§ 35. Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked whether Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, are required to make any and, if so, what deposit of caution or guarantee money as security for the due carrying out of their obligations under the extensive rights granted to them in respect of areas in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, the Gold Coast Colony, or Southern Nigeria?
§ Mr. GWYNNEIs there any limit of time in which these obligations will be carried on?
Mr. HARCOURTI think there is, but I cannot carry the whole of the wording in my head. I can give the hon. Gentleman the information.
§ 36. Mr. GWYNNEasked the right hon. Gentleman if, having regard to the reiterated representations by Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, when applying for an extensive monopoly in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, that the enterprise would entail a great outlay and expenditure of capital, he will say what is the total sum which Messrs. Lever are under obligation to spend?
Mr. HARCOURTAs will be seen from page 45 of Cd. 6561, the sum proposed to be expended is £15,000 within one year from the date of the Agreement.
§ 37. Mr. GWYNNEasked whether Mr. Alldridge, who was sent out in 1907 by Messrs. Lever Brothers to Sierra Leone to interview the Governor and negotiate with the chiefs, with a view to obtaining concessions for that firm, was at any time employed by the Government or in any Colonial Department; and, if so, in what capacity was he employed and during what period?
Mr. HARCOURTMr. Alldridge was employed by the Government of Sierra Leone as travelling commissioner or as district commissioner from 1889 until his retirement on pension in August, 1905.
§ Mr. GWYNNEDoes the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that Civil servants should return to the same Colonies on behalf of private firms?
Mr. HARCOURTThis is the case of a Civil servant who had received his pension, and there were no conditions attached to the pension to prevent him from seeking other employment for commercial purposes.
§ Mr. GWYNNEIs not the right hon. Gentleman seeking to prevent Governors and other Civil servants on leaving the Civil Service from undertaking directorships at the present time?
Mr. HARCOURTYes, I am doing that. That is quite new action. Mr. Alldridge retired during the tenure of office of the late Conservative Government, and no conditions of that sort were made on his retirement.
§ Mr. GWYNNEHe was sent out under the auspices of the present Government.
§ 38. Mr. GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the nature of the tramway privileges in the Gold Coast Colony granted, or proposed to be granted, to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, and the associated firm of W. B. MacIver and Company, Limited, for a term of twenty-one years; the extent of the area to which the privileges apply; the consideration paid, or to be paid, by them; and the capital expenditure which they are required to make in the construction of tramways, railways, or other forms of traction?
Mr. HARCOURTNo special privileges in regard to tramways are now intended to be given to those firms.
§ Mr. GWYNNEWhy has the right hon. Gentleman withdrawn them?
Mr. HARCOURTRepresentations were made to me by Chambers of Commerce here at the time the discussion was going on about the concessions; they thought these grants undesirable, and, on further consideration, I agreed.
§ Mr. GWYNNEWill the right hon. Gentleman furnish us with copies of the correspondence on the subject which is not included in the Blue Book?
Mr. HARCOURTThere is no correspondence which is in the least material that does not appear in the Blue Book.
Captain CRAIGWhat was the amount that Messrs. Lever Brothers contributed to the Radical party funds?
§ 40. Mr. TOUCHEasked whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken to protect and preserve, or obtain a transfer or waiver of the rights of certain Opobo and Bonny traders who hold trading leases on the Imo and Azumini Creek (Aba River) within the area selected by Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited; and, in view of their letter to the Colonial Secretary at Lagos, dated 10th September, on the importance of obtaining a monopoly in the rights granted to them, whether they propose to proceed with the selection if anyone else, either native or European, holds similar rights to themselves?
Mr. HARCOURTI have no further information on this point than is contained in the published correspondence.
§ 41. Mr. TOUCHEasked whether Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, request for the grant of monopoly rights for the erection of machinery for treating palm kernels as well as for treating the pericarp of palm fruit have been definitely and finally refused in respect of any West African Colonies?
