§
Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £35,750, 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, 1917, 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.— £23,000 has been voted on account.]
§ 7.0 P.M.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT(resuming): When the message came from another place I was dealing with the last of the 578 aspects of the riots in Ceylon which I thought made some investigation by the Colonial Office necessary, and that was with regard to the kind of tribunal which was set up for the passing of the necessary punitive measures when the riots had all passed away and been completely suppressed. I pointed out that it was agreed, on the showing of the Governor, that there was no treasonable or seditious motive whatever in the minds of those who were engaged in these riots. They were bad riots, as bad as they could possibly be, but the motives of those who engaged in them were purely religious and not treasonable, yet the charge made against these people was a charge of treason and of constructive treason for being engaged in these riots. Now I would ask the Colonial Secretary whether if is wise to brand with treason so large a number—for there was a large number—of the people of Ceylon, who had no seditious and no treasonable thought, but were loyal to the Empire and had no desire to attack the Empire, and many of whom, on the showing of the Governor, engaged in these riots through the mistaken belief that all Maho-medans were at war with the Empire, and were therefore lawful prey. But these people were no more treasonable in their motives than people of this country are in getting up anti-German riots. Is it really desirable that these people should be branded with the word "treason," and should be sentenced for treason? Will this not give rise to misapprehension and to soreness in the future? I have before me here in the Official Report four pages of names of people who have been sentenced. These are not death sentences, though there were a large number of death sentences; these are the names of people who have been sentenced to imprisonment. I have not looked into it closely, but it seems to me that the average sentence was about fourteen years' penal servitude. And here are four pages of closely printed names of people so sentenced. I would ask again whether it is desirable that all these people should be branded with the word "treason"? I think there is a full case for the Colonial Office itself to institute an inquiry. I do not say this in any hostile or critical spirit; I do not desire to force an inquiry upon the Colonial Office, but I do think that it is desirable, and that the Colonial Office may be strengthened for the very 579 purposes for which it exists if it institutes an inquiry into the manner in which this serious crisis has been dealt with.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI do not think—and I am sure the Committee will agree with me—that this would be a suitable time to attempt to make one of those surveys of the whole work of the Colonial Office which were a feature of the tenure of that Office by my right hon. Friend beside me. What makes it unsuitable for this House to deal at this time with matters relating to the development of the Colonies is that they are all engaged in this War. A large part of the staff which conducts their work has been fighting from the beginning, and therefore measures for development are, to a considerable extent, held up. But I hope, when the War is over, that either I myself, or some other Colonial Secretary, will have an opportunity of reviewing what is the position of all our Colonies then. I think, almost without exception, the Debate to-day has been confined to two topics. Although our Colonial Empire is very large, the interests of the House of Commons, like those of every human being, are apt to be centred upon particular things which interest them for the moment, and this has happened in this case. The two subjects which have occupied my hon. Friends who have spoken have been the Ceylon riots and the subject which was dealt with before the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) spoke last, namely, the terrible crime of the Colonial Office with regard to palm kernels which come from West Africa. Apart from these, the only other point was raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder), who urged that the Colonial Office should do what it could to foster the production of raw materials in our Colonies. In that respect he is really knocking at an open door. The Colonial Office as a whole, and the individual who happens to be at the head of it, realise as fully as anyone how important it is, from the point of view not only of the Colonies but of the United Kingdom as well, that we should not be so dependent, if we can avoid it, as we have been in the past upon foreign countries to supply us with raw material which are so essential to the life of such a large portion of our population. We are fully alive to the requirements of the public, and a good deal is being done both in the Colonies and in England.
580 I come now to the question of the riots in Ceylon. I do not complain of the tone with which that subject has been broached, either by my hon. Friend who spoke last or by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, who introduced the subject. He was certainly right in saying that had it not been for the War we should have heard a great deal more of that subject in this House; and I think it is very likely that the Colonial Secretary would have had pretty bad times occasionally in connection with this. I think that is very likely, and I must say that hon. Members have shown commendable restraint in the way in which they have dealt with the subject. But among all the evils which the War has inflicted upon us, it is not an evil, from the point of view of Ceylon itself, that this subject has not been thrashed out in the way some subjects of the same kind have been thrashed out in the House of Commons. I feel as strongly, as I am sure my hon. Friends who have spoken on this subject feel, that one of the things to which, as a nation, we have most reason to be proud—it is really one of our greatest heritages—is that in dealing with what are called subject races we have always, I think it is not flattering ourselves too much to say so, to a greater extent than any country which possesses an Empire, made it a rule that those who govern those countries should look first at the interests of the countries they govern and not at the interests of the Mother Country. That has been invariably our rule. I should be very sorry, and I have very good reasons for saying it, that either in connection with the Ceylon riots or palm kernels, if I should be the first Colonial Secretary to depart from that principle.
