COLONIAL OFFICE (CLASS 2).

HC Deb 20 July 1911 vol 28 cc1287-356

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £38,616, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration." [NOTE.—£21,000 has been voted on account.]

Sir GILBERT PARKER

I beg to move to reduce Sub-head (a) (salary of Secretary of State), by £100.

Events of such singular importance to the Empire have occurred during recent months, that matters purely Colonial have been overlooked by the public generally and by this House, although that statement may not show fidelity to facts when we remember that the Imperial Conference was sitting for over a month. But public attention was so diverted by what might be called the picturesque and emotional side of our national life, that the business done by the Colonial Conference has either slipped from the public mind or received little attention either from the Members of this House or the country generally. This afternoon I should like to review very briefly the work done by the Conference, presided over, I think, for the first time, by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This important step of making the Prime Minister president of the Imperial Conference at once elevates the business of the Conference on to a higher plane and gives it a significance which previously the Colonial Conferences which were held did not possess. The first Colonial Conference was held in 1897, and we have had altogether five, but I do not think a great deal of progress was made in regard to questions to be solved, but during the last five or seven years, however, and during the last two Conferences, considerable progress has been made. The Conferences generally, even the earlier ones, represented an attempt at Imperial organisation, and showed that something was being done to co-ordinate the efforts of this country, and of the Colonies and the over-sea Dominions generally, to make the best use of all these benefits of Empire which should naturally flow from the relations of the Dominions to the Crown. I think the chief result from the first two or three Conferences was the importation of the personal element, the personal equation into Imperial affairs. It was no longer Downing Street, as the Colonial Secretary said at the last Conference; it represented not Imperial concentration, but Imperial co-operation, and the first Conference represented an effort to get away from that Imperial concentration represented by Downing Street in the old days, and to get into the wider area of alliance, of interest, co-operation, and mutual action on things that made for the benefit and progress of the Empire.

During the last reign the dominating element was foreign alliances and the permeation of our national life of a desire to arrive at a better understanding with foreign peoples. I think the problem of this reign will be, not foreign alliances, but Imperial co-operation. I am bound to say when I read the reports of the conferences of 1907 and 1911 I came up short against the spirit which does not seem to me, in spite of certain accomplishments by this Conference, to represent absolute sympathy with the greatest of the problems which perplex us. For instance, the Prime Minister said at the Conference of 1907 that it was impossible to treat our oversea Dominions better than we treat foreign countries. I suppose that really is the reason why this Government is willing to give to Japan remission of duties that may be imposed in the future, while she will not give to our Colonies, though it has been brought before us, in one of the most important conferences ever held, the remission of duties existing at present. That, to my mind, is a concrete expression of Goethe's phrase, "the spirit that denies.'' The Government's hands have been tied a lot at this Conference in dealing with the greatest of our Imperial questions, for the two greatest are the attempts to establish an Imperial Council and the attempt to establish preference in trade, or to call it by another name, reciprocal trade relations. With regard to the Imperial Conference, the Government's hands have not been tied, except for the difficulties that beset the situation. Regarding the other they have tied their hands themselves. They have denied themselves the privilege of looking at these questions broadly. Therefore they were obliged to say to those Colonial representatives who came in 1907, "No, we can do nothing; we will do nothing." The Prime Minister rather rigidly, and the Home Secretary rather more boisterously and bad-manneredly, told the Colonies that they must not come to this country making pleas for reciprocal regulations' upon any basis that would alter the fiscal policy of this country. That same spirit affected the Prime Minister, the Colonial Secretary and other Ministers of the Crown when they came to deal with questions of grave importance affecting the commercial relations of the Colonies and the shipping trade of this country. At the last Conference the Prime Minister of Canada moved a resolution based upon a motion put forward by the Prime Minister of Australia which asked for the interest and action of this Government in regard to the Shipping and Navigation Laws, and the removal of certain difficulties which stand in the way of the Australian Colonies, giving a preference to British goods. The resolution which was moved by the Prime Minister of Canada was in these terms:— That His Majesty's Government should be approached with a view to the appointment of a Royal Commission representing the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland, with a view to investigating and reporting upon the natural resources of each part of the Empire represented at this Conference, the development attained and attainable, and the facilities for the production, manufacture and distribution, the trade of each part with the others and with the outside world, the food and raw material requirements of each, and the sources thereof available. To what extent, if any, the trade between each of the different parts has been affected by existing legislation in each, either beneficially or otherwise. The Prime Minister of Canada moved that resolution in order to cover the ground laid out by the Prime Minister of Australia, and to open the way to a clearer understanding of the difficulties between Colonies and this country, and towards the removal of those difficulties, but the Colonial Secretary was very quickly on the spot. His eye was on the hustings, or rather on the ballot-box. The Colonial Secretary, with "the spirit that denies" behind him in all things referring to preference or the advantages of reciprocal trade through customs duties, came to his feet and said in effect that that Resolution would meet with the view of the Government if the following Clause was added:— And by what methods consistent with the existing fiscal policy of each part, the trade of each part with the other may be improved and extended. I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary whether he believes that that addition to the Resolution eliminates from the reference to that Commission—which I assume has not yet been appointed—any consideration of existing legislation in the Dominions giving a preference to the Dominions themselves to this country. The Prime Minister of Canada has been attacked in this country in certain quarters for not having brought forward the resolution suggesting, as he did suggest in 1907, reciprocal commercial relations and preferential relations. He suggested this in his speech when he moved this resolution, plainly showing that his object was by this Commission to have an inquiry, not alone into the products and the resources of the Colonies, but also into the legislation which would affect the trade of the Mother Country and the Dominions by reciprocal preferential relations through the Customs duties. He began his speech by saying that legislation which they had passed in Canada had been passed in order to give this country advantages in trade. He went on to say that one of the objects of his resolution was that Australia, which had not been able to arrange preference with Canada, or Canada with Australia, should be able by this Commission to do so. He said: — We have been trying to get mutual preferential treatment, but we have not been able to do so, and I strongly hope that such a Commission as I have indicated would find it possible to come to the end which we have not been able to reach up to the present time. That resolution which the Prime Minister of Canada moved was to secure an inquiry into the products and resources of that country and also an inquiry into all legislation which would affect the development of trade between the two countries, and did not exclude preferential customs arrangement. I want to know if the Colonial Secretary believes that that excludes from the purview and work of the Commission a preferential arrangement with our Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of methods consistent with the existing policy of each part. I should like to ask him whether the granting of a preference on corn, wine, sugar, tea and tobacco, which is the only preference the Colonies have asked for, would be inconsistent with the present fiscal policy of this country. We know that it would not be. We have had a registration tax on corn, we now have taxes on wine, tea, sugar and tobacco, and it would not be inconsistent with the fiscal policy of this country to reduce those taxes already imposed in favour of our Colonies. Therefore, if this Commission is not to be absolutely futile and purposeless, it will have to review all the circumstances of trade, the possibilities of development, and it will also have to review those things which would make for development.

4.0 P.M.

The Colonies resolved at any rate that a wise tariff system carefully adjusted, with a preferential arrangement, does make for the development of the resources of the Empire. If you were going to divide the Colonies of this country to-morrow, if you were going to take a poll of them as constituting the whole Empire, you would find a majority in favour of a preferential system of duties on these very things I have mentioned, and you would also find that the tariffs already existing in this country would amount to at least £14,000,000, because it would represent practically all the people of the Colonies, I should think, as against the small majority, but certainly the majority standing for the principles which I and my friends with me hold in this country. While making this denial and making this addition to the Resolution, freezing out as it were, or attemping to freeze out, the only thing that could have made that Imperial Conference conspicuous in the late national events, the conference has, I am frank to say, done some good. It has cleared up some things and has opened the way to others, but the progress that has been made is not nearly so great as the progress that would have been made the spirit of the Colonies is not so satisfied as it would have been satisfied, and the people of this country will not have the benefits they otherwise would have had if the Government had been able, without altering their fiscal policy, to have given the Colonies something, not for nothing, but for something, and that which would have come to us, would, in my opinion, have been greater than that which would have gone to them. I said certain things were done at this conference which were satisfactory.

What have we got out of the conferences since they were started? We have got cheaper cable rates. That is all to the good. We have got cheaper postage, and I give the Government credit for having actively got that concerning Canada. We have got Trade Commissions. We have also had the development of the Colonial Navies and the Imperial Staff for the Army, but those arose out of the action taken by the Government which sat upon that bench seven years ago. The source of that development lay in the Defence Committee more than in the conferences themselves. We have by this last conference had the way opened to laws of naturalisation, and we have got a new Imperial Court of Appeal. That is all to the credit of the Government. They have—I will not be so rude as to say for shame's sake, because I believe they wanted to do something—in these lesser things certainly achieved something, but there are a good many things left undone and unfinished. There is the All Red Route. There is the question of co-operation in emigration unsettled. I read the debate on emigration with a good deal of amusement. Here was the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Burns) going to the conference and telling them that 80 per cent. of 300,000 emigrants from this country went to the Colonies in 1909, and pointing to the Emigration Office as as example of what was being done to assist emigration. Does any real sensible person think the Emigration Office next door, as it were, to this Chamber have had much to do with emigration to Canada? No, it was rather that splendid advertising system of Canada herself. It was the invitations which she has made and the successful result of the hundreds of thousands of invitations that have gone before. The Emigration Office had as little to do with it as I had, and probably not so much. Then we had a proposal from the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Sydney Buxton) with regard to the Labour Exchanges. The President of the Local Government Board would have nothing to do "with it. It was all right. The fact was too many people were going from this country to the Colonies. The President of the Board of Trade took the other view. He wanted the Labour Exchanges to provide emigration for the Colonies. They promptly said that was futile. It was ill-prepared, and, indeed, that is just the trouble I find with the whole conference. There was no constructiveness on questions which were raised.

The Colonies, at any rate, made some attempt to think out the questions they raised beforehand, but this country left out questions that obviously ought to have been raised, and, in dealing with questions they did raise, they treated them, as I think, with scant ability, and at any rate with scant power of constructiveness. Take the proposal for a Standing Committee which the right hon. Gentleman offered as an alternative for the Imperial Conference proposed by the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I believe he knew it would never be accepted. He proposed a Standing Committee composed of officials of his own Department and of High Commissioners from the Colonies. It was a Standing Committee which would only increase the circumlocution and the red tapeism which affects all communications with all Governments, whether colonial or foreign. Such a committee could have had no real influence except to stereotype the views of the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman is the head. He might, for instance, have raised the ques- tion of the sale of liquor to native races. It would have created a vast deal of interest throughout the Empire, and, if some conclusion had been come to, it would have removed a dangerous element to the future of those races. There is no question to-day which is as acute in regard to the future of the native races for which the right hon. Gentleman is the trustee than that question of the sale of liquor to them. There are in our self-governing Colonies, such as Canada, the Cape Colony, the Union of South Africa, and Australia, the most rigid regulations concerning the sale of liquor. In Rhodesia, in Northern Nigeria, on the Gold Coast, in Nyasaland, and in the British East African Protectorate it is prohibited, as it should be. I do not believe you can do your duty to the natives over whom your flag flies and for whom you are responsible—you the parent and they the children—if you rather help them to vices by enabling them to obtain liquor which, as in Nigeria, they use as currency and which they use to pay fines in their courts and for bartering their children. All these things have been proved. As for the fines in court, I have the facts here in the Report of the Royal Commission. Fines are paid in the courts of Nigeria in gin.

It may be the right hon. Gentleman, if he touches the question at all, will presently say they must have revenue. Are the resources of civilisation exhausted? Would not the Government be doing a wiser and better thing to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire by what means taxation, can be raised? It has been said by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors that revenue must be raised and there is no other way of raising it because the natives would not stand a direct tax. We have heard that before. It was said in Rhodesia and in the British East African Protectorate. It has been said in every Protectorate for whom we have been responsible. The right hon. Gentleman has given figures to show that over fifty per cent. of the revenue of Southern Nigeria is paid by the natives for gin. The figures have not increased, and that is represented as a reason for continuing what I think to be a very dangerous and evil practice. Members on that side of the House call themselves the Temperance party. I wonder what they think. Here is a brilliant Government possessing all the talents and here is a little country called Southern Nigeria, with a revenue of from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000, and they cannot find the means of raising that revenue except by taxing the natives for gin. I think the Members of the party opposite ought to unite with me in asking the Government why they did not at the conference bring forward this grave question which involves the interest of the native races for the future. I think I can give the answer. The Government excluded it from the consideration of this conference, because it was difficult, just as the acute question of fiscal and preferential arrangements with our Colonies was difficult. They did things because they had to be done, and not because they ought to be done. If they had come to that conference in a spirit, not of denial, but of constructiveness, they would have come with better prepared proposals and with schemes that would have stood criticism much better, and the results would have been infinitely more beneficial. The conference, it is said, has been successful because out of it came one thing, and that was the inclusion of the Ministers of our self-governing Dominions in the inner circle of the Cabinet on questions of foreign policy. I say frankly at once that that is an achievement for which this House, as well as the Government, must have its share of satisfaction and credit, because it was in this House—I do not know whether the Government bad thought of it before—that a proposal was brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), and approved of by the whole House embodying this idea. I think my right hon. Friend never made a speech in this House which created a greater impression than the one he delivered on that occasion. I am absolutely certain it had great influence with the Government. Let us all, therefore take credit for this thing. Let us say that the conference has been a success because of that one thing. But that one thing could have been had, and the rest we could have had as well at this conference, had the Government been willing, because the conference was held at a time when enthusiasm was greater than it had ever been in the history of our Empire, and when the feelings of men in the furthermost corners of our Dominions were aroused to the prospects of the future, and were alive to the consideration of questions which now perplex us, and without the solution of which we shall not make the best use of our opportunities.

I honestly believe that this Government missed an opportunity which is not likely to occur again for many a year. The atmosphere in which they move, and in. which the people of this country and the people of the Empire move, was so magnetic with sympathy that anything could have been done. You had a business-like but pathetically apathetic discussion of questions which kept leading up to the one big question, yet never got there, because every single question raised led up to the one question in which is the formula which will solve our Imperial relations, and until that formula is adopted, we shall never get a true understanding with our Colonies, nor the real benefits that should come to our Empire. We went up to the question again and again, and retreated from it because every Colonial orator knew it could not be dealt with, and their hearts were not in it because they remembered that almost the last words the Prime Minister used in 1907 were to the effect that they must not bring their proposals to this country for Imperial preferential relations, because his reply to them was a non-possumus. So it was in 1911, and so it will be, I suppose, until with well-achieved dignity they retire to well-merited opposition. That time will come. Probably the next Colonial Conference will see a Government in office which will do all that the Government did at this Colonial Conference and infinitely more. The 1907 conference was a live conference, full of stimulating things, because it represented a conflict of ability and a conflict of argument. The Government presented their case with great power, the Colonies presented their case, as we think, with greater convincingness. But nothing came of it. Now we have to look back upon a conventional conference with one outstanding result of great merit, and, for the rest, a small movement forward which does not represent the five years that have-passed since the last conference, nor the opportunities which were before this Government when they summoned the 1911 conference. I venture to say, in conclusion, that nothing I have uttered this afternoon has had any bitterness in it, yet everything I have said has behind it the feeling that the nation missed its opportunity, and missed it because the Government missed it.

