here a large number of cases, and the noble Lord can select those which occurred in the years when he was in office. I have not looked up that point, but there are a number of cases, including, I may say, that of Tshekedi's former wife. Was she a danger to the territory? Was she such a danger to the territory as Tshekedi himself? We ate asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton: What danger can Tshekedi be—a powerful Chief? In my view, he is one of the greatest personalities that Africa has ever turned out. And yet he is not a dangerous person! His divorced wife, however, is so dangerous that she has to be banished by Tshekedi himself.

What about Tshekedi's uncles? I think those were the three gentlemen—at least there were three gentlemen—who went to the Privy Council, and who were not only banished by Tshekedi, but who had their houses burnt, as well. What about them? Were they a danger? If they were a danger, were they rightly proceeded against?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

The noble Lord is using language now which I think he would wish to use carefully. Does he mean they were banished by Tshekedi, or banished by the High Commissioner, who was the only person who had the power of banishment under the ordinance?

LORD OGMORE

I will read to the noble Lord the language of the Privy Council. As a matter of fact, I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was Attorney-General at the time. It says: Their Lordships have examined the evidence and they are unable to agree with the finding of the Special Court on this part of the case. Their Lordships are of opinion that the evidence justified the above mentioned conclusion at which the Magistrate arrived. That is, that Tshekedi was fully empowered to do what he did. The appeal, therefore, must be decided upon the assumption that the burning of the dwellings of the Ratshosas was ordered by the appellant "— that is, by Tshekedi— in his capacity as Chief, after consulting and with the approval of the councillors and headmen of the tribe assembled at the 'kgotla'." There is nothing there about the Resident Commissioner.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

And nothing about banishment.

LORD OGMORE

No one asked about the banishment. All they were worrying about was the damage they had suffered by reason of the burning of their houses. In fact, as I read it, the Privy Council went a little further (I do not want to be quoted on this) and said that, by tribal custom, not only was there a right of the chiefs to advise in kgotla to burn the houses of people who had been a nuisance, but also to execute people and to sequestrate all their stock; and Tshekedi was rather patted on the back for having been very mild in his treatment of these three gentlemen.

A great principle is at stake here. The assumption of high moral indignation by some speakers must be put into its proper perspective. This Act of 1907 was passed by what is admitted to have been one of the finest Governments we have ever had—the Liberal Government of 1906—a Government to which even a Socialist may pay tribute for its magnificent achievements, and of which we have several distinguished representatives here.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

There are only two survivors left.

LORD OGMORE

We have the two survivors, at any rate.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

There are three survivors left. Mr. Churchill passed the ordinance.

LORD OGMORE

That ordinance was passed when Mr. Churchill was at the Colonial Office. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was a supporter of the Government at that time. I think that he became a member of the Government shortly afterwards—and he has hung on for nearly forty years before making any protest.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That only shows chat the Government are still where Lord Stansgate was forty years ago.

LORD OGMORE

What it shows is that this ordinance, which has been maintained by a large number of Governments, is necessary. The noble Marquess himself has ministered that ordinance and the noble Viscount has administered similar ordinances. Therefore the ordinance is obviously necessary.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent me. I think I said I did not challenge the necessity of this ordinance at all. What I challenged was the action of the Secretary of State under it.

LORD OGMORE

The noble Viscount must not take it that every reference I make is to him. Other speakers have made the point that the banishment ordinance per se is wrong. The point may not necessarily have been made here, but this is going out to the world. I am riot at all sure it was not an underlying assumption of Lord Stansgate and of Lord Chorley. I have to answer so many attacks from so many quarters that sometimes the arrow may for a moment rest in the wrong breast. If this ordinance were wrong, if banishment per se were wrong, why has it not been dealt with before? Liberal, Conservative and Coalition Governments alike have not attacked this ordinance.

LORD CHORLEY

The new Order of 1943 which established judicial inquiry, though only in favour of Chiefs, shows that it was wrong.

LORD OGMORE

The noble Viscount did not make a single demur at the powers conferred upon him in his office by this Order—because everyone knows that banishment per se in a tribal society is necessary. So long asIhave established that point, perhaps I may go on. Tshekedi himself, as Chief, on the advice of the kgotla, has never hesitated to use this power and several times has used it, even against his former wife, and against his uncles and, no doubt, against others. He exercised it against some, perhaps, because they did not agree with him and because they might be thought to cause trouble. Chiefs have exercised the power and have had every right to exercise it under the ordinance or by tribal law. I hope it will never be said that we on this side of the House have anything but the greatest respect and indeed admiration for Tshekedi. I believe he is a remarkable man, who has served his people well in the past. We see how the best motives are often twisted and given a Machiavellian intent. Mention has been made of the fact that we invited Tshekedi to act as an economic adviser, and it has been suggested that this was the result of some subtle and deep plot. As a matter of fact, I niade this suggestion a year ago to the Secretary of State. I said: "Tshekedi is an able man, with great knowledge of cattle: let us use him." He said: "Yes, we must make use of him and give him the opportunity for service." That is why he was offered that post of economic adviser. I am sorry he did not accept it. Perhaps he may yet think a little differently about it.