§ 42. Mr. TOUCHEasked if the withholding of the sole right of erecting machinery for the crushing of nuts from the exclusive right of constructing and working mills for expressing or extracting oil from the pericarp of palm fruit within an area of approximately 311 square miles in the Sierra Leone Protectorate granted to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, is in tended for the protection of the natives; and in what way will this protection operate, seeing that the rights granted give Messrs. Lever Brothers virtual commercial 1491 control over all nuts in a given area so that they can make their own price and prevent the natives from getting full market value?
Mr. HARCOURTThe withholding of the monopoly of erecting machinery for extracting oil from the kernels of palm fruits was not intended for the protection of the natives as it is extremely unlikely that any native would wish to erect such machinery. The native is protected by the fact that he can continue to sell his nuts or the oil which he may prepare from them to anyone he pleases, if it pays him better to do so rather than to take them to Messrs. Lever's mill. The privilege to be granted to Messrs. Lever is confined strictly to machinery for which novelty is claimed. There is no warrant in the licence for the assertion that "virtual commercial control over all nuts in a given area" has been granted to them.
§ Mr. TOUCHEIs it the view of the Colonial Office that a legal monopoly over a part of the nut is not equivalent to a monopoly over the whole nut?
Mr. HARCOURTThere is no legal monopoly over any part of the nut. There is a legal monopoly within a limited area to erect a special form of newly invented machinery.
§ Mr. TOUCHEIs not that a monopoly for treating part of the nut?
§ 43. Mr. TOUCHEasked in what manner the consent of the natives was obtained to the grant of exclusive rights to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, in the Sierra Leone protectorate; were the representations of the chiefs or tribal authorities accepted as conclusive; and how was the consent of the chiefs obtained, and did any consideration pass?
Mr. HARCOURTThe proposals of Messrs. Lever were fully explained to a representative body of chiefs assembled at Yonnibanna on the 11th March, 1912, and they expressed themselves as fully in sympathy with the scheme. So far as I am aware no consideration passed. As the Governor and I were already satisfied that the scheme was not antagonistic to the interest of the natives, there was no ground for not considering the chiefs' acceptance of it as conclusive.
§ Mr. GWYNNEBy whom was this explained to the chiefs?
Mr. HARCOURTBy one of the officials in the service of the Government there; I do not know whether it was the Governor or the Colonial Secretary.
§ Sir J. D. REESWas the official interpreter a person sufficiently qualified to interpret on an occasion of this character?
Mr. HARCOURTI am not acquainted with the official interpreter, but I have no doubt he was properly qualified.
§ Mr. TOUCHEDoes the right hon. Gentleman remember that it was stipulated that the consent of the natives should be obtained? Can he say whether any inquiry was made to ascertain whether the chiefs consulted the natives by referendum or otherwise?
§ 44. Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the Government have entered into any agreement, promise, or understanding with Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, not to grant licences similar to theirs and relating to the same area either in respect to the erection of mills or the construction of railways in the Gold Coast Colony or Southern Nigeria for any fixed period; and, if so, what is the period?
Mr. HARCOURTAs the hon. Member will see from a perusal of Cd. 6561, any monpoly granted in Sierra Leone or the Gold Coast can only extend to the erection of mills for the extraction of oil from the pericarp of the palm fruit and the term of such monopoly will be twenty-one years. Rights with respect to railways in those Colonies will only be granted under the Proprietary Railway Ordinances of those Colonies, which do not involve a monopoly.
§ 52. Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what figures and statements relating to the experience of Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, in the Gold Coast, were submitted by them to the Colonial Office in support of their representation that an area of five miles radius in Southern Nigeria would be inadequate, and that a much larger area from which to draw supplies was essential; did the Colonial Office call for any further figures or statements in support of the representation; were they supplied; and, if so, will he communicate them to 1493 the House with any other facts which induced him to alter his decision to restrict the grant to an area of five miles radius?
Mr. HARCOURTIt was represented to the Colonial Office that, as Lever Brothers would have no special rights of purchase or collection within the area, and as the natives would not carry the palm fruit to a centre more than about five miles distant, it would be possible for a rival firm, or firms, established at points only five miles from the mills, to render nugatory the special advantages acquired by Lever Brothers within a circle of only five miles radius. With a radius of ten miles, such competition is still effective for five miles within Lever Brothers' area, but the advantage given is considered to be sufficient.