Sir MAX AITKEN

I gathered from what the hon. Member for Gravesend said that, in his opinion, the most important deliberation at the Imperial Con- ference was concerned with the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister of Canada. That resolution, as presented, would have served a very great purpose if it had resulted in bringing to the attention of the Empire at large the enormous resources of the Colonies and the enormous opportunities for the development of those resources in the interests of the British people in all parts of the Empire. The alteration in the resolution presented by the Colonial Secretary necessarily changed its scope. It will be impossible under the Amendment to inquire into the possibility of developing parts of the Empire by a system of trade relations. When the Government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the trade relations between Canada and the British West Indies, that Commission was not restricted in the manner in which the new Commission will be. There was ample opportunity to inquire into the benefits of preference, and, as I read the Report and recommendations of that Commission, they would necessitate a change in the fiscal policy of some of the British West Indies. If a change can be suggested in the fiscal policy of the British West Indies by a Royal Commission, I cannot see why an Amendment proposed by the Colonial Secretary should exclude the possibility of suggesting a change in the fiscal system of Great Britain. Then again it appears to me that the Colonial Secretary, who is peculiarly guardian of the Crown Colonies, has been guilty of a dereliction of duty in not including the Crown Colonies in the scope of the proposed Commission. The population of the Crown Colonies is twice as great as that of the Dominions, and I think that the British West Indies has a population greater than that of New Zealand and Newfoundland combined. I am familiar with the British West Indies to some degree, and, consequently, I take the liberty of referring more particularly to those Colonies in making the points I wish to lay before the Committee.

The United States Government has developed its Colonial system along lines which are at least worthy of investigation by the Commission which the Imperial Conference proposes to set up. The United States has developed her Colonies by Imperial, or, if you choose to use another word, by Republican preference. I remember ten or twelve years ago, when the West Indies, including those islands which did not belong to Great Britain, were all practically in the same position—a very demoralised condition. About 1903 Cuba gave a preference of 20 per cent. to the United States, and in return the United States gave a preference of 20 per cent. on Cuban produce. Since then the development of Cuba has been very rapid, and as a consequence of that preference the sales of the United States goods in Cuba have increased from 23,000,000 dollars to 46,000,000 dollars, or nearly half the trade which Great Britain does with Canada. The island of Porto Rico was transacting very little trade with United States when the United States scheme of colonisation was carried out. Since then it has developed with even greater rapidity than Cuba, and in 1910 the United States sales to the island amounted to about 28,000,000 dollars; the trade has doubled within the past six years under this system of colonial preference and there is every reason to suppose that it will again double in the next six years.

The Philippines are not situated in the West Indies, but, under the Colonial system of the United States, they also have doubled their purchasing powers from the United States in the past six years, while British trade has declined by about one-half. On the other hand, Trinidad and Demerara, territories just as fertile and capable of development as the colonies affiliated with the United" States, have made very little progress They are not permitted to sell their products in the United States markets at all, and in the English market they compete-on equal terms with the surplus produce of Cuba and Porto Rico. There has been, a considerable shipment of produce from Cuba to Great Britain, the sugar bounty having been removed. It is said that the improved conditions of preference given by Canada have resulted in the sale of as much as 80 per cent. of Demerara sugar in Canada, and had it not been for that preference it would hardly have been possible for Demerara to hold her own. These two Colonies, however, are at present buying a very small quantity of manufactured goods. If the scheme of Imperial preference or some similar scheme of preference on those articles which are at present taxed in England could be carried out, we could look forward to a very largely increased buying power on their part. The field requires to be tilled if good results are to be obtained, and it seems a great pity that the American Government should go on tilling its tropical field, while Great Britain fails to do so. An opportunity arose to complete the Report of the Commission which inquired into the relations between Canada and the West Indies, by enabling the present Commission to inquire into the relations between Great Britain and the West Indies, but it was not accepted. Had it been taken advantage of, and had a Commission similar in character to the Commission which inquired into the relations between the West Indies and Canada been appointed, it is fair to assume that that Commission would have recommended some preference on the articles which are already taxed in Great Britain. In fact that would be in accordance with the fiscal system already existing in Great Britain, and the fact that the resolution as amended by the Colonel Secretary would still permit, if the Crown Colonies had been included, of inquiring into the trade relations of Great Britain and the West Indies makes it to be regretted to a very much greater extent that the Crown Colonies were not included. I should like to bring the attention of the Colonial Secretary to the certainty that after the United States has completed her reciprocity agreement with Canada she will make overtures to Newfoundland, and after that she will enter into negotiations with the West Indies, and unless the Government takes some steps to keep the situation in hand it is practically certain, I think, that the West Indies will be compelled to accept those overtures.

Mr. MARTIN

I am not at all surprised that the hon. Member and other advocates of Colonial preference should be profoundly disappointed with the recent conference, because the Colonial Premiers quite appreciated the fact that the conference is not intended for the purpose of advancing the political fortunes of any party in this country. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think it is a great loss to the Empire that the Colonies in this conference, should not join with him and other advocates of the Tory party in this country in endeavouring to bring about what to him no doubt is really the most important thing that could happen to the Empire—the restoration to power of the Tory party in this country.

Sir G. PARKER

The Dominions are with us.

Mr. MARTIN

That is just what I got up to deny. The hon. Gentleman made the very wide statement that the Colonies were all for Imperial preference. I shall not say anything with regard to any Colony except Canada, but with regard to Canada I say that statement is just about as far from the truth as it is possible to get. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh at me, but no public meeting in Canada—I do not care whether it is composed of Conservatives or Liberals, because it is not a party question there in that sense—would laugh at me in making that statement. I should be very glad indeed to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite on that question in any part of Canada. I have discussed it in nearly all parts of Canada, at meetings which were certainly not Liberal, but at which I believe the large majority of the audience were Conservatives. I have lived in Canada all my life till I came here, and have taken an active part in politics there, and I state without fear of contradiction that only a very small minority indeed in Canada are favourable to the policy known here as Imperial preference.

Mr. BONAR LAW

Is it the fact that in Canada the Government in no way represents the people?

Mr. MARTIN

The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity after me of pointing out in what way the Government of Canada have adopted or advocated, or in any way recognised as part of their policy, the Tory policy here of Imperial preference. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to what is known as British Preference in Canada I tell him that it has no relation whatever to what is known as Colonial preference here. British preference in Canada is a Free Trade measure just as clearly as Colonial preference here is a Protectionist measure. I rather fancy, from the interruption and from the manner in which that statement was received on the other side of the House, that hon. Members really think that British preference as it is known in Canada is the same thing as what they advocate here under the name of Colonial or Imperial preference. May I refer to the fact of how it came about that British preference was given in Canada in order to show that it is a purely Free Trade measure? In 1892 a private Member of Parliament—at that time the Conservative party was in power—introduced into the Parliament of Canada a resolution practically putting forward the Imperial preference doctrine as it is understood here. The Gentleman's name was Mr. McNeill, and he represented one of the western constituencies of Ontario. That motion was met by an amendment moved on behalf of the then Liberal Opposition, and that amendment embodied the present policy of British preference. The difference between the two was that Mr. McNeill's motion suggested that there should be a preference between Canada and the United Kingdom based upon a mutual reduction of tariffs. That is to say, whatever Canada gave to Great Britain should be reciprocated by some favour to be given to Canada by Great Britain. The Motion of the Liberal Opposition was the direct contrary of that, and suggested that Canada should give a preference in its tariff to Great Britain without any consideration whatsoever. That Amendment received the entire Liberal vote, and the Conservative Members all voted against it. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not overlook that.

The next thing that occurred was that the Liberals came into power four years later, in 1896, on a policy of Free Trade as it is in England. I am sorry to say that since they have been in power they have not carried it out. [Laughter.] Do hon. Gentlemen opposite think that is a proper thing for a party to do? It is in accordance with their custom of suggesting a certain policy to the country before an election, and, when the election is over, coming back and carrying out a contrary policy. To my mind that is just about the worst kind of thing that any honest, decent political party can do. I am quite surprised that the action of the Liberal party in Canada meets with approval from hon. Gentlemen opposite on that ground. However, with regard to this question, they carried out their pledge in full. In the short Session of 1896 nothing special was done, but in 1897 the Liberal tariff changes were introduced, and the principal one was what was known as British preference. In the first place that preference was 25 per cent. There was no suggestion of it being put upon the Statute Book, to be taken advantage of by Great Britain when Great Britain was prepared to pay something for it. It was a plain Statute, providing that, while the general tariff should be so much, with regard to imports from Great Britain it should be reduced by 25 per cent. Again that policy was opposed by the Tory party. They had no use for it. They said the people of Canada were fools for being willing to give a preference to Great Britain, because Great Britain was not prepared to pay for it.

Mr. AMERY

They stand for mutual preference.

Mr. MARTIN

That is the Tory idea here, I understand. But the Canadian idea, as represented by the Liberal Government there, is not mutual preference, but a preference given freely to imports coming from Great Britain without any consideration whatsoever. That preference was later on increased to 33⅓ per cent. Again it was opposed by the Tory party, and it has always been opposed by them till within a very short time past. Why was it that the Liberal party committed itself to this policy and carried it out? It was for the purpose of giving cheaper goods to the people of Canada, and that is what I call a Free Trade measure. I am not going to say that the Government of Canada introduced and passed into law that preference for the purpose of helping our British manufacturers. Far from it. The Government of Canada, whether administered by Conservatives or Liberals, will always be administered in the interests of Canada and not of Great Britain or any other country whatsoever. That is a proposition in which hon. Gentlemen will probably agree with me. The idea was to make cheaper goods for the people of Canada. It was a Free Trade measure. Incidentally the Canadians recognised in that measure that they were a part of the Empire and, having a benefit to give away so far as outside nations were concerned, they were very willing to give to their own Mother-country.

Colonel YATE

Would not a preference on corn give cheaper corn to the people of England?

Mr. MARTIN

It might be an advantage to the Canadian people to artificially increase the price of corn to the people of Great Britain through Tariff Reform—

The CHAIRMAN

This is an occasion when we are supposed to deal with Colonial policy, but it is rather desirable not to discuss the theory of free trade more than is necessary for the purpose of the argument. We are really dealing with Colonial relations.

Mr. MARTIN

I was only going to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Now, as I was saying, the policy of British preference in Canada is not as the hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think a policy of Colonial preference, such as has been indicated to-day. A large majority of the people of Canada would welcome the abolition of the protective tariff altogether in Canada. The hon. Gentlemen opposite think that because Canada has a protective tariff that represents Canadian opinion. But this is a question probably beyond the limits of this discussion. I merely make the assertion that a considerable majority of the Canadian people are Free Traders in their hearts.

An HON. MEMBER

And in their pockets?

Mr. MARTIN

Yes, in their pockets. I make the further assertion that if the people of Canada could get Free Trade in Canada, the progress of Canada would go up by leaps and bounds. As far as the statements apply to Canada, it is quite incorrect to say the Canadians are in favour of Colonial preference. I will make that clear if I can. In order to have Colonial preference it would be necessary that there should be a tax on the food of the people of this country. Whether, having established that preference against corn coming in from all countries, it would reduce the price of food is a moot question here for me. But I do not wish it to be understood for a moment that by my silence I agree it would have that effect. I say this, that while the tariff policy of Canada will always be conducted by every Government in power for the benefit of the people of Canada, there is a very strong reverence for the Mother-country. I say that sentiment leads the people of Canada, without regard to their politics, to be opposed to any arrangement between Canada and the Mother-country which would necessarily bring about increased cost of food to the people of the Old Country. I put that proposition at I large public meetings from one end of Canada to the other. The people in Canada who would be affected by any increase in the price of Canadian wheat would be the farmers of Canada. Now the farmers of Canada are the most prosperous people at the present time. They have not always been so. I lived. in the north-west when the farmers had a very hard time. In recent years they have got along well. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under Protection."] I do not think Protection has anything to do with it. They have become prosperous in spite of Protection. Protection in Canada does not increase the price of a single thing the farmer grows or produces. He is outside the effects of the tariff. No tariff in Canada can increase the price of meat or wheat sold in this country; no tariff can increase the price of the products of the mines sold in the United States market. Whatever the tariff has done for the manufacturers (it has made a great many millionaires) it has not done anything whatever for the farmers. The riches of the farmers, and the position of She farmers, arises from the great natural resources of Canada. These farmers are well off and, having put the question at meetings, I know they are aware of the great poverty in the Old Land. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under Free Trade."] Yes, and it would be worse under Protection. The Canadians are aware of the condition of things in this country. They know there are millions of people in the Old Land who are to-day not sure of where they are going to get their meals to-morrow. And, even though I grant that Colonial preference might increase by three or four cents a bushel the price of wheat, I do not believe there are 100 farmers who would not say they would rather be without it. That money would burn in their pockets if they knew it had been taken out of the poor, poverty-stricken people of this country by increasing the cost of their food. I say that I am representing accurately and truly the real opinion of the people of Canada with regard to this question. The question whether the right hon. Gentleman for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) shall be the Premier of this country, or whether the Prime Minister shall continue in that office, is not a question which is considered in Canada at all. The questions which are considered there are the questions which affect Canada. I say that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) never made a more inaccurate statement than when he undertook to suggest that Canada—I say nothing with regard to the other Colonies—was in any way in favour of this doctrine of Colonial preference which he put forward. The hon. Gentlemen opposite assume to themselves the monopoly of patriotism and Imperialistic ideas. I am an Imperialist. I am here to-day, after having lived the far greater part of my life in Canada, to assert Imperialism in the sense we do by coming over here, claiming the right of being a citizen here as I was in Canada, and having the right to become a Member of this historic House. I say you will never have a real Imperialism, in the proper sense of the word, so long as one political party undertakes to appropriate to their own private uses any great doctrine of Imperialism. They put forward as true Imperialism that there should be tariffs in all parts of the Empire; that there should be this Colonial and Imperial preference. We have had in the past few weeks an illustration of how to approach these Imperial questions —the way in which they have been approached by the representatives of the Colonies and also by the representatives of His Majesty's Government who attended the Imperial Conference. It has been a most successful conference, because it has not been in any way used to help any party to appropriate to their own party uses the great interests of the Empire at large.