Tshekedi went into voluntary exile: he was not banished. But we do not hold that against him. We only say that the fact itself is significant. No one has ever asked the question: "Why did Tshekedi go into voluntary exile?" Does a man exile himself and leave his animals, lands, house and the place where he is known and where he has been a powerful figure, for a mere snap of the fingers? Is there not an important reason that leads to such action? There was a reason. He has told us that he went into voluntary exile to avoid a "state of tension" which he himself described as "bordering on civil war." That was the reason why he went; that was the tension in the Tribe described by Tshekedi himself—not by the Government or by its supporters on the Back Benches.

The noble Viscount is satisfied with the evidence already submitted; and he says that this is sufficient to force the Government, with all the responsibility they possess, to let Tshekedi go back into the Reserve. I say we have a great deal of evidence in this matter and many witnesses to call. First, there is the evidence of Tshekedi himself which I have just quoted. Secondly, there is the abundant evidence of officials, which I shall describe in a moment because it came up in relation to another question. These officials are men of great experience of Africa, of undoubted capacity, and with all the ability with which, fortunately, our Colonial servants are endowed. These are the men who have advised the Secretary of State in this matter. Can any of us here say that we are better fitted to advise him on a matter of this kind? I have never found, particularly in regard to the Colonial Service—and just as much in the Home Service—that officials arc "Yes-men." I am happy to say that in my experience, short as it is by comparison with that of the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount, I have never found an official who has hesitated for one moment to tell his Minister what he really believed to be the facts. It is for the Minister to decide what action he takes upon them. I have never yet found any civil servant who is not prepared to give a Minister the advice he thinks he should, and any suggestion that the Colonial Service, with its great traditions exemplified by so many people who have served their country so well in the past, should be prepared to let the Secretary of State remain in ignorance on a matter of this kind is absolutely outrageous.

Then we have the evidence of other Chiefs from neighbouring territories who have given their views. We have the evidence of the Secretary of State himself. It is the first time in the history of this country that a Secretary of State has gone to any of these territories. No Secretary of State has even been there before. As I have already said, no Minister has ever been to British Somaliland yet, but there is still a hope. No one, as Secretary of State, had ever been to the High Commission Territories before Mr. Gordon-Walker, the man who is now called by one of my own Back Benchers "myopic," because he does not see far enough. But he went there to see what was to be seen, which is more than any of his predecessors did, either when my noble friend was supporting the Liberal Government or since he has been supporting me on the Back Benches. Finally, there is the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, who to-day made a magnificent speech, full of his great knowledge of this area. I took down his words. Recently he has been to the Bamangwato Reserve and he said that he found there "a very considerable degree of tension," and he was impressed by the necessity of pushing forward with local councils—that is what we are doing to proceed expeditiously in order to obtain a decision and stand by it. The noble Lord is very much against delay in this matter: he wanted expedition in decision, and he wanted us to stand by the decision. Noble Lords who have experience of the Army will know the old saying: "Order. counter order, disorder." That is what we do not want in this area.

The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, says that he accepts the evidence: that the evidence shows that there is no need for any fears on the part of the Government and that Tshekedi can go back straight away. The Government's view is that the evidence shows abundantly the other way: that in fact there is cause for anxiety. But, as the Secretary of State announced in another place last night, the Government are prepared to have a meeting of the Tribe, a kgotla, summoned, and to this meeting, about which I hope to satisfy my noble friend, Lord Chorley, in a moment, two or perhaps three Members of Parliament will proceed and will observe the state of feeling and events. It so happens that, as your Lordships will remember, in 1946 a somewhat similar state of affairs, although not entirely comparable, arose in Sarawak. The Government sent out to Sarawak as observers Captain Gammans and myself. We went in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances, because at that time the minefields had not been cleared and the rivers had not been swept. We went, and we did our best to ascertain the feeling in Sarawak. I was pleased to see from the report of a debate in another place that the Prime Minister had found our report useful. It was an interesting and enjoyable experience, made more enjoyable than it otherwise would have been by the excellent travelling companion I had in Captain Gammans. I could not wish to have a more interesting and better travelling companion. So there is a precedent for this. While the Government must remain finally responsible, I have no doubt they will take into consideration the feelings of the kgotla on this question and any report that these Members of Parliament may bring back.

