§ 22. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether some of the large land-occupying companies in Rhodesia holding from the British South Africa Company have just given the natives notice of an intention on their part to charge grazing fees at so much a head; and what steps, if any, does the Colonial Office intend to take to prevent this exaction, which is calculated to cause serious discontent and is in violation of the provisions of the charter of the British South Africa Company?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt)The answers to this and the two subsequent questions 572 are so long that I should be glad if the hon. Member will allow me to circulate them with the Votes.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLThen I shall lose my chance of asking supplementary questions.
§ Earl WINTERTONHas the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the serious allegations contained in these questions? Is he aware that part of them form the subject matter of legal proceedings, and will he be careful in his replies not to say anything that may prejudice the case?
§ Mr. HARCOURTCertainly. I always exercise great care in my replies.
§ Earl WINTERTONIs it not the fact that the allegations contained in Question 23 are entirely repudiated by Rhodesians of all parties?
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLI will ask the right hon. Gentleman under the circumstances to give the House the benefit of his replies.
§ Mr. HARCOURTI am informed that certain companies have taken the action described in the question. I have no power to interfere with such action on private land, as it is not contrary to any of the provisions of the British South Africa Company's Charter. The administration of Southern Rhodesia will take steps to assist in the removal to the reserves of those natives who prefer to leave rather than to pay the fees demanded. The Administrator reports that there are no signs whatever of unrest among the natives who may be affected, and that in a great many cases they are voluntarily taking steps to remove to reserves which they have already inspected and found suitable, and in which there is ample room for them.
§ 23. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether it is stipulated by Section 14 of the charter of the British South Africa Company that careful regard should be had to Native laws and customs, especially with respect to the holding, possession, transfer, and disposition of lands, while Section 15 of the charter gave the Secretary of State for the Colonies power to dissent from the proceedings of the company towards the natives and laid it down that the company must act in accordance with his directions; how far have these provisions 573 of the charter been respected, if at all, in the recent alienation by the South Africa Company to the Liebig's Extract of Meat Company of 1,200,000 acres in Southern Rhodesia in the occupation of natives; whether his attention has been directed to the allegation that the chartered company have confiscated the lands and minerals of the natives; and what steps, if any, has the Colonial Office taken to prevent the establishment of a system of public robbery and initial slavery by the South Africa Company in Rhodesia1?
§ Mr. HARCOURTI am well aware of the provisions of the charter and have no fear that the British South Africa Company intend to violate it by establishing a system of slavery. The interests of the natives are protected by the Southern Rhodesia Order-in-Council and by local legislation. I have not before me any evidence that these safeguards have been infringed, but as I am not fully informed of all the circumstances affecting the natives on the Liebig Company's lands I have, as already stated on 26th June, asked the High Commissioner for South Africa for a report.
§ 24. Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary for the Colonies what was the sum which the Liebig's Extract of Meat Company undertook to expend in the development and stocking with cattle of the 1,200,000 acres of ranching land acquired by that company in Southern Rhodesia from the British South Africa Company at the price of 1s. an acre, which was credited, not to the administration, but to the shareholders of the British South Africa Company; was the Colonial Office aware of this transaction between the British South Africa Company and Liebig's Extract of Meat Company before its completion, and has the Colonial Office given any sanction, either express or implied, to this transaction; has the Chartered Company any right to alienate these lands without the consent of the Crown, regard being had to the fact that the original concession obtained from Lobengula in 1888 did not grant more than mining rights, as was explained to Lord Salisbury in a letter of Lord Knuts-ford, as Colonial Secretary, dated 4th December, 1891; and whether he can offer any explanation of the alienation by the British South Africa Company of 1,200,000 acres at the price of only 1s an acre, having regard to the fact that the Crown has agreed to pay 10s. per acre to buy back land of inferior quality in Nyasa- 574 land which had been rashly alienated some years ago?
§ Mr. HARCOURTI am informed by the British South Africa Company that (1) the Liebig Company is under an agreement to stock the land with cattle and live stock, the cost of which, together with the necessary development, namely: Buildings, making roads, and sinking wells, is equivalent to an expenditure of at least £150,000. (2) The low price of 1s. per acre was due to several considerations,, namely, the large area involved, its comparatively remote situation, and the desire of the British South Africa Company to establish a new industry in Southern Rhodesia under the auspices of a company possessing a world-wide experience of ranching operations. In addition to the 1s. an acre purchase price, the Liebig Company will pay the ordinary annual quit rent of £l for every 1,000 acres. I was not informed beforehand of the intended sale, nor have I expressed either approval or disapproval. As already stated, I have no reason to question the validity of the transaction. In this connection I may refer again to my reply of 8th April, and observe that whatever may be the correct view of the company's right to vacant land in Southern Rhodesia, whether it has full rights of ownership or whether it must be held merely to act in a fiduciary or representative capacity in-granting land, the question of a right to land must be one for legal, not for executive, decision. With regard to the reference to Nyasaland, I should like to add that the lands were not rashly alienated as the hon. Member suggests, but formed the subsidy granted for the construction of a railway in Nyasaland by a private company. The price which is to be paid for the redemption of these lands is part of the arrangements for the extension of the railway to the sea through Portuguese territory, and was not fixed solely with regard to the market value of the land.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLOught not the right hon. Gentleman, as the representative of the Colonial Office, to have been informed of a great transaction of this kind, and to have given his sanction to a great transaction, involving the transfer of 1,250,000 acres of land from this company to another company?
§ Mr. HARCOURTI should not like to express any general opinion as to what I ought to be informed about at any time by any person.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider that, in accordance with the terms of the charter, the Colonial Office is bound to protect the rights of the natives, and is he not aware that within the last few weeks Dr. Jameson, of the Raid, has been appointed chairman of this company?
§ Mr. HARCOURTI do not think that arises out of the question. I have the same means of information in the Press which is shared by the hon. Member. If there is any further information I can afford the hon. Member I shall be happy to do so on notice.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEHas the right hon. Gentleman any means of preventing this agreement from becoming effective until he has received the report for which he has asked?
§ Mr. HARCOURTI think that is a question of which I might have notice.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODAm I right in gathering that the right hon. Gentleman draws a distinction between his duties in supervising the interests of the natives in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, and that he has powers in Northern Rhodesia to protect the natives in regard to land which he has not in Southern Rhodesia?
§ Mr. HARCOURTAs to the distinction which I draw the hon. Gentleman had better read to-morrow the answers I have given to the questions.
Sir GILBERT PARKERArising out of Question 22, has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show that while the natives wandered over these lands, which are now occupied by the Chartered Company, there was no industrial, agricultural, pastoral development, and that the action of the company has rather tended to develop those three industries for the benefit of the country at large?
§ Mr. HARCOURTThe hon. Member make a number of assertions which I think he might allow me to consider on paper.