Mr. MACKINDER

I rise to support the criticism with regard to the action of the Government at the late Imperial Conference, which has been placed before the House by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker), and in a maiden speech, I believe, by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. M. Aitken). The House will feel that in that maiden speech he gave evidence of knowledge which will be of value to this House. There is one small point to which I would like to direct the attention of the House; and we all welcome it in whatever part of the House we sit. Three hon. Gentlemen who have addressed this House up to this point are from the Dominions over the seas. It is a striking evidence of the modern times to which we have come, and a hopeful and fine augury for the future of our Empire. I am not going to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down into what is no doubt a very learned disquisition on the history of Canada, and the views of the people of Canada. The hon. Member could give us no documentary evidence as to the views of the people of Canada. The hon. Member was questioned as to whether he must not accept the views of the Canadian Government as representative of the Canadian people. His argument was the argument which I have put forward, that Canada established a one-sided preference for Canadian objects. That does not touch the fact that we have the memorable utterances of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as to concession for concession. I would direct the hon. Member to a single passage in the speech of the Canadian Prime Minister. It was at the end of a speech bearing upon the proposed Royal Commission, in which he said:— We have been trying to get mutual preferential treatment with regard to Australia, but we have not been able to do so. Here we have the clearest evidence from the Prime Minister of Canada, elected by the majority of the people of Canada. The hon. Gentleman opposite has held a conspicuous position in Canada. He had in Canada the evidence of the Canadians—

Mr. WEDGWOOD

Has the Prime Minister of Canada said he was in favour of Free Trade?

Mr. MACKINDER

The Prime Minister of Canada is in favour of freer trade. He is theoretically in favour of Free Trade with the world. But in this House we are not discussing economic text-books: we are discussing practical politics. The Canadian Prime Minister here makes a statement as to efforts for mutual preference.

Mr. MARTIN

Can the hon. Gentleman who talks about preference adduce any statement made on behalf of the Government of Canada that they desire to see a Protective policy adopted here in order that they may have preference?

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MACKINDER

I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the resolutions passed at conference after conference. They were only omitted from the recent conference owing to the fate they met in previous conferences. The representatives of the Colonies know what these resolutions contain, and they can bide their time. I think, perhaps, I should say that although I do not consider that those who have spoken on our side have in the least degree transgressed, we in criticising what was done at the recent conference have no idea of criticising in any way whatever the action of the other parties in the conference. We are bound to follow closely what our own representatives did at that conference, but the last thing we want to have suggested is that we have been endeavouring to criticise the representatives of the Overseas Dominions, which are not so great as this country in population at present, but which are equal in status round a conference table. I am going to confine my remarks to the action of the present Government. [Cheers.] I notice that an hon. Gentleman cheers that remark. I think he will find plenty of material in the action of our own Government deserving of criticism, without going into what happened in the case of others. I think we are entitled to consider whether the issue of that conference would not have been something far more valuable if it had not been for the action of our representatives. From that point of view we are bound to consider what took place at the conference as a whole. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) referred to matters in regard to which our Government did good at the recent conference. The hon. Gentleman opposite seemed inclined to load on us the charge of using the Empire for party purposes.

We recognise the very great fact that the chief representatives of the Dominions overseas were taken into confidence in regard to foreign affairs. There is one thing which we are really anxious about. We trust that the situation in Europe—that the position of this country in regard to the balance of power in Europe—was duly weighed in the discussion which took place with closed doors on that occasion. In regard to the Imperial Council, we recognise the difficulties, though we think that possibly a little more thought beforehand might have resulted in putting forward more hopeful and practical proposals. We do not wish to concentrate discussion upon that. We believe that no harm was done in that matter by waiting a short time. In regard to the question of naturalisation, we recognise the difficulties which the Government had to face in view of the position of the natives of India and other dependencies. We do not blame the Government for their caution in that matter. But it seemed to me that there was a little lack of sympathy, judging from the debates which took place in regard to two smaller matters. There was a non-possu-mus attitude which seemed a little unnecessary in regard to the question of coinage and the question of a court of appeal for the whole Empire. As to a court of appeal, we recognise that some advance was foreshadowed, but there was a tendency to put forward technicalities, instead of welcoming the proposal and doing the best that could be done to get over the technicalities, and to set up what all the Dominions desire to see—namely, a court to represent the whole Empire in the realm of law. In regard to coinage, it does seem to me that the inquiry might have been left open instead of giving the very curt answer which was given, entirely from the point of view of this country.

Now I turn to what after all is the great question on which we wish to lay stress to-day, namely, the Royal Commission to be set up to inquire into the resources and commerce of the Empire. It appears to us that one thing was asked and that another was achieved. I venture to say that the whole matter, as we read it in the debates reported in the Blue Book, has been left in a state of the utmost confusion which, unless it is dealt with with great care, may lead to serious differences of opinion in future. Let me remind the Committee of what took place in these debates. We have before us the resolution which was-proposed and the resolution which was carried. It is important to look at the commentary, because the Secretary of State drew attention to the fact that some might read the resolution which was passed and not read the debate which took place, and that misunderstanding might result. Therefore we have to look to the discussion that took place in order to interpret the resolution which was formally passed. I have no doubt that, with his usual courtesy and suavity, the right hon. Gentleman spoke very pleasantly to those round the table when he referred "to what extent, if any, the trade between each of the different parts has been affected by existing legislation in each, either beneficially or otherwise." That was Sir Wilfrid Laurier's resolution. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say something about the embargo on cattle and cognate subjects which have given some inconvenience in Canada. I venture to say that, although that might have passed muster in the conference when the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier were no longer before the conference, it will not pass muster when we come to read the utterance of Sir Wilfrid Laurier which preceded it. The subject of the embargo on cattle only occupied a small part of the speech, which to a considerable extent was occupied with questions concerning Colonial preference. I notice that in the early portion of his speech Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:— We passed some legislation ourselves in 1897. which has been followed by, and, I think, his been productive of good results, when we grave a preferential tariff to the products of the Mother Country. Then comes the statement which I have quoted in regard to a preferential arrangement with Australia. The whole tendency of the speech was in that direction, and I venture to say that when Sir Wilfrid Laurier referred to the embargo on cattle he was really referring to the question of Protection. Sir Wilfrid Laurier no doubt would be perfectly fair in regard to the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman, who stated that the reason why we maintain the embargo is for totally different purposes, namely, reasons of sanitation, and so forth, in regard to our herds. But the innuendo of his speech was that that reason would not bear investigation. Therefore, the whole tendency of his speech was to request that a Commission should be appointed to consider questions concerning Protection, and with reference to general policy. If you look at the wording of the Resolution which was passed, it is clear, I think, that the whole preliminary portion has reference to the concluding, and, if I may say so, operative Clause. What we want to know is what exactly is going to be the reference to this Commission? Is the reference to the Royal Commission going to be the words of the Resolution as amended and passed by the Conference, or some words to convey what the Government believe to be the intention of that Resolution, having regard, no doubt, to their own utterances in the Debate. The matter is really very important. I would ask the attention of the Committee to the conflict of suggestion there is in the last two Clauses as they stand. The last Clause but one, as originally proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, runs in this way:— To what extent, if any, the trade between each of the different parts has been affected by existing legislation in each, either beneficially or otherwise. Clearly, it would be impossible for the Royal Commission, looking at only the words before it, not to go into questions of fiscal legislation. Then there comes the rider proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and which runs:— And by what methods, consistent with the existing fiscal policy of each part, the trade of each part with the others may be improved and extended. Of course, the Government laid stress on the words "consistent with the fiscal policy of each part." The Commission is asked to recommend methods, but in the preceding sentence the Commission is asked to investigate the effect of existing legislation, beneficial or otherwise, on the different parts of the Empire. While the Commission are not to dictate to the different parts or to the whole of the Empire any policy, they are distinctly asked by the Resolution, as passed by the conference, to make a close investigation into the results of legislation, and, of course, that means fiscal legislation. We want to know whether the Resolution as passed by the conference is going to be the reference to the Royal Commission, or whether the Government are going to re-edit it and refer to the Commission something which will prevent them from investigating those results, which may be damaging either to the views of the Government or to us on this side, and which must have a very great effect on the legislation of the future and on the proposals put forward by the Governments of the different countries.

It seems to me that the Government missed a very great opportunity. The Government, I assume, have full faith in their opinion. If they have, what harm would result to them from any investigation? May I point to the fact that this very spring the, Association of Chambers of Commerce unanimously, I understand, passed a resolution asking for a Royal Commission to investigate questions of Tariff Reform. A unanimous resolution passed by such a body is not a thing to be flouted. Here is the opportunity of a Royal Commission, not of all parts of the Empire but of the-self-governing parts. The weightiest possible utterance would be the result of that commission. If the Government have faith in their Free Trade opinions what better way in the world would there be of laying for generations to come the whole of the proposals brought forward by our party than to present them as condemned by such a Royal Commission. After such a condemnation there would be no hope for the policy inaugurated from our side. But I would ask this question. How can we have an investigation into the trade of all parts of the Empire represented at this conference with a view to the beneficial effects on the different parts of the Empire as a whole without taking into account the greatest part of the Empire, namely India? Are we to understand that this Royal Commission, which is not to make recommendations of particular policy which would be inconvenient to different Governments, but simply to investigate the effect of the policies of the past and the present resources, will be free to go into the question of the trade of dependencies as it relates to other parts of the Empire under the head of the United Kingdom?

I notice that the Royal Commission, representing the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland, is to investigate and report upon the natural resources of each part of the Empire represented at this conference. Are we to understand that the Government of the United Kingdom was the representative, in fact, of India and the dependencies of that type? If so, in appointing the Royal Commission will it be made clear, from the composition of the Commission, that this Imperial Government recognises its responsibility, and that if any advantages are to be obtained the Commission may direct attention not merely to fiscal advantages but to other advantages, with regard to communication and so on to be obtained from the investigation, for India and other parts of the Empire? Is the Imperial Government going to make sure that that advantage shall be secured for India? What is this Royal Commission going to do if you limit the reference or seek to interpret the reference established by the resolution of the conference by bringing in the discussion that took place? I think the right hon. Gentleman is looking forward a little and anticipating difficulties in those words of his which I have quoted, and is giving himself an opportunity for limitation. Then what is the Royal Commission going to do? Is it going to rove about the Empire and obtain statistics which can be obtained in a far more effective way than by sending a certain number of great persons to different parts of the Empire? Is it to go to hear evidence? If it is to hear evidence, then is it to make up its mind upon certain questions? In Others words, is it merely to be educational? An hon. Member opposite referred at Question Time the other day to the cost which this country had incurred in educating Lord Kitchener. Are we to incur great cost in sending away statesmen of the future or of the past—because those of the present will be too busy to go—simply to obtain an education in what are the relations of the different parts of the Empire?

That can hardly happen. An investigation into the results of policies as embodied in past legislation cannot but be the outcome of such a reference as this. The result will be that limit the Commission as you will there will be obvious from the report of the Commission certain consequences, even though those consequences be not put out tersely and in black and white. It seems therefore that all the efforts of the Government to limit and burke this inquiry will be fruitless. But if they find at the end that they have effectually limited the inquiry, and that by their reference they make perfectly sure of that result, I venture to say that there will be very considerable ill-feeling in regard to what was decided by the Prime Ministers of the Empire, and that they will have done harm instead of good by the action they have taken. The questions which I want to ask are whether the reference to the Royal Commission will be the resolution as passed by the conference with no further comment, or whether it is the intention to have that resolution edited in order practically to incorporate the right hon. Gentleman's share of the discussion. And further, whether it is the intention of the Government to interpret the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom in this country, as including responsibility for the dependencies of this country which they were taken to represent at that conference?

Sir WILLIAM BYLES

I do not propose to refer to the subject which has been dealt with by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I desire to deal with a totally different matter and one of no less importance. I speak of the condition of the black population of our Empire I am associated with the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society, which has a long and honourable record. A few months ago that society sent out the Rev. Mr. Harris to Southern Nigeria to inquire into the conditions of alleged slavery in the Protectorate. Charges had been made both in England and in Belgium as to the native population, who, it was stated, were not far removed from the condition of slavery. He went out to find out what was the truth in these charges. He had the advantage of discussing the matter with the authorities and with leading natives and chiefs of the colony and visiting the natives through the country. I quote from his letter. He says:— On February 15th last Mr. Harcourt, in reply to a question addressed to him in the House of Commons by Mr. King, said: 'The status of slavery is not recognised in Southern Nigeria. If calling a slave by another name in English is sufficient to abolish a system, then slavery does jot exist in the Eastern and Central Provinces of Southern Nigeria. If. on the other hand, loss of personal liberty, the denial of freedom of contract, the break-up and transfer of the units of a family to other and different owners- if those conditions and other repugnant concomitants constitute slavery, then there is something very near to that condition in Southern Nigeria. This is the result of quite a recent inquiry by an entirely competent investigator. What disturbs me is that these conditions so described arise apparently from an ordinance under which the authorities administer the Government of the country, an ordinance which was introduced into the Administration only ten years ago. That ordinance set up or, at any rate sanctioned what is known as the native house system, which hands over the natives to the chief as parts of his family or household, which denies to them liberty to sell their labour where they will, and imposes upon them many other re- straints. I suggest that if British subjects are to be free as they are reputed to be free all over the Empire, they ought to be free, at any rate, to serve what master they will and to buy themselves out of servitude, either by money they are able to save or by their labour.

At present a trader arranges for a supply of labour not with the individual men themselves, but with the chief, who says, "I will let you have a certain number of men, a hundred carriers, to do this, that, and the other thing." These men must go where they are told, and must work at what wages he determines, and they are punished if they hire themselves to any other employer. I want to ask my right hon. Friend what his view and what the view of the Colonial Office is in regard to this native house system? Perhaps he will also tell me what is this trade tax of which I hear and read which is imposed apparently upon thrifty members of the population, who perhaps are saving money for their own emancipation. I can produce evidence from District Commissioners in that country who describe this house system as one of slavery, who allege that girls can be bought and are bought and sold with the sanction of the Government into a state in which they are really, though not technically, slaves. They are men who recognise as abominable the ordinances which they themselves have to administer and the decisions which they themselves are obliged to give. A young man going out from this country as a District Commissioner after a short experience writes home: "People in England would be horrified if they knew the decisions which are given in these courts." Is it possible that we can see these decisions? Why cannot they be put on the Table of the House? After all we are responsible.

Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON

Are we still dealing with Mr. Harris's letter?

Sir W. BYLES

I quoted Mr. Harris's letter and I finished with him. I then went on to say that there is evidence, which I can produce and will produce to the hon. Gentleman if he desires it, as to the District Commissioners out there, who have to administer the Ordinance of 1901, under which these Colonies come. I have told the Committee what some of these gentleman at any rate have said about that Ordinance, and about the decisions which they themselves are obliged to give under it.

Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON

I am obliged to the hon. Member for his explanation. I only wanted to check it.