I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chorle3, three questions. First, he asked me who will preside at the kgotla. I am informed that the president will be selected in accordance with native law and custom. It will not be the District Commissioner, but he will have the approval of the District Commissioner, who will act in his capacity as native authority. Secondly, the noble Lord asked me what will be the procedure—that is to say, who will decide who are to be the speakers. I have the answer that the president, in accordance with native law and custom, will call upon the speakers, normally the elders, headmen and other responsible people who catch his eye most frequently. In theory at a kgotla any adult male member of the Tribe may speak. Finally, I was asked how the decision is to be taken—whether it is to be by vote. The decision is taken by acclamation. A kgotla normally talks itself into a consensus of opinion, and the Chief or the president sometimes sums up. I think that is quite normal in an affair of this kind; it is not unknown even in Cabinet and other high circles of which I have no personal knowledge.

I believe that if there were any other responsible Government in this country in office, they would do exactly the same as we are doing. I do not believe that, with all the facts before them, with the responsibility of any troubles that might occur, they would do other than we are doing, whatever the political complexion of the Government of the day might be. It is easy enough to say, "We are going to do other things," but we all know from the Leader of the Opposition how much importance he attaches to pre-election manifestos. If the Conservative Opposition were in power, I doubt very much whether they would in fact do anything other than we are doing, simply because it is the only possible course, taking into account all the circumstances that are present in that part of the world.

I have been asked a question about the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked me whether the time had not come—in fact, he put it a little more strongly and said that the time had come —for a fusion of the two Offices so far as the High Commission Territories were concerned. I am advised that this would be undesirable; that there are relationships with neighbouring territories and so on, and that it would be undesirable to take it away from the Commonwealth Relations Office. The policies are the same and the practice is the same as in the Colonial Empire, and furthermore, Colonial Office officials are widely used. A former member of the staff of the High Commissioner in the High Commission Office is at present the adviser on the High Commission Territories to the Secretary of State in Downing Street, and has intimate knowledge of the area. The Chief Secretary, the three Resident Commissioners and several members of the heads of technical departments are all from the Colonial Service; therefore, your Lordships will see that there is a distinct identity of policy and practice with the Colonial Office.

I would submit to your Lordships that the objective of the Government in the Territories is the objective that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, to-day—that is, in effect, the peace, the prosperity and the happiness of the people. That must be our guiding light, and any other consideration, however important, must be subordinated to it. No more than that was meant by my right honourable friend in another place. I think in this case too many doctors are prescribing too many nostrums, and the sooner we get to a level keel of public opinion, or shall I say, the same prescription, the better. I venture to suggest that this House has a great responsibility, because if one of the Motions were pressed to a Division and passed—and I hope neither will be pressed to a Division—it would have an unfortunate effect in this part of Africa. This is a difficult and delicate matter. I would most strongly suggest to your Lordships that the Government's proposal in another place, which I have repeated here, is a statesmanlike proposal, and I commend it to your Lordships most earnestly and most strongly for adoption by your Lordships' House.

LORD REA

My Lords, might I make a slight personal explanation? The noble Lord who has just sat down said, I think, that I had claimed that the two Motions before your Lordships' House are incompatible. I did not mean to use that word, and if I did, it was a slip of the tongue. What I meant to say was that they are clearly different—as different as ham from eggs—but they are not incompatible. While, in the first instance, I should like

to sample Lord Stansgate's ham, I do reserve the right to consider the noble Marquess's eggs at a later stage.

LORD OGMORE

So far as I am concerned, there is a definite measure of incompatibility between this particular ham and eggs, because I have to give an answer to both. I am sorry that I have not found the supporter I had hoped in the noble Lord.

6.32 p.m.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, it is naturally a matter of great regret to me to bring this happy and informative afternoon to an end. I had hoped to learn so much more about my noble friend's opinion, and more about the estate at Hatfield, and so many other interesting topics. But the position to which I would draw your Lordships' attention briefly, because the hour is late, is this. I have proposed a Motion which suggests that further inquiry should be made, both into the matter which concerned particularly the noble Marquess, and into other matters which appear to be irrevocably linked with that—namely, the banishment of Seretse and Tshekedi Khama. I have proposed that there should be an inquiry into those matters. The Motion seems to me to be a reasonable one and one which I hope the noble Marquess may see his way to support. Should anyone be willing to support me, I propose to divide the House.