Sir W. BYLES

I ask my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether it is possible for the House of Commons to see some of the decisions given by the District Commissioners, decisions which are causing disquietude even to those who administer them. If that is impossible, I would ask him whether the Colonial Office sees these decisions and reads them. I think that if the system is at all approaching what I am endeavouring to describe, in accordance with information I have received, it ought not to continue, and I believe that if the House of Commons knew all its effects, it would not continue. There is one other matter I desire to bring before the attention of the Secretary of State. I have had sent to me a copy of the "Southern Nigeria Gazette Extraordinary," "published by authority." It is dated the 2nd May, of this year, and it sets out a Bill entitled, "An Ordinance to confer upon the Governor the necessary power for the detention and deportation of one Overami, ex-king of Benin." The provisions of this Ordinance—I really do not know whether it is yet an Act of Parliament or not, or whether this House still has any control over it—appear to me to be extremely drastic and contrary to all our ideas of what ought to constitute the law under which free British subjects are to act. It gives a dangerous increase of power to the Colonial Governor. I think that in itself is a dangerous thing to do. I do not know whether it is desirable or not that Overami should continue to be detained. He has been detained for over thirteen years, and I am not able to give a judgment on his conduct or the wisdom of still keeping him in detention. Whatever may be the reason, I do not think there is any reason for such drastic provisions as are contained in this Ordinance. Let me tell the House, very briefly, what the Ordinance says. In Clause 1 it says:— All acts done, permitted to be done, or sanctioned by the Governor" (before a certain date), "with respect to the arrest and detention of the said Overami, ex-King of Benin … are hereby declared to be legal and valid as if the same had been done, permitted to be done, or sanctioned under the authority of the Legislature of the Colony. That is to say, that the whole of the past, however bad it may have been, is wiped out. At any rate, the Legislature of the colony has no control. Then it goes on to give permission to the Gover- nor to imprison this man where he likes, for as long as he likes, and to do whatever he chooses with him. I will not describe in too much detail the seventh Clause of the Ordinance, though I must say its provisions will come as a shock to those who love the principles of liberty:— No writ of habeas corpus or other process calling in question the legality of the arrest, detention or deportation of the said Overami, ex-King of Benin, or of any other matter connected therewith respectively, shall have any effect within the Colony or Protectorate. Really I do think that that is going a long way in this, the British Empire, which is supposed to be an Empire of freedom. I think this conception of the Governor of a distant colony, which, so to speak, is out of sight of the British people who are responsible for it, this conception of a Governor above all law, will do, and has done, great mischief in many places besides Southern Nigeria, as, for instance, in Natal, where a similar power was given. Here you have absolute indemnity for all this Governor has done. You give him the power to do anything he pleases, and you say that no writ of habeas corpus should run to protect his victims, as I may call them. I want to know what is the Legislative Council. Where does it come in? What is the good of having a Legislative Council at all? Also I want to know whether this House of Commons is to approve or is expected to approve this establishment of an autocracy, for it is literally the setting up of an autocracy within the Empire, an autocracy, let it be noted, which is over the Colonial Office, outside the power of the Colonial Secretary, and outside, apparently, the British Parliament. We heard talk about the man on the spot. Upon my word it is a strong thing to make the man on the spot more powerful than the British Parliament, or the Colonial Secretary himself. I suppose this Southern Nigeria is called a Protectorate. It is a very nice name. It appears to convey that the British Government claim and exercise some protection over the native inhabitants of that territory. But instead of that, they are giving one man the power to exploit them and to grant concessions to white traders.

A great deal might be said about the condition of the black population. I would like very much to see the whole question of indentured labour which obtains in a great many of our Protectorates and Crown Colonies thoroughly discussed in this House. It cannot be discussed here to-day, I fear. But let me remind the House of what was said here by a man who used to sit below me, and who had always the interests of the black population of this Empire at heart, who raised a strong voice in their favour, and who was a strong friend of the dark-skinned population of our Empire—let me remind you of what he told us every year that he stood up here, namely, that the King reigns over black and white. The King who has just been crowned has far more black subjects than white. They are not represented here. But I hope there will always be some voice raised on these benches to speak for them, and to claim for them not only decent treatment but liberty—that liberty which Englishmen all pretend to give to all the subjects of the Empire. I believe that at this moment, at any rate, we have a high-minded, just, and unprejudiced chief at the head of the Colonial Office. I hope he is impregnated with some of the old ideas of Liberalism, some of the old ideas of Englishmen, and not of Liberalism only. These ideas are not quite dead—love of personal liberty and of personal rights, regardless of race or colour. We have heard a good deal from the other side about Imperialism. That is the real Imperialism.

Sir CLEMENT HILL

I wish to switch the wire off from one side of the continent to the other, and raise the question of the land in East Africa. The Protectorate of East Africa stands under very different conditions from those of most of our African Colonies and Protectorates, because when it was taken over by this country in 1895 there were no settlers in it, and no British developments whatever. When we at length endeavoured to administer the country land laws were introduced in 1897, but still there were few, if any, settlers to whom they could be applied. It was foreseen, however, that there would be-more occupation, and accordingly these land laws were drafted, and the Ordinance of 1902 was introduced just at the time when the railway was completed. The completion of the railway naturally attracted more settlers, and the demand for the land at the end of 1901 and in the early part of 1902—I believe up to that time confined to one demand for 104 acres by the Italian Colonial Trading Company, sprang up very considerably, and kept on increasing. The principle on which the Ordinance of 1902 was founded was that there should be a ninety-nine years' lease, and a certain power of freehold. The only criticism of that Ordinance for some considerable time was by the Commissioner, who considered that the Ordinance was not liberal enough to settlers, and who advocated greater freedom of trade and greater grants of free land. Nothing, however, was done in that regard so long as the Protectorates were under the Foreign Office. But when they were handed over to the Colonial Office in the early part of 1905 apparently the question was more discussed and more looked into.

In the early part of 1907 notification was issued in the Protectorate saying that land might be granted for a twenty-one years' lease, plus twenty-one years at the end of that time, at the rent prevailing at the time of the settling of the grants. The total period of the grant was forty-two years, but it was received in the country with great disappointment on the part of the whole population. We learn that from the reports which were sent home at the time. The agitation in East Africa increased, and was very considerable. I put a question in this House in August, 1907, and shortly afterwards instructions were sent out by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to East Africa that the authorities there were to consider whether it would be possible to grant leases for twenty-one years, plus seventy-eight years, and the rent should be fixed on certain terms. The present Home Secretary, who was then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, visited East Africa at the time and dealt with the question more or less, but he instructed the Governor there that it was desirable that leases for grazing land should only be granted for twenty-one years, with an option for renewal under certain conditions. Meantime certain local proposals had been made. A new Director of Agriculture had gone out, and had made suggestions, founded upon some Cape analogy, that there should be a perpetual quit-rent over the land, with the power of redemption at twenty years' rent of the lease. The Government of the day and the Director of Agriculture did not go so far as that, but they took the line that it would be necessary to give ninety-nine years' leases, with a certain power of purchase of the freehold. These proposals were sent home, and they were discussed and considered by the Colonial Office, and Lord Elgin sent out a reply on 19th March, 1908, in which he laid down that individuals should not accumulate great tracts of land owing to the principle of free transfer, but that the Government should from time to time have a share in the new areas of unearned increment. Therefore revised proposals were made to the local government authorising the offer of ninety-nine year leases, with rentals on a revisable basis of 5 per cent. of the unimproved value of the land, at the thirty-third and sixty-sixth year, subject to a maximum rent, on its development. The maximum rent was 3d. per acre, the maximum area being 5,000 acres. This works out, without giving all the details to this, that some was classified in Class I., 900 acres at 18 cents., which was a rent for the first thirty-two years of £10 16s.; at thirty-three years. £33 12s.; and at sixty-six years, £101 8s. That was in the Highlands.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

May I ask whether that is the maximum?

Sir CLEMENT HILL

That is the maximum. In another case of different quality there were 5,000 acres at 3 cents, for the first thirty-two years at £10; in. thirty-three years, £186 13s. 4d.; and in sixty-six years it rose to £563 6s. 8d. The result of that despatch was that an ordinance vas drafted in the Protectorate and was approved by the Legislative Council and was sent home in 1909, but it contained no provision for a revision of the rent at thirty-three and sixty-six years, nor did it deal with the question of a graduated Land Tax as suggested by the Government. The present Governor, Sir Percy Girouard, urged that ordinance upon the present Secretary of State, personally, whilst over in this country, and set forth to him his views on the hostility of the settlers to the Government scheme, but without success, and in a despatch published in the "Official Gazette" on March 1st, I see that instructions were given to adhere to Lord Elgin's despatch, and to draft an ordinance in its terms. So far as I know no ordinance has been sent home in these terms. The fact is this: you have got a Colony or Protectorate which you can see working in its infancy, a Central African Colony where health conditions are still very uncertain, and you are not at all sure what the result of the experiments will be in cereals and farming and so on.

They have an ordinance imposed on them which is extremely distasteful and objectionable to all the officials and settlers. That country has to compete with the attractions of the other older Colonies, such as Canada, where liberal grants are given, although Rhodesia nearer to it is a better example. There extremely liberal terms are offered to settlers, and I may mention the recent grant of 400,000 acres of land in Rhodesia for the purpose of feeding cattle, and the option of 2,000,000 more acres. East Africa has to contend with such conditions as these, and by these offers she is put into a very difficult position. We find therefore that the ordinance which is likely to be imposed upon them is thoroughly distasteful, and that they wish to have more liberal terms, and we are brought up against the opinion, it seems, of the Government. I think, looking at the conditions under which East Africa was obtained, it really did not come to this country as a country which was looked upon merely for the purpose of commercial development and land hunger. We took it under international conditions by which we were pledged under the Brussels Act against the slave trade and slavery. As to the first part of the work of the Government of East Africa, all that was done was done simply and solely with that object. What has grown up from the preparations made by the Government, and upon the success of the Government operations in that Protectorate is a system of enabling white settlers to go and get land there on fair terms, and it is hoped the results will prove to be good for that country in the future. The primary object was not commerce, and I think, if the Government really considered this question, they might endeavour to look into this subject with greater liberality and see if they cannot make some effort before it is too late to more or less improve the chances of settlement in accordance with the views expressed by the local Government.

I would like to ask, in connection with the same Protectorate, what has been done in regard to the question of the settlement of Asiatics? A Committee recently sat under Lord Sanderson, my late chief, and went into the whole question of Asiatic settlement, and they came to the conclusion that, owing to the great hostility of the settlers in East Africa, it would not be desirable to have Indian emigration; that it should not be encouraged in the uplands at all events, although in the lowlands it was possible land might be found for the purpose. In the more distant Protectorate of Uganda, it might be possible to supply them with advantage. The other Protectorate in which I am interested is what is known as the Nyasaland Protectorate. I hear extremely good accounts from Nyasaland of the growing of cotton. In the first place they paid more attention to the growing of coffee, but I hear now that they have got cotton in such a condition that they have the utmost hopes of growing it to a very large extent and of producing it in very paying quantities, if they could only get better methods of transferring it. They formerly used the Shire River, but it has altered of late years, and they cannot now trust to water transport, because it has shifted so much, and the river is unequal to the work. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether His Majesty's Government would consider it possible to assist local enterprise by building railways and by giving greater facilities for transport of cotton, not in the interest of individual firms, but in the interests of the growing of cotton, which is obviously of importance, both to the Protectorate and to the Mother-country.

Mr. CATHCART WASON

I think the Committee will agree that it is somewhat unfortunate that the question of the details of the tenure of land in East Africa should have been brought up upon this occasion, because it is perfectly certain that there is a very limited amount of knowledge at our disposal with regard to it, although in the minds of some hon. Members the amount of knowledge is much larger. I think the subject might very well have been left alone where it is in, the hands of the Colonial Secretary and the Governor of that great province. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because surely the whole of the land tenure of East Africa is not a very nice question to raise upon the floor of this House. The hon. Baronet has just said that commerce was not the primary object of our control over East African affairs. The railway he asked us to make was to be built solely for the purpose of getting the country into communication with the hinterland in Uganda and stopping the slavery which was then prevalent. What the Government did find was that when the railway was made it was pressed upon them from some quarters upon the Foreign Office, that they would hand over great tracks of the country to syndicates and speculators. And that is what East Africa is suffering from at the present moment. Not very long since the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, who is now Under-Secretary for War, gave me an answer to a question which I put to him in this House with regard to the population in certain lands of the East African Syndicate at the time they were taken over and at the present day. I did not bring the figures with me, but if I had they would astonish the Committee, for they would see that some thousands and hundreds of thousands of sheep and cattle and natives have all been swept away, and that the country was then practically a desert. How far the conditions under which the East African Syndicate hold their lands have been carried out I do not know, but after some years these conditions have not in any way whatever been fulfilled.

6.0 P.M.

Not only is that the case, but enormous areas of land have been granted to individuals, great areas which are far more than any individual could possibly work, and now complaints come from the settlers that they are not to have equally large areas granted to them. I say it is a very unfortunate case both for East Africa and for ourselves and also for the people who are now in that country. It is a difficult question, the whole of this East African land question. We gave to these large syndicates and holders enormous tracts of land, but it is doubtful whether they will make very much money out of them. The whole problem of white settlement there is difficult. What we have seen is that the natives have been removed. I am not unduly criticising the Government or the Colonial Office for that, but they have been removed to other land in the south. It was also proposed by the Foreign Office to hand over great tracts of land with the natives in the country to persons from Central Europe for political purposes, but that calamity, by the Grace of God, was averted. These were people from whom we were desirous of getting some reciprocal advantage. In these circumstances I think the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite were a little unfortunate. In Sir Percy Girouard we have a Governor who is doing, as every Governor has done, very much to promote the prosperity of the country. The railways which he has suggested will be of enormous benefit. The prosperity of East Africa does not depend so much on a few white men making a little money here and a little money in land speculation there, as it does upon the small cultivator, the man who, with his own family and a few boys, is doing a little bit of work for himself. Still more does it depend upon the great native population. For example, the native sheep have absolutely no wool at all, but I noticed, a year or two ago, that by a judicious intermix- ture and crossing, they have managed to raise a wool which commands a fair price in the market. Other operations of commerce also are going on. The point I want to make is that the prosperity of the country depends solely upon the native population and the manner in which we treat them. There are still large numbers of these natives, and there are also settlers, whom we should do all we could to help, to promote their prosperity and comfort, to enable them to earn a livelihood, and to do something for themselves. I believe their is a great future before the people of that country.

If I ventured any criticism at all on the administration of the Colonial Office, it would be with regard to the position they have taken up in reference to the mail service. For more years than I like to remember, we have been doing our utmost to get an improved mail service to East Africa. Thanks to the energy of the Union Castle Line, that has now been attained. But the Government are still paying something like £9,000 a year for the conveyance of mails simply from Aden to Mombassa. I contend that that money is absolutely thrown away. If it could be handed over for the purposes of the Governor, it would be an extremely desirable thing to do, because along the very fertile belt on the coast much could be done. The development of railways will increase commerce, and I believe that with a direct service every manufacturing industry in this country would profit. A little while ago we were discussing Canadian Imperial preference, but I am rather glad that the Debate has been switched off that subject, at any rate for the present. The amount of raw materials that this country requires for its industries must show us what an enormous advantage it is to us to have these great possessions in East and West Africa, in order to supply the necessities of the people of this country. If we want to promote the prosperity of East Africa, Uganda, Northern Nigeria, or Southern Nigeria, the policy we must strictly adhere to, and to which the Colonial Office have adhered, is that of seeing that the native population is properly and fairly treated, and has every consideration given to its desires.

I was somewhat sorry to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) with regard to affairs in West Africa. I am sure from personal knowledge that they are nothing like so bad as he would have the Committee to understand. I do not for one moment think that in either Northern or Southern Nigeria there is any system that can fairly be described as slavery or anything approaching it. My hon. Friend complains that it is difficult to make a bargain with an individual native, and that you have to make your bargain with the chief. That is true, but it has always been the case there. The rule of the chiefs is the whole foundation of the government of the country, and if we once upset their rule and sway over the people it will be a very serious matter indeed. To show what has been done to restore confidence in the natives, I may mention that not very long ago a native was granted a concession of a forest. He seemed to have been extremely hardly treated. Pressure was brought to bear on the administrator, and for two or three years the native was kept out of his concession. He was almost in despair of ever obtaining the property which had been given him, but the matter worked out quite fairly in the end. It went to the court of the country, and, despite all the influence that the traders could bring in the way of manufacturing evidence, the court awarded the native the concession to which he was entitled. That will show the Committee that the natives in Southern Nigeria, at any rate, have very little to complain about. From a question answered to-day, Members will see that a vast amount of the revenue of the country is derived from the taxation upon spirits. We all agree that that is a regrettable fact, but it is not a circumstance over which we have the slightest control. If the Colonial Secretary, by a wave of the hand, could to-morrow order that spirits should not be imported into Southern Nigeria, it would not have the smallest effect on the consumption of spirits in that country. Spirits would simply pour in from other parts—from Germany and from France—and, in addition, the consumption of native liquor would increase to an enormous extent. The natives of West Africa have never been a drunken people, or anything approaching a drunken people. They take a certain amount of gin, which is much less deleterious than their own produce, but to say that they are a drunken people or that the amount of spirits they consume has a deleterious effect upon them is absolutely incorrect.

With regard to another question that was raised, I brought the matter before the House a good many years ago, and there was a strong feeling that the time had come when the King of Benin, who had undoubtedly been responsible for a system of atrocities, might very well be restored to his own country. To say that he is in prison is an absolute absurdity. He is going about as free as any of us, and with more wives than anybody here can command. No doubt the Ordinance is simply for the purpose of giving power to the Governor of the country, who is a most distinguished administrator, and one of the kindest-hearted men in the whole Civil Service. We ought to be absolutely proud of the gentlemen whom we send out to administer our provinces in East and West Africa, and similar countries. They are absolutely above suspicion in every possible way. They are not paid extravagant salaries, and they do their work in a manner which ought to command the admiration of everyone. One other point to which I wish to refer has reference to the insurance of persons engaged in administration in these countries. Insurance falls very heavily indeed upon them, and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in this House promised that the matter should be looked into and the most favourable terms possible secured. Hon. Members will recollect a somewhat painful incident which occurred a few years ago, and the then Under-Secretary for the Colonies pointed out very properly that, in such countries as East and West Africa, it was most desirable that every encouragement should be given to ladies to go with their husbands. There, I think, he was absolutely right, and he certainly gave me the impression that he would be very sympathetic towards any proposal to assist the wives of these officials to come home for an occasional holiday. It is beyond doubt that white people cannot live in countries of this kind without coming home every year or two. It is certainly very hard on a young man who is married and who is doing fairly well out there, that he should not be able to save enough money to bring his wife home. I think something ought to be done in that direction. I understand that in both the German and the French Colonies alongside ours in East and West Africa they make more liberal arrangements in regard to the wives of officials accompanying their husbands.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

One cannot help remarking that it is somewhat extraordinary, both on this occasion when the Colonial Office Vote is under discussion, and I suppose it requires no prophet to say it will be the same on Wednesday next, when the Indian Budget will be before the House, that there should be so few Members belonging to an Imperial Parliament in their places. [An HON. MEMBER: "The all-night sitting."] It does not say very much for their Imperialist enthusiasm if they cannot sit up until five o'clock in the morning and then turn up in the afternoon to take part in the discussion of Imperial affairs. I make that remark very seriously, because I think that on no occasion is there a better opportunity for meeting in friendly conflict with each other to hammer out and discuss the large questions of policy which underlie the exceedingly difficult problem of governing our Empire.

I want this afternoon not to traverse any broad field, but rather to raise one small point, upon which I regret exceedingly I am in conflict with my right hon. Friend. I refer to the way in which the Northern Masai have been treated by the Government of the East Africa Protectorate. I daresay we all remember with much delight that book of Joseph Thomson, entitled "Through Masailand," when, in the pages of the book, many of us for the first time in our existence came across this delightful tribe. Many things have happened since. One of the things is that the Masais have become a peaceful people. They have amassed much wealth in the shape of cattle. They also have become the neighbours of a somewhat aggressive community of white settlers. As my hon. Friend above me hinted, he did not exactly say so, the history of land tenure in those quarters had better be passed over in silence, if at all possible.

Since 1904 we have committed this great crime. The Masai were divided into two sections, northern and southern. The northern section was surrounded by, or at least had as neighbours, white settlers on land outside the confines of the reserve on the map—or at any rate as allotted on the plan. A strange thing has happened, and I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend might have prevented it, to the honour of his office and to the benefit of the East Africa Protectorate. I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to the correspondence in the White Paper upon which I base my case. There is a very interesting admission on page three of that White Paper. It must be remembered that the two sections of the Masai were settled by Sir Donald Stewart. When that settlement was made Sir Donald reported to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was then responsible to the Government for that part of the country: The Laikipia lands are well known to the Masai, and will suit them well. These northern lands—lands which were possessed by the Northern Masai— are also a good long way from the railway, and not tempting to the present settler— Sir Donald knew human nature— Though"— This is even more significant than the point I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to— Though in the future it is quite possible that when the Masai have grazed down the grass, and got it sweet, envious eyes will again be cast on their lands, and so I cannot express too strongly to your Lordship the absolute necessity of making these Laikipia lands an absolute native reserve for the Masai. Very well. What has happened? This White Paper shows what has happened. Apparently in 1909 there was some communication between the East Africa Protectorate and the Colonial Office, but that communication is not published in this White Paper. The first despatch that is published here is from Mr. Jackson, who was acting-Governor in the absence of Sir Percy Girouard. Without going through the despatch it is necessary to refer to it in order to make a complete story. The point of it is this: Suddenly, apparently without any warning, or consultation, of any orders, and without any conferences, Mr. Jackson reports: That the Governor is eager that the Northern Masai should be moved from their lands down until they become the neighbours of the Southern Masai. He gives his reasons, saying that the great paramount chief, who lives in the southern reservation, finds, or he thinks he finds, that his authority is somewhat weakened in the north. He wants to reestablish his authority, and he wants the northern men to come down and be with him, so that they may be one tribe. Then, the Governor—I suppose it is Sir Percy Girouard himself—at any rate, his acting-governor—informs the Colonial Office that the transference has actually commenced. He states a little bit later on that, if any obstacle is put in its way all sorts of evils will be perfectly certain to happen. He then refers to conferences having been held. He does not refer to them in a very definite sort of way. It is very difficult to see how the conferences were held, but he informs us that they— were strikingly unanimous in their decision in favour of going south, and that the proposal to go south was received with enthusiam. But the whole situation is given away in the very last sentence of the dispatch. Mr. Jackson says:— I may say at once that although the question of throwing open the present Northern Masai Reserve to white settlement has been before the Government for some years, I was in no way actuated in the present negotiations or decision by any consideration of this kind. All I can say is that every letter which was received from the Colony for some time before informed us that such a design was on foot; informed us who was behind the design, informed us how it was to be accomplished, and also informed us what excuses were to be sent to the Colonial Office in order that the sanction to its accomplishment might be given.

In those days the Noble Marquess, the Earl of Crewe, reigned at the Colonial Office. He had at his right hand my right hon. Friend, who is now the Under-Secretary of State for War. As soon as Mr. Jackson's dispatch was received a telegram was, without loss of time, sent out, telling him that the thing must be stopped. Action, it was stated, must be suspended. A dispatch, it was said, was following. In this dispatch two observations were made. The first was that the Northern Masai should not be asked to move until there was a formal abrogation of the agreement of 1904, on which the settlement had been based; and also— and this is a very important point in view of the ease with which the Colonial Office has since accepted certain reports sent from the East Africa Protectorate—it was pointed out that there were contradictions in the dispatches sent home. The suspicions of the Colonial Office were very properly aroused by certain discrepancies in the statements, and certain hints and allusions, and the check to the first move a little over twelve months ago was made. Certain correspondence followed. A very significant thing—and I hope none of these points have escaped the notice of my right hon. Friend when he was considering the whole situation and when he became responsible Minister—is that the dispatch that Sir Percy Girouard then sent contained this exceedingly suspicious suggestion:— That the newly created Masai reserve was going to be put under trustees. Again, responsible Ministers said at once that there was to be no trustees for this sort of thing. The Government, and the Government alone, was the trustee of land reserves for native tribes. Sir Percy Girouard came home. We do not know what happened. We did know by correspondence what he said before he came home. We know that he delivered a speech to a pastoral association, I think it was—at any rate it was an association of settlers—before he came home, and he informed them that he was going to do his very best to get certain things in which they were interested straightened out. He hoped he would return having accomplished his object. He came home, and then he went back, and the dispatches began again. He begins by informing my right hon. Friend that the old chief (Lenana) had died. He says that from his death-bed he sent a message to the people of the Northern district that they should be good children and obey the British Government, and go South.

That is very nice. It is much more like a Sunday School story than anything else. However, we will assume that it is correct. It probably is correct. But the merit of it is very much taken away when we remember that this chief was a salaried official of the British Government, and that he held his authority under the protection and with the approval and support of the British Government. The British Government provided him with a certain amount of money to allow him to keep up a proper state of chieftainship. The next move is conferences of the chiefs, and then on the 18th of April of this year—I am trying to shorten the story—a dispatch, is published in which we are informed that a conference had been held in the previous May, that's May of 1910, and that there was a very strong opposition on the part of at least one chief, perhaps two, to the Government; and that emissaries had been dispatched to view the offered districts to the South. The report given of the district which was offered to the Northern Masai if they would go south is epitomised in these sentences:— The two men from the Northern Reserve who accompanied the party were both nominated by Legalishu, and when they returned to Laikipia in August, they reported that the proposed area was too small, that there was an insufficiency of water, and that the Sotik would steal their cattle. This report was accepted by the Chief and the Elders of the Northern Section, who-informed their District Commissioners that as their paramount Chief (Lenana) wished them to move, they were ready to go if the Governor ordered them to do so, but that they did not wish to leave Laikipia. That is from the White Paper. This, White Paper was presented to the Houses, in June of this year. One of the curious things of this report is that you do not get your story by reading right on. You have to fill in the blanks and compare the dispatches in order to see exactly what is going on. Let us follow the details further. Sir Percy Girouard comes to the point when he reports to my right hon. Friend that he has had conferences with the chiefs, that he has put the case fairly before them, that they have understood the proposition which he had made, and that they are willing to go south. My right hon. Friend, believing that he had fulfilled the conditions of the Crewe dispatch of this year, gives his sanction, and the whole thing is done. I am bound to confess that I profoundly regret, and I believe the friends of the natives out there, profoundly regret the decision of my right hon. Friend. The natives only accepted the arrangement under the very greatest pressure.

Let me fill in the blanks in these dispatches. As I said the Crewe dispatch stopped the first migration, and just before Sir Percy Girouard came home he informed the settlers he was going to do his best to get the whole matter opened up. He did not say so in definite language, but in the general language he used he indicated that in a general way to his hearers and they understood precisely what Sir Percy Girouard was at. The second point was this. Last year there was a very short rainfall in the district of the Northern Masai. It was always the custom when grazing was bad in that district for the chiefs to apply to the Governor to allow them to graze their cattle beyond the reserve border. The usual application was made, but the Governor refused it. As soon as that was done word went abroad amongst the Northern Masai that they had incurred the grave displeasure of the Governor, and that the refusal was an indication from him that they ought to go south. The third step was that a special tax was imposed upon the cattle. I am not quite sure from what my correspondent sends me whether the tax is actually now in operation. At any rate, the tax was proposed, and again the usual thing happened. Everybody who knows the natives knows how these things are done. Suddenly, as if by magic, one does not know how or why, you discover one morning that everybody is talking about something. A rumour gets abroad that this tax was going to be imposed by the Governor as another mark of his displeasure, because the Masai had not gone south. Then pressure is brought to bear upon the District Commissioners to agree to the movement, and then behind it all there is a substantial increase in land speculation, so very much so that a farm which was bought from the Government for £55 at the beginning of this year was sold very shortly afterwards for £500.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt)

Would my hon. Friend give me an indication of what farm that was?

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I was in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman upon that very subject and offered, if he so desired, to give the name of the farm and the proprietor and full particulars to satisfy his wishes. He did not, in answering the letter I wrote him, refer to that matter, so I am sorry to say I am still vague, but I will undertake, as my informant is a most reliable person, to supply my right hon. Friend without any delay with the name of the farm, the proprietor and the whole circumstances of the sale, as my correspondent has empowered me to make such a statement. I will put a question to my right hon. Friend as soon as I have the information, and will fulfil the pledge I have given. Now, the final thing is, as soon as all this was done and the migration has taken place, the following paragraph appeared in the "East African Standard," dated Saturday, 10th June, 1911. This paragraph appears with several headings. The first is "Free-Grazing Land," the second is "Removal of the Masai," and the third is "Chiefs: Willing," and the paragraph reads as follows:— We are officially informed that His Majesty's principal Secretary of State for the Colonies has. at the-request of the Masai, sanctioned their moving from the present Northern Reserve to the extended Southern Reserve. For this we have to thank His Excellency, the Governor, who placed the matter so clearly before the-Masai, so as to cause them to realise the advantage to them of settlement on one reserve. A fine area of grazing land is now open for white settlement. That looks all very innocent, I am bound to say, and if I did not know something about similar conditions, I, too, might have been taken in by the innocence of the White Paper and the innocence of a paragraph such as that I have read. But there is one incident that throws a flood of light upon the whole spirit of what is going on there just now. I refer to an incident which ought to make us all feel ashamed of ourselves. I mean the Cole murder case. What are the facts? This white settler goes out one day—I am giving his own statement made before the High Court where he was tried for his life—and he imagines that three boys whom he sees have been stealing his sheep; he shoots one and he confesses he knew he struck the boy. He reports nothing- but leaves him as we would hardly leave a wounded rabbit on the ground. Nothing is said about it. The two boys who escape go home to their village and report the circumstances there. The circumstances so reported have to be sent back again to the place where the occurrence took place. The body of the dead boy was found after a search, a trial was instituted, and the facts were admitted. There was no defence. The jury retired and after an absence of a few minutes—I think that is the expression of the report of the trial— they returned a verdict of "Not guilty."