On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS
Samuel, V.	Chorley, L.	Moyne, L.
Stansgate, V.	Merthyr, L.	Rea, L. [Teller.]
	Monkswell, L.	Straholgi, L. [Teller.]
Ammon,L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Braintree, L.	Kenswood, L.
	Burden, L. [Teller.]	Lawson, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Douglas of Kirtleside, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
	Haden-Guest, L.[Teller.]	Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)	Morrison, L.
	Henderson, L.	Ogmore, L.
Amwell, L.	Holden, L.	Shepherd, L.
Archibald, L.	Inman, L.	Silkin, L.
Bingham, L.(E. Lucan.)	Kershaw, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

6.45 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I now beg to move the Motion standing in my name. There is little that I wish to add. As your Lordships know, I stated earlier in the debate the case for the Motion, to the best of my ability, and nothing that has been said since has altered my view. As I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—the rather self-satisfied speech of the noble Lord, if he will allow me to say so—I was reminded of Sydney Smith's remark about Macaulay: I wish I were as certain about anything as Macaulay is about everything. The noble Lord mentioned a number of cases in which banishment had taken place in the Bamangwato area. He did not give the details of the causes of banishment, and I do not propose to ask him now; but he made it clear that all those banishments were imposed by a chief. In this particular case the banishment has been imposed by His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord made great play with the fact that the Secretary of State lately paid a visit to the territory. I can only conclude that he was so attracted by the tribal customs which he found there that His Majesty's Government have adopted their as their own.

Though the noble Lord said the Government had evidence which, in their view, entirely justified the banishment of Tshekedi Khama, he never told us that Tshekedi Khama had committed any act of any kind which was contrary to the law or which, from our point of view at any rate, would justify banishment. In fact, I am bound to say that the two speeches we have heard from the Government this afternoon—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan.—appeared to be nothing but an elaborate piece of special pleading to justify an injustice which they could not

attempt to deny. The truth is that nothing can alter the fact that, although Tshekedi Khama has committed no offence, yet he has been banished because it is embarrassing to the Government that he should remain in the tribal area. We have heard a great deal, both from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and from the noble Earl, Lird Lucan, about ancient tribal customs which are different from ours. But surely the fact is that we have tried in those parts of the world in which we have held authority to introduce a better system of justice for the individual, and that has been one of the main justifications for cur rule. If we now lower our standard, for reasons of temporary convenience, we are, I believe, striking a severe blow at our prestige throughout the world.

The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has suggested that, even if Tshekedi Khama continued to live outside the tribal area, it might be possible for arrangements to be made for him to enter freely to deal with his private affairs. That is not what I regard as full justice, but it would be a great improvement on the present position. I infer, in view of the omission from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, of any reference to that matter, that even that concession is refused. In these circumstances, I have no option but to ask the House to divide on my Motion.

Moved to resolve, That, on the facts as hitherto presented to Parliament, in the opinion of this House the banishment Order against Tshekedi Khama should be rescinded, and that he should be at liberty to dwell within the territory of his tribe.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Whether the Resolution shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS
Cholmondeley, M.	Cecil of Chelwood, V.	Derwent, L.
Reading, M.	Falmouth, V.	Dorchester, L.
Salisbury, M.	Furness, V.	Dowding, L.
	Samuel, V.	Ellenborough, L.
Bathurst, E.	Swinton, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.		Gifford, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]	Baden-Powell, L.	Gretton, L.
	Carrington, L.[Teller.]	Hampton, L.
Allenby, V.	Cherwell, L.	Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Bledisloe, V.	Craigmyle, L.	Harlech, L.
Bridgeman, V.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Hawke, L.
Kinnaird, L.	Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)	Sandhurst, L.
Llewellin, L.	Palmer, L.	Sandys, L.
Lloyd, L.	Rea, L.	Somers, L.
Merthyr, L.	Rennell, L.	Teviot, L.
Milverton, L.	St. Just, L.	Tweedsmuir, L.
Monkswell, L.	Saltoun, L.	Woolton, L.
Moyne, L.	Sandford, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Braintree, L.	Kenswood, L.
	Burden, L.[Teller.]	Lawson, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Douglas of Kirtleside, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
	Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]	Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Hare, L.(E. Listowel.)	Morrison, L.
	Henderson, L.	Ogmore, L.
Ammon, L.	Holden, L.	Shepherd, L.
Amwell, L.	Inman, L.	Silkin, L.
Archibald, L.	Kershaw, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Bingham, L.(E. Lucan.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Resolution agreed to accordingly.

House adjourned at seven minutes before seven o'clock.