I confess, although sometimes I have been classified as amongst those always willing to say and think evil things of my fellow countrymen abroad—a very unfair and unjust accusation—that incidents like that do make one feel rather ashamed, and that incident throws a searching flood of light upon the whole of the transactions to which I have directed the attention of the Committee. I sincerely regret that I hold views very strongly in opposition to my right hon. Friend in these matters. I wish he had been a little more stiff-necked than he was. I wish he had asked for more particulars before sanctioning the transfer. I wish, if I may say so, he had been a little more suspicious, because I feel perfectly certain, I may be wrong, if he had approached this problem rather in that tentative and suspicious state of mind, he would have got more information and he would have come to a conclusion different from that which he has reached. I think he has made a great blunder, I am sorry for it, and I take this the very first opportunity I have of bringing it before this Committee when my right hon. Friend is present.

Mr. LYTTELTON

We have heard presented to the Committee by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, two serious cases. I confess I think his inference was somewhat hasty, from the incident he last adverted to, in seeking to impute to the Governor of the Colony certain things. I think if he had as much experience as I have had of the erroneous character of the reports of trials he would have hesitated before delivering so very serious an attack upon a man who is not here and upon a jury who are not here to defend themselves. The hon. Gentleman should have waited before doing so for the arrival of the official documents dealing with the case, because it is a grave thing to say that any jury in any colony would have absolutely acquitted a man on the report which the hon. Gentleman has read out, of the accuracy of which of course I have no knowledge whatever, but which if accurate would show that the accused was guilty of a very grave crime.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD

I do not want any misunderstanding upon this point. I did not associate Sir Percy Girouard with this. I only mentioned the case as throwing a light upon the general state of feeling in the district. I should be very sorry if in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else I seemed to associate Sir Percy Girouard with the incident.

Mr. LYTTELTON

I confess I see no relation between the two incidents mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure the hon. Gentleman or any other man ought not to reflect upon an acquittal by any jury until they know all the facts that were before them. I agree with regard to the Masai that it would be incumbent upon the Secretary of State to have before him a very strong case indeed before he sanctioned the removal of the Masai from the Northern Territory, because Sir D. Stewart, the Governor in my time, gives the reason on page 3 of the White Paper for their settlement there. He says:— The Laikipia lands are well known to the Masai and will suit them well. They are a. good long way from the railway, and not tempting to the present settler, though in future it is quite possible that when the Masai have grazed down the grass and got it sweet, envious eyes will again be cast on their lands, and so I cannot express too strongly to your Lordship the absolute necessity of making these Laikipia lands an absolute native reserve for the Masai. That is a very strong statement, and gives reasons for its strength, and it is incumbent upon the Governor and the Secretary of State to satisfy us that there has been a very strong case for departing from that reserve. It is stated at the end of this White Paper that the representatives of the northern section of the Masai tribe have now expressed a unanimous desire to move to an extended southern reserve, and have submitted a formal agreement abrogating the agreement of 1904. The whole point of the case rests upon whether that unanimous agreement was come to, and come to in the manner which entirely satisfied the men who had to deal with it. I have not the least ground for saying, and do not intend to convey any doubt that this unanimity did not exist as stated to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the authority of the Governor, but I think in such a matter as this it would be well before the natives were called upon to give up a reserve about which a former Governor has used language such as Sir D. Stewart did, that the Secretary of State ought to satisfy himself not merely that they had unanimously resolved to abandon their existing rights, but that they did so under circumstances which fully satisfied him that they knew what they were about, that they were perfectly satisfied, and arrived at the agreement without any duress or pressure whatever. I think the Committee is entitled to ask for these assurances from the right hon. Gentleman. For myself, let the right hon. Gentleman not think that by pressing for these assurances I am for one moment suggesting that these steps have not been taken. But I think that after what has been said it would be satisfactory to the Committee that these assurances should be given at this stage. I go back to the point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend opened this Debate in a speech of great interest. All those concerned with Colonial affairs have naturally had their minds largely concentrated upon the doings of the Imperial Conference. No word of criticism has passed from the mouth of anyone on this side of the House during the currency of that conference, nor, indeed, until the full report of its proceedings were laid before us. Although I have some observations of a critical character to make in regard to one important matter, I have nothing but praise to give to the Colonial Secretary for the courtesy and suavity with which he presided when he did preside over those debates. My disappointment arises from the exceedingly jejune and exiguous results of the conference. Many important proposals were made. I do not complain that they were not accepted by the Government, but many of them were asphyxiated in an atmosphere of bland inaction. There were many subjects which were untenable in the form they were brought forward, but no one seemed able to pick up the fragments, and the hand that one would have expected to have picked out the good points from the débris and formulated them into feasible and practical proposals seemed always to fail, and nobody attempted to piece them together.

One or two suggestions were made by the Secretary for the Colonies himself, but with regard to the Standing Committee he damned his own proposal with faint praise. I know the difficulty and delicacy of these discussions, and how desirable it is not for a moment to try and ride such a conference under a high hand. But there is a difference between the sort of suave indifference and courtly passivity that was shown on these occasions and the courtesy which still retains the desire to persuade. People will not carry your proposals unless you show some little interest and determination. There was one exception, which I gladly recognise, and it was the exception of the discussion upon foreign policy with closed doors. That was urged from the Government in a debate initiated by two Friends of mine below the Gangway, and the Under - Secretary for the Colonies gave a reply which I do not think was quite satisfactory, and I accordingly pressed the Colonial Secretary very hard to give a categorical pledge to this House to meet our friends behind closed doors and give them full information with regard to international questions. A most full and fair promise was given by the Colonial Secretary that he would do so, and I have every reason to believe from what I have heard from the Prime Ministers of the Dominions that that promise was fully carried out. I congratulate the Government upon it, and I think it marks a most important epoch and it is certainly a most important departure for the future. I say that this question was most important. It was very important that such a conference should take place, and that has been proved by some of the speeches which were made at the Imperial Conference itself. What did the Prime Minister himself say in regard to the relation between the Imperial Government and the Dominions in matters of foreign policy? Speaking with regard to Sir Joseph Ward's proposal, which admittedly was premature, he said:— It would impair, if not altogether destroy the authority of the Government of the United Kingdom in such grave matters as the conduct of foreign policy, the conclusion of treaties, the declaration and maintenance of peace or the declaration of war, and indeed all those relations with foreign powers necessarily of the most delicate character which are now in the hands of the Imperial Government, subject to its responsibility to the Imperial Government. And I would also ask the House to note these words:— That authority cannot be shared, and the coexistence side by side with the Cabinet of the United Kingdom of this proposed body—it does not matter by what name you call it for the moment—clothed with the functions and the jurisdiction which Sir Joseph Ward proposed to invest it with, would, in our judgment, be absolutely fatal to our present system of responsible government. Therefore you have the Prime Minister taking up the position at the Imperial Conference itself that in all matters of foreign policy the Imperial Government decline altogether to share any portion of their authority with the Dominion Parliament. What did Sir Wilfrid Laurier say in the same debate. When Mr. Fisher brought up a resolution enforcing the necessity of consulting the Dominions before any important question of foreign policy was entered upon, or before any important instrument was signed. Sir Wilfrid Laurier deprecated that Resolution on the ground that if we consulted them the Dominions themselves would, by assenting to the policy, commit themselves to any war which might be its consequence. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:— No, we come here to discuss certain questions; but there are questions which seem to me to be eminently in the domain of the United Kingdom We may give advice if our advice is sought; but if your advice is sought, and if you tender it, I do not think the United Kingdom can undertake to carry out this advice unless you are prepared to back that advice with all your strength, and take part in the war and insist upon having the rules carried out according to the manner in which you think the war should be carried out. The Committee will see that the British Prime Minister proclaimed that he was not desirous of giving any share whatever to the Dominions in regard to our foreign policy, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier practically said that he was desirous of avoiding any such share if it was proffered. It is only fair to say that that attitude has been energetically repudiated in Canada, but I think this only shows how strong and how acute the necessity is that our Dominions should have before them a full view of the international situation, because when that is explained to them thoroughly, as I believe it was at the recent conference, I think they will see that the position taken up cannot be maintained. I think the Prime Minister will see that this is a position which cannot be maintained, and that we cannot seek for any assistance from the Dominions unless we give them some voice in the determination of our foreign policy, and, on the other hand, they cannot avoid the responsibility of making some sacrifice if they became partners with us in the foreign policy of the Empire.

With the exception, and it is a very important exception of the foreign policy with which I have just dealt, little was accomplished at the Conference. I must say that I thought there was a sufficient weight of opinion—and I believe there was a sufficient weight of opinion if the matter had been energetically pressed—in favour of the formation of some standing, committee or secretariat in which all the members of the conference should be represented in order to continue this business between the conferences. As many hon. Members know, a proposal to that effect was brought forward by the last Government in a despatch written by me in 1905, and a proposal of this kind was mooted in 1907 and was very strongly supported by Mr. Deakin, Dr. Jameson, and Sir Joseph Ward. It was simply a business suggestion; I pointed out, and it was pointed out by many others how lamentable it was that during the intervening time between the sessions of the conference many important matters, not highly controversial, but extremely complicated, should not be worked out by continued effort. One of my hon. Friends said that many of the subjects placed before the conference were not prepared carefully, and why were they not prepared? Simply because during the interval between the conferences-no body of persons exists to arrange these questions. The result is that you have this extraordinary unbusinesslike arrangement. You have men coming from, all parts of the world immensely busy and heavily burdened by hospitalities and ceremonies, they meet together in the morning for perhaps three weeks and the business is absolutely congested. If you only chose to accept the businesslike suggestion that a body of industrious and able men without any executive or advisory authority should meet together for the purpose I have suggested, they might be able to boil down and digest into a proper form for discussion by the conference the many subjects with which they ought to-deal, and which are not at all controversial. A mere glance at some of the resolutions passed at the recent conference reminds one somewhat of the proceedings in this House on a Friday afternoon, when mere vague resolutions without any decision or form in them are discussed. Take this resolution, for example:— That it is desirable that the attention of the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Dominions should be drawn to the desirability of taking all practical steps to secure uniformity of treatment to British shipping, to prevent unfair competition with British ships by foreign subsidised ships, to secure to British ships equal trading advantages with foreign ships. 7.0 P.M.

The same applies to the resolution dealing with uniformity in law of copyright, patents, trade marks, and companies. Passing resolutions of this kind has not taken the matter an inch more forward, and they have been before almost every conference that has taken place, and yet we are treated with these resolutions every time. They serve no useful service except that of passing away time which might be more, usefully employed in dealing with matters which do affect the Empire and which show some prospect of attaining the aspirations which are embodied in them. I could give many more of the kind, but I will not weary the House. Hon. Members have only to look at the resolutions at the beginning of this volume, and they will find nine or ten of them fail to carry the subject one inch further than it was carried in 1907. I suggest once more, without unduly blaming the Colonial Secretary, in reference to his own proposal—I do not approve of that proposal myself; it was simply a proposal for a Standing Committee from the Colonial Office with Agents-General, and I do not think it would do—that if he had pressed that proposal with some real arguments and with some modifications giving representation to the Dominions he might have had more success.

I come now to the Commission. I am very anxious to reinforce the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mackinder) for some definite information with regard to the reference. I assume, until I hear to the contrary, the reference will be in the form of the resolution. I wish to know whether any alteration of that resolution is to be suggested, and I also want to know whether, if no alteration is suggested, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion the Crown Colonies are included in that resolution. I want to know, in other words, whether there is to be any obstacle placed in the way of the Royal Commission making the investigations which are entrusted to them in the Crown Colonies as well as in the Self-governing Dominions. I think that is a matter of great importance. It is useless to do these things piecemeal; you should do them once and for ever. I do not myself attach quite so much importance to the proviso at the end, timidly inserted by His Majesty's Government, as some of my hon. Friends have done. I am sure that everybody must welcome the entry into our Debates of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir Max Aitken), for his speech was packed with knowledge and suggestion upon this matter, and it was also extremely brief—two things which make any speaker popular in this House. I quite agree with him it is rather singular that His Majesty's Government, having appointed a Commission to deal with the relations between the West Indies and Canada, with a reference which enabled them to report upon methods of preference and having received from admitted Free Traders, looking at the matter on its merits, a report which did advise His Majesty's Government as to methods of preference, and having seen the great converting effect of. real facts even upon free traders, should endeavour to exclude from their Commissioners on this occasion a full opportunity of reporting unbiassed and unfettered. I confess I do not attach very much importance to it. I remember very well what used to be said by Mr. Benjamin Constable, when he had a good case: "I do not care who presents the arguments, so long, my Lord, as I am allowed to state the facts." Depend upon it, once these Commissioners—of course, I assume they will be impartially chosen—come, as Lord Balfour of Burleigh did, to breathe an air less obsessed by Free Trade doctrines than the air of this country, they will, when they find the facts, place them in their report before this House in such a way that the inference can be readily and properly drawn from that report. I think that is clear, but I also attach great weight to the atmosphere they will breathe when they go to the great Dominions. I do not know whether it is worth while referring to the statement made in their debate, but Sir Wilfrid Laurier was opposed to the policy of preference, but, of course, anybody who has studied the Blue Books knows that for years past at all conferences resolutions in favour of preference have been passed by the Canadian Government, among others. Sir Wilfrid Laurier is reported in "The Times," in this very year, when speaking upon this very subject, to have said:— Canada's policy was set forth at the Imperial Conference of 1902, when the Dominion Ministers announced that they were prepared to give Great Britain a preference on manufactured goods in Canadian markets, if Great Britain gave Canada preference on natural products in her market. A more distinct declaration or advocacy of preference could not possibly be made. I take it the good side of this Commission will be that it will get on the spot and have the great facts of trade before its eyes. It will get away for a time, I trust, from the prejudices which are naturally current in this country, and, though it may not be able by its Reference to actually recommend the methods, it will be able to state the facts from which those methods and those remedies can be easily inferred. I trust there will not be an enormous delay either in the appointment of the Commission or in the prosecution of their work. There have been delays in some very important matters already. The All-Red Route has been referred to this Commission, and may be hung up another three or four years. I would also remind the House and the Colonial Secretary that shipping and the conditions of trade have been the subject of elaborate reports in almost all the countries over which the Commission will go, and there are a good many changes in those conditions constantly occurring. I dare say the Panama Canal will vitally alter the conditions on the Continent and in countries over seas. I trust this Commission will get to work early, and that the Colonial Secretary will give me an answer to the question originally put by my hon. Friend behind me, and which I have enforced and will allay our feelings as to whethere there is to be any change in the resolution adopted by the conference.

I do not take the dark view of Imperial matters, but I hope we may, at all events, get a good way removed from that nebulous and unreal optimism which has been rather prevalent of late. We have all become aware that we are members of an Empire consisting of nations wholly independent, at any rate, in their local affairs and practically independent also in all other affairs, but we have, I hope most of us agree, a capacity to develope a common policy. That policy, as a late distinguished man said, and I think His Majesty's Government agree, ought to be to work together, to co-operate, and not to concentrate. I have always endeavoured ever since I have had anything to do with these matters, to ensure and to promote co-operation so far as possible in small things as well as in great, but I must say a perusal of this Blue Book and a study of all the conferences which have taken place convinces me that, though in small matters we may do something, cooperation becomes more and more difficult in an Empire which consists of many protected States and of one non-protected State. It is especially so when the non protected State holds, under the guidance, and I think the deplorable guidance, of His Majesty's Government, far more rigid doctrines of Free Trade than ever did the illustrious founder of Free Trade himself. The fact emerges as we study any one of the reports of these conferences. Whenever you come, as one of my hon. Friends behind me said, to the really important point you are headed back by the Government, not by practical considerations but by narrow, theoretical dogmas, long since really exploded, even in the minds of those who are Free Traders by theory, but who see in the changed condition of things the necessity for a more elastic and enlightened doctrine. I think this creed or dogma should not arrest co'-operation between the States of an Empire and that we should have more opportunities of working together. I am sure His Majesty's Government wish we could work together. My own belief is that not until the Government get a clear mind—a less rigid, dogmatic mind, on these subjects—can a really effective co-operation be worked.

Mr. HARCOURT

I think the office which I have the honour to occupy should at least be congratulated that, in a Debate of more than three hours and a half, so few should have been the subjects of serious attack or criticism upon the administration of any of the departments of that office. Both the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) and the right hon. Gentleman who has just concluded have endeavoured, I think with some want of success, by a mixture of blessing and of damning to water the praise which they felt, otherwise compelled to bestow on the Imperial Conference. Both of them had to admit, which, indeed, was clear from all the statements by the Prime Ministers of the Dominions, that we have made a great, probably the greatest step forward in the direction of Imperial co-operation which has ever been taken in the history of this country or of the Colonies. The hon. Member for Gravesend said we had tied our hands over preference. Our hands were willing to be tied, but they were not tied by us; they were tied by the votes of the Constituencies in two elections since the last conference was held. It was, perhaps, under those circumstances, hardly surprising that no suggestion of preference was made at any time or by any person to the conference which has just closed. We have known very well that these Dominions are anxious and have asserted their anxiety at home not to impose any added or fresh sufferings on the poor taxpayers in this country. I can understand hon. Members may have felt a little disappointment at this part of the conference, and I do not grudge them their natural desire to give the old nag an airing when they get a chance on an afternoon like this. We have had the old arguments, highly concentrated, in favour of preference produced to-day, although at the conference itself preference was never alluded to.

Sir GILBERT PARKER

It is a policy at any rate supported by a very great body of the people of this country.

Mr. HARCOURT

That may be so, but I would suggest that it has become rather groggy in the legs after the last two General Elections. The resolution for the Royal Commission on Imperial Trade was moved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the amendment which I suggested to it was readily accepted by Sir Wilfrid, it being felt, I think, by all the Premiers of the Dominions who took part in that discussion, that my additional words were just as necessary from their point of view as they were from our own.

Mr. LYTTELTON

They did not say so.

Mr. HARCOURT

I will give the right hon. Gentleman the quotation which will perhaps satisfy him. Mr. Fisher said:— It (the Royal Commission on Trade) ought not to dogmatise as to the right way for each and all of them to conduct their own affairs. That was a particular allusion to the amendment I have moved. Sir Joseph Ward said:— I think the suggested amendment is one that is essential to enable us to arrive at a unanimous decision upon a question of this kind…. We are committed to our respective fiscal systems, and I think no Commission should be empowered to suggest to any of us what our fiscal policy be. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, later on, said the speech of Sir Joseph Ward showed how necessary some such addition as this was to the resolution. The resolution does not bind any Dominion not to carry any legislation it may choose, but it does bind the Commission not to make recommendations as to the fiscal policy of any part of the Empire, and the members of the conference were just as anxious that this Commission should not waste its time in suggesting Free Trade to Australia or Canada, as we were that it should not waste our time by suggesting Protection to us. I was asked by one of the speakers whether a tax on corn would be inconsistent with the instructions to the Commission. Certainly a tax on corn, whether preferential or not, would be contrary to the present fiscal system of Great Britain, and I cannot imagine that the proposed Commission would have any power to enter into such an inquiry. It was not our intention, at any rate, in constituting, the Commission, that it should undertake such work.

Sir GILBERT PARKER

What about the taxes on tea and tobacco?

Mr. HARCOURT

My observations apply equally to tea and tobacco taxes, if there be any preferential element in them. But I will not be drawn into a general discussion on these matters at a moment when I have so many other subjects to deal with. I have been asked as to the terms of reference to the Commission. I had always assumed, speaking generally, and without absolutely committing myself, that the terms of the resolution would roughly be the terms of reference. It is only, in fact, the acute suspicions given utterance to by hon. Members opposite that have put into my mind the idea that the wording of the resolution may want tightening up, and if I find that an inquiry into the fiscal policy of different parts of the Empire may still slip through on a reference drawn in the exact terms of the resolution I shall not hesitate to change the terms of that reference. The Commission, of course, applies only to those Dominions represented at the conference and to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It does not apply either to India or to the Crown Colonies, and it has never been suggested that the inquiries of this Commission should be extended to those dependencies of the Crown. The object of the Commission is admirably stated in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speech, and it would not be difficult, if any extended reference were-necessary, to get it from that document.

The right hon. Gentleman opposite said just now that in the intervals between conferences there was much work which might be done if only we had the machinery to do it. But the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the machinery has been set up and is at work, and the secretariat, of the conference has given so much, satisfaction to the members of the conference that they apparently do not wish for any improvement on it. You cannot expect the Premiers of the Dominions to send over here to the secretariat rough drafts of the resolutions which they want framed. It would be an impertinent thing to suggest that they should have their resolutions framed here. But when the right hon. Gentleman says that we want a working body to boil down the material for the conference he makes a great mistake, because the secretariat has already been at work two years in making a digest of the material for the conference, and I would commend that digest to his attention. I cannot admit the reference made by the right hon. Gentleman to the West Indian Commission. I will not enter at length on that topic now, but the right hon. Gentleman treated that report as if it were in favour of Preference, as part of the policy of Tariff Reform. I went into the recommendations of the Commission, and I should say that in the main they were exactly the reverse of the policy of the party opposite. The recommendations are for cheaper flour and dearer rum. That is certainly not the policy of the party opposite for this country.

Any attempt to measure the accomplishments of the Imperial Conference merely by the resolutions passed must give inadequate results. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the results of the conference as having been jejune and exiguous. Perhaps they may be so if only measured by the resolutions, but in fact they certainly are not so. The right hon. Gentleman said something about the Emigration Information Office, and he put words into our mouths which we never used at all in regard to it. We are supposed to have told the conference that the Emigration Information Office here had produced a large increase of emigration. We never said anything of the sort. We said that that office had, on the whole, with great success, directed the stream of emigration to our Dominions as against foreign countries, and we also stated that it had amply fulfilled the object for which it was created, which was to give absolutely true and accurate information to intending emigrants.

Next the right hon. Gentleman dealt with what he called my Standing Committee. It was a mistake to refer to it as an alternative to the Imperial Council, which was first suggested by Sir Joseph Ward. My Standing Committee was an attempt to meet the New Zealand Resolution No. 3, moved by Sir Joseph Ward, which is to be found on page 3 of the Blue Book, containing the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Conference. It did in effect meet the views of Sir Joseph Ward, and of the representatives of Australia, but it did not appeal to the other members of the conference, and, therefore, could not be proceeded with. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I tried to damn my own proposal. I did nothing of the sort. He must remember the position in which I was. I was endeavouring to lead the Premiers on to a greater advance than they were willing to make, and the ultimate position was: "No. Steady, young man, you are going too fast." I had to accept that position—a position in which no British Minister has ever been before, in offering to the Dominions a greater amount of consultative power than they themselves sought.

Mr. LYTTELTON

But at the very outset the right hon. Gentleman spoke so lightly of his proposal as to produce that attitude in the minds of the Premiers.

Mr. HARCOURT

That is a wholly imaginary opinion. It certainly is not my own opinion, nor is it, I think, the opinion of the Premiers, who, on the contrary, thought at one time that I was unduly pressing on them what was only intended as a concession. My case was put forward strongly, and had there been anything more I could have done with advantage it certainly would have been done. I willingly accepted the decision of the conference, however, that at present they would not go as far as I was prepared to go. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mackinder) seemed to be under the impression that the Dominions were not satisfied with the arrangements made for the Court of Appeal. I think he cannot have read the Paper on that subject by the Lord Chancellor, which only came out in a volume published the day before yesterday, and which states that the proposed strengthening of the Court of Appeal has given ample satisfaction to every Dominion represented at the conference. The consultations in the Committee of Defence have been of great value. It is quite true I made a definite promise in this House early in the year that such a course would be taken. I said at the time, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt our intentions that we had always intended to take these Dominions into our confidence in that way. In the course of his remarks the hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Parker) suddenly branched off into the liquor trade in Nigeria. I do not really know why Nigeria was introduced into that part of his speech, as it had no relevance to the conference.

Sir G. PARKER

The question of the treatment of the native races very properly comes within the purview of the Imperial Conference.

Mr. HARCOURT

I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's statements as to Nigeria and the spirit trade. He told the House that fines are paid in the courts in gin. That is a statement which has been made for a long time, and has been constantly contradicted, and it is very difficult to dispose of it. The payment of fines in gin has been, for something like ten years, illegal in Nigeria. They have never been paid in Government courts in gin. It was only a few years ago that some isolated cases in native courts were discovered where the fines were paid in gin. The moment it was brought to the attention of the governor the practice was put a stop to, and there is nothing of the kind in operation, and there has not been for some years.

Sir G. PARKER

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to go back upon the report of the Commission appointed by his Government. That report says the attention of the Commission was called to the fact that five native courts in the Brass district had imposed pecuniary fines which had been paid in gin. This was contrary to the instructions of the Government in 1901, which appeared to have been overlooked in consequence of the rapid change of officers. Moreover in backward districts, where gin was the only available means of exchange, considerable hardship would be inflicted on the defendants if the native clerk of the court had refused to accept payment of fines in the only available means of exchange.

Mr. HARCOURT

That is exactly what I said. It was only in the native courts that it happened, and it was put a stop to immediately.

Sir G. PARKER

Are not the native courts under the jurisdiction of the crown?

Mr. HARCOURT

That is quite a different thing from the Government courts. Of course, they are under the jurisdiction but they are not under the management of the Government in the same way that the Government courts are. I suppose the hon. Gentleman accepts my assurance that the payment of fines in gin has absolutely stopped.

Sir G. PARKER

This is only two years ago.

Mr. HARCOURT

It has absolutely stopped since that time. The discovery that it was going on in some of these native courts was new to the Governor, and was certainly new to us here. In order that we shall give them a better currency than gin every step has been taken to encourage the use of coin there. You cannot change the habits of a people merely by proclamation, but during the last ten years eight millions sterling of silver have been absorbed by Southern Nigeria for the purpose of coinage, and last year alone £600,000 of silver went into the country, greatly to the advantage of the Exchequer here. I think temperance advocates in the House ought to be not ungrateful to the Government of Southern Nigeria for the fact that we have now put the duties on spirits up to 200 per cent. of their value. It is quite true that the result may be to yield a larger revenue, and then we are attacked because it is wicked to obtain a revenue from spirit duty. You cannot have it both ways. If the duty is removed it will come in free, and that will lead to a much greater consumption. But we have done more than that; we have given great encouragement to the importation of a much weaker kind of spirit by putting 2½d. a gallon more duty on spirit above 50 degrees and reducing the duty when it is weaker than 50 degrees. There is an impression that the amount of alcohol that goes into Southern Nigeria is greatly increasing. It would not be surprising if it did, because, of course, the population is increasing, and trade of all kinds is spreading all over the country. But when you translate the gallons of spirit now brought into the country into gallons of proof spirit, and compare them for a series of years the result is really satisfactory for those who are interested in temperance in this country. The average imports of proof spirit for the years 1902–4, were 8,900,000 gallons; for 1905–7, 8,700,000 gallons; and for 1908–10, 8,600,000 gallons; so that although the fluid gallons introduced into the country, because the spirit is weaker, are much larger in quantity, the actual amount of alcohol is considerably smaller than it was ten years ago. I shall certainly continue to take every available step which I can take to increase the sobriety of a people which is already not an uncover one.

Sir G. PARKER

Would the right hon. Gentleman say on what policy the prohibition of the sale of spirits is founded in other Crown Colonies?

Mr. HARCOURT

Each Colony, of course, has to be dealt with according to the type of its natives and the circumstances of the Colony. In Southern Nigeria we found the liquor trade there when we went there. In many of the other Colonies—in most, I believe, we did not find the liquor trade, and we took early steps to keep it out. The hon. Member (Sir W. Byles) spoke of the native house rule policy. It only applies to the eastern province of Nigeria, and it was a legacy from the Protectorate which we took over there. It was introduced originally to abolish the difference between domestic slaves and members of the house and to give the former the full rights of the latter, but at the same time still to confirm certain tribal and chieftain authority which is still necessary for the execution of local government there. The system, I believe, has worked on the whole fairly well, but it is not one which ought to be maintained. It is a system which is essentially temporary and transitional. As my hon. Friend knows, the officer administering the Government in Southern Nigeria has already been asked for a report on the subject. There has been a great deal of difference of opinion over the matter, and the final report has not yet been received. I think I ought to wait for the report, obviously I must, before I can take any action on the matter. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the king who was exiled from Benin. A technical doubt has arisen as to the long past action of the Governor of the Gold Coast in relation to the king and this ordinance is to validate it There is no idea of setting up any form of autocracy there.

Sir W. BYLES

When you say validate you mean indemnify?

Mr. HARCOURT

I mean to validate past action. I believe myself that the ordinance was unnecessary, but it is only intended to clear up a technical doubt, because I believe the ex-king has suddenly taken, under legal advice, some technical point as to past action. I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows the circumstances well. The king was deported to Calabar by order of the Consul-General in 1907. That was after the expedition to Benin to avenge the cruel and horrible massacre of Consul-General Phillips and his party.

Sir W. BYLES

Sir Henry Johnson describes it as very rash.

Mr. HARCOURT

The expedition may have been rash, but I am informed it was unarmed, and certainly I do not think we need waste any sympathy upon this individual, who, I am informed, was the cruellest chieftain that ever existed in our territories; nor need we fear that he is under specially unpleasant circumstances just now. He has never been a prisoner. He is more in the nature of a pensioner. He receives £180 a year and lives in his own house. But he cannot be allowed to go back to Benin, which is now becoming a sort of model town. It has its own national council and enjoys the luxury of paying a water rate.

The hon. Gentleman (Sir Clement Hill) spoke at some length on the East Africa Protectorate in relation to land. He pointed out that there have been several policies there in the past. There was first of all the policy of giving anyone who wanted it a freehold and letting them have it pretty cheap. There was a second policy of giving leases for ninety-nine years, and there was a suggestion of leases for twenty-one and forty-two years, and lastly there is the policy, on which he quite rightly says I have insisted, of a lease of ninety-nine years revisable at intervals of thirty-three, and sixty-six years on a basis of 5 per cent. of the unimproved value, of course with a maximum of 9d. per acre in the thirty-third and 2s. 3d. in the sixty-sixth year. There will also be brought into operation a graduated land tax to check excessive accumulation, and provision is being made against dummying, which has been all too common. The hon. Baronet seems to think that these terms are so unsatisfactory that they may check the development of the country. Lord Kitchener thinks them so good that he has recently become a leaseholder in East Africa. The policy in East Africa permits of ample and sufficiently rapid expansion and development, but it does at the same time secure to the Government some fair but small return in the future for the improvements they have made and are making.

I was asked a question as to the Indian policy in the East African Protectorate. Indians are not encouraged in the Uplands, though they are not legally prohibited from going there, but undoubtedly Indians can live well in the lower parts, whereas the Uplands are essentially the white man's country of the East African Protectorate. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's remarks on transport in Nyasaland, the Shire River, as he knows, is only available for the passage of shallow boats for six months in the year, and, owing to this, the trade on the whole of the route is suffering very severely. I have been doing what I can; I have been hurrying out a motor-lorry which the Government thinks would be of the greatest possible assistance. I will not say anything at this moment about railway extension, because there are matters in connection with it which if mentioned would only defeat the object which the hon. Gentleman and I and the whole House have in view. The progress of Nyasaland has been most encouraging during the last three years. In 1908–9 the tobacco grown was 500,000 pounds. In 1909–10 it was 1,000,000 pounds, and in the following year it was 2,000,000 pounds. It seems to go on in geometrical progression. Cotton was last year 1,700,000 pounds, which was exactly double what was produced in the previous year. I do not think anyone would doubt the desire of the Colonial Secretary to assist such booming prosperity which must bring so much advantage to the Protectorate itself and its neighbours.

The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) made, with all his adroitness, what seemed a very formidable case against me and the Colonial Office on the question of the Masai in the East African Protectorate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said quite fairly that the case, made in that way, should be met with a full explanation of the circumstances under which the movement had been authorised. I do not want to weary the House, because they have been given the story in the form of correspondence, but I wish to state the facts in my own way. The Masai have been spoken of as if they were the only native inhabitants of the country. Of course, there are millions of others, such as the Wakikuyu and Wakamba. The Masai are only quite a small tribe, numbering about 30,000. The proposal for the move from the northern territory was made to them through Sir James Sadler. In 1909 he found the paramount chief in favour of the move, because any division of the tribe made the control of the paramount chief more difficult. The essential difficulty involved is that about every four years the divisions of the tribe have to join together for the ceremony of the E-unoto, or circumcision. Last time Lenana brought the tribes down to the Southern Reserves. But there is difficulty in keeping open the road between the Northern and the Southern Reserve, although it was promised that such a road should be kept open. It is well known regarding this question of the Masai that they go about the country with their flocks and herds. They are not dealers in cattle, they are collectors of cattle. It was found impossible to keep this half-mile-broad road open between the Northern and Southern Reserves owing to the necessary quarantine against stock fever and other things. Consequently movement was impossible over the supposed road. It was essential to have one paramount chief, and, as had been mentioned, Mr. Jackson, who was Acting-Governor, in a despatch in March, 1910, gave a description of a meeting he himself had with the Masai. At that meeting there were also present, Mr. Collier, who had been in charge of the Laikipia Reserve, Lord Delamere, who gave up some of his northern land to help to make that reserve, and Mr. McClure, District Commissioner of the Southern Reserve. According to Mr. Jackson's account, which no one will doubt, the Masai came to a unanimous and even enthusiastic decision to move to the Southern Reserve. I may allude, in passing, to the size of the new Southern Reserve.

It is proposed to add to the old Southern Reserve area 8,920 square miles, and the reserve they are coming from is only 4,770 square miles in extent. The additional land provided in the Southern Reserve is double the area which they had in the north. When this report came from Mr. Jackson, we very properly, in April, 1910, drew the attention of the Governor to the old arrangement of 1904. Lord Crewe said he would only give his consent on clear proof of the wish of the Masai to move. Lord Crewe also laid down that the new document must have equal formality with the old; that there must be a calling together of the chiefs of the tribe; that the agreement must bear the signatures or marks of the chiefs; that the agreement must be interpreted and explained to them, and that it must be made clear to the Masai that they were under no pressure by the Government. Lord Crewe said that if this was done it would be a conclusive answer to those who said it is done in the interests of others than the Masai. All these things have been absolutely fulfilled. The proposal which was mentioned—to place the Masai Reserve in the hands of trustees—was vetoed by the Colonial Office as the Government must remain responsible trustees for this. I came to the Colonial Office in November of last year. I delayed, intentionally, taking action in this matter. I was ill at the time, but I saw the Governor, and I had a long discussion with him as to the exact situation of the Masai, the opinions of the individual chiefs, and the performance of these ceremonies. I talked with him about the tribal control, the cattle diseases, and the quarantine, and I came to the conclusion that the concentration of the Masai in the Southern Reserve was greatly to be desired; that it would be to the advantage of the tribes in the East Africa Protectorate; that it would be to the advantage of the Protectorate; and that it would be to the advantage of good government and the progress of civilisation. I told him quite plainly I would not consider the matter without Lord Crewe's provisions being absolutely Fulfilled to the letter. He left knowing what my views were, and in order to prevent the movement of the Masai when he was at sea I sent the telegram, which appears in the White Paper, to say that no movement was to take place as the Governor was on his way.

A month later the Paramount Chief died. He is reported to have made a dying speech, ordering the Masai to the Southern Reserve. I would not be surprised if he made that speech, as he had attached much importance in life to the subject of the move. But I am not moving the Masai into the South Africa Protectorate on the strength of a dying speech. The death led to a meeting of the representatives of the whole tribe, both of the north and south, on. 2nd April of this year. They unanimously appointed Segi as successor to Lenana. He was only thirteen and they therefore, necessarily, appointed two regents. They appointed a cousin of Lenana's for the south and, for the north, Legalishu. These were probably the two strongest and most powerful men in the whole of the tribe. At that meeting a desire was expressed on behalf of the Northern Masai to move to the Southern Reserve. Legalishu expressed this wish to the people who were present at the meeting. They were told by Mr. Lane (the Provincial Commissioner) and Mr. Hollis that if these were their opinions they must go to Nairobi and see Sir Percy Girouard. They came to Nairobi and he said to them that if they moved it must be an absolutely free and voluntary move. He told them they were completely free to accept or reject the amendment, and that if they rejected the proposal made to them we adhered absolutely to our past pledges as to the territory they were in. Legalishu said it was their own wish they should be allowed to move south. Sir Percy Girouard met the Masai chiefs again. He had with him the members of the Executive Council of the East Africa Protectorate and his Provincial Commissioners. He asked the Masai if they wished to move to the south. They said "Yes." They said they wished the water supply to be improved, and so anxious were they to move that they gave some of their bullocks as a contribution for the improvement of the water supply. They asked the few Europeans who were on the Southern Reserve to be removed, and that they should have some protection from Sotik raids. Sir Percy Girouard said he would do what he could for them in these matters. The treaties were then translated and explained to the Masai chiefs. Eighteen of them eventually signed it, and it was attested by ten European witnesses who were present. So careful was the Governor to get the assent of all the Masai that the treaty was actually sent to two old chiefs, including Masikondi, who had not been able to come to Nairobi for the discussion. The treaty with the covering despatch reached me on 16th May, and I gave it a fortnight's very careful consideration. I knew that a move could only be made in the early summer, and therefore I gave my assent to moving the Masai to the Southern Reserve on the 29th May.

It was absolutely impossible that I could take any other course but move the Masai to the south. That action has the approval of many of the past and of the present Governor. It has the approval of the Provisional Commissioner, the Secretary for Native Affairs, and, in addition to that, all Lord Crewe's conditions have been, as I have shown, absolutely fulfilled. The removal was desired by the Masai themselves. I am also able to tell the Committee that the treaty was approved by the missionaries who had been working in the country, and who had been good friends of the. natives. It had the approval of the late Dr. Scott, who had charge of the Church of Scotland Mission in East Africa, and of the Rev. C. Hulbert, of the Africa Inland Mission. It has the approval of Bishop Allgeyer, in charge of the Catholic Mission of the Holy Ghost at Nairobi, and of Bishop Peel, of the English Church at Mombasa. I do not think a more complete case of justification of the very anxious work which was undertaken could possibly be made. At all events, I think the Committee will see that the decision has not been come to without the closest consideration and anxiety for the natives in that part. I would like to allude to the unhappy case of the acquittal referred to by the hon. Member. There is a full report coming home of this case, and, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, we should defer our consideration of the case until we get the full report. I telegraphed at once when the trouble began, to inquire if an appeal could be made under the procedure of the criminal code. The hon. Gentleman thought I had made a legal blunder. I quite admit that we English view an appeal against an acquittal as a horrible thing, but it is possible and necessary in certain cases under the Indian code. The finding of the jury was on a matter of fact, and therefore no appeal was possible. If I find that the system of trial by jury in the East Africa Protectorate leads to constant miscarriages of justice, I should consider what further steps I should take for the maintenance of the administration of justice.

Mr. G. STEWART

It may seem ungracious after the speech of the Secretary for the Colonies to offer some of that criticism which he seemed to look for. I propose to devote my remarks to what I consider an injustice which is being inflicted on Hong Kong in connection with the suppression of the revenue from opium. I do not propose to go into the question of the merits or demerits of the opium trade beyond saying it has been a recognised source of revenue ever since the place was taken. The conditions which have prevailed in connection with that trade are things for which the Government are essentially responsible, and they must take good steps to control the traffic. If the Government derive a good revenue from opium, it means that the article becomes dearer and the consumption is thereby reduced. In regard to this particular question the House is in this position. This House makes the laws, and the Colony pays the Bill. I am sure the House does not wish to lay itself open to the charge of interfering injuriously with an unrepresented place. The revenue from opium amounted a few years ago to 2,000,000 dollars, now it is about 1,000,000 dollars, and as the opium trade is doomed it will shortly amount to nothing at all. If you take the period of twenty years and reckon the revenue as amounting to 1,000,000 dollars, or £100,000, you produce a capital value of £2,000,000, and this House admits that it has some responsibility in regard to the suppression of this great revenue. You offered £9,000 in 1910, £12,000 in 1911, and £12,000 in 1912. Therefore you are giving them a total sum of £33,000 for the loss of a revenue which has been in existence for seventy years, and which has oscillated between £100,000 and £200,000. From the method of taxation levied on the colony, the grant you nominally give is absolutely nullified by the way you collect your military contribution. It is 20 per cent. of the gross revenue of the colony. It is quite right and proper that people who enjoy our protection should pay for it, but you collect 20 per cent. on the credit side of the Government account. There is one item which I happened to come across in the Colonial Blue Book which I think must convince any man that a change is called for in the present system. That is the post office, for which the colony receives 400,000 dollars, but you will find that the colony has to expend 460.000 dollars to run the post office, and therefore there is a loss of 60,000 dollars. I am sure the House will recognise that that is a most unfair and unbusinesslike transaction to charge 80,000 dollars, or £8,000, a year on a department which is worked at a great loss already. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary for War present, for I know that he has taken an interest in this matter. He closed the opium divans. I admit that they were somewhat unsightly places, but at any rate they were under the close supervision of the police. When the right hon. Gentleman locked up the divans, he no doubt felt that he had done a good stroke of business, but it did not stop opium smoking. He took up the position rather of the sanitary engineer who proceeded to close up the old cesspools before making new drains. What happened was that the deleterious matter which used to be collected in these places leaked all over the town and contaminated the whole locality. The opium smokers provided themselves with clubs, or they debauched themselves at home. At any rate, the police, who were very much overworked already, had to devote themselves to the suppression of opium smoking, and the criminal population, of which there are many, became very active, and assaults on the person and burglaries increased to a most, surprising and deplorable extent.

Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR

Does the hon. Member say that assaults on the person increased in consequence of the closing up of the divans?

Mr. G. STEWART

What I mean is that the police who were chasing opium smokers were unable to give to the rest of the population the protection they used to have. There is a difference between Hong Kong and India in this matter of opium. India has been compensated by the enormous accession in the price of the raw article. Hong Kong does not deal in the article at all. It merely exercises a benevolent supervision over the consumption of the noxious drug. The legislation of this House has forced upon Hong Kong the creation of a preventive service, in addition to new taxation. It has happened at a most inopportune time in the financial position of the colony. Those who take an interest in Chinese railways know, that in order to secure that, the terminus of what will be the greatest trunk line in all China, the line between Hong Kong and Pekin, should be in British hands the colony pledged its credit for £1,000,000 to buy out the Belgians and provide that terminus. The colony has created its own railway as far as the British border, but owing to the want of through traffic at present the colony has to face a large deficit of revenue. It is also a most inopportune moment for the colony, because its prosperity is distinctly on the down grade owing to the prohibitive tariffs, which the French, American, and Japanese Governments have lately put on their trade with Hong Kong. In fact, so much does it suffer from the shipping subsidies, and the navigation laws of some of its neighbours, that it is a sad fact that a shipping company, which from its inception was a British enterprise, has recently had to transfer all its steamers to the American flag. It is a fair thing to compare the attitude which the Foreign Office adopts in its treatment of China with the attitude which the Colonial Office adopts in respect of Hong Kong. The Foreign Office is most considerate to the Chinese in every possible way. Whereas when the Chinese come under the British flag and reside in our colony their old-time enjoyments are interfered with, and we make them pay for our moral experiments. And it being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.