The Ceylon riots were very serious. All the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on the subject have admitted that. They were of a nature which could, very easily have become dangerous, and with which it would have been extremely difficult to deal. That is undoubted. Indeed, the charge which at first was made against the Governor of Ceylon was not that he had shown too great severity, but that he was not severe enough. I have examined as carefully as I could everything connected with that subject which has come under my notice, and I feel compelled to say that, on the whole, in a very difficult situation, Sir Robert Chalmers, who is well-known to many Members of this House, and who certainly could not be 581 accused of using arbitrary or tyrannical methods, dealt with that dangerous situation with great fairness, with great wisdom, and, I think, with great success, considering all the difficulties connected with the situation. It has been described correctly, I think, by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, as mainly a religious riot. It was that very largely. I think it is true to say, as was said by him, that the Sinhalese belonging to the Christian tribes to a large extent kept out of it. But it was a racial question very largely. It was a question of the Sinhalese thinking that Ceylon should belong to them. That was one of the main motives in connection with it. The hon. Member said there was no evidence of premeditation. It is very difficult to get at the truth of that, as anyone who has ever studied a subject of this kind knows, but I think everything pointed to the fact that it had been premeditated. I will read here an extract from the Report of the Commissioners, which I intend to lay upon the Table of the House of Commons, and which, I think, not unfairly represents the truth on that point:
In the history of the disturbances themselves the simultaneity of the outbreak, the systematic spreading of false reports as to threatened attacks by Moors, the manner in which mosques were dynamited, the chalking up of the words 'Sinhala,' and in some instances 'Hambaya' on boutiques, and the hanging up of Wesak lanterns days after the Wesak was over, the accumulation of arms and bombs in pansalas and the ringing of pansala bells—to mention only a few of the incidents brought to our notice—are circumstances which, viewed in conjunction with the tone of the vernacular Press and the existence of the societies above-mentioned, lead unmistakably to the conclusion that the riots were in some measure prearranged.I really think there is no doubt that is true. What was the nature of the riots? It was partly religious and partly racial. There was a feeling of intense hostility against the Moor Mussulmen because they were traders and the Sinhalese were not. It is very similar to the Jew hate of which we have seen so much in many countries of Europe. When you get a combination of that kind of racial and religious feeling, which produces a feeling so dangerous, it requires great skill to deal with it fairly and firmly. I know quite well that hon. Members of this House have heard one side of the subject ad nauseam. The Sinhalese, among their other virtues, have the capacity of becoming lawyers, and lawyers generally have the capacity of stating a good case well and a bad case not badly. I know that there have been some members of that profession busy 582 with hon. Members of this House. Their case has been examined by the Colonial Office and by the Government of Ceylon. I would remind the Committee that there is another side to the question. The Commissioners have their point of view. I have here—I am not going to trouble the Committee by reading it—the point of view of individual Mussulmen on this subject. I ask the Committee to remember that one of the functions which ought essentially to be the special duty of the British Government is that where there are mixed races under their rule they should see that all those races are treated fairly among each other. That makes it very necessary that no feeling should exist that the Moors are not protected by the British Government from the danger to which they were subjected. If you take into account the general interests of the Empire as well as of political expediency it goes much further. India is so near Ceylon and there is a very large Mussul man population in India. All this was watched closely from India, and I should like in that connection to read part of a dispatch from the Governor of Ceylon on that point. He says:I may add—
§ Mr. L. JONESWas that Sir Robert Chalmers?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI think it was the Acting-Governor. I have not got the date of the dispatch; I think it is some time about four months ago.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWYes. He says:
I may add that I learn from trustworthy sources that the Moslem community in India are following with much interest the course of affairs in this island, and there can be no doubt that any action which could possibly be construed as indicating any intention to minimise or to condone the wanton outrages to which their co-religionists in Ceylon have been subjected would have an effect upon their minds which it would not be wise to ignore. The Mahomedans of Ceylon have displayed a spirit of moderation and patience, which, in view of the provocation they have received, is as astonishing as it is admirable. They have been content to leave their case in the hands of the Government and to trust to it to compensate them for their injuries.That is the position. My hon. Friends have pointed out that there were cases of apparent hardship and injustice.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI only use the word "apparent" because they seem to be apparent to me.
§ Mr. JONESMay I point out that men were imprisoned without any charge? They were never brought to trial, they were released, and it was admitted that there was nothing against them.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat is quite true. I did not remember that my hon. Friend had referred to them. There were such cases and they proved there was injustice. There is no doubt about that. Let me look first at the particular class of action which is condemned. These Moor men had been subjected to an immense loss to them of their property, for which it was clearly right that they should be compensated. The Government set to work to compensate them. The method they adopted was to send out Commissioners, who were chosen with every desire that they should act fairly, and, on the whole, I think my hon. Friend will admit they did so. They were sent out to try to get requisitions to make good the losses of the Moors. Their action was temperate; that is to say, they went to the communities where the riots had taken place and said to the Sinhalese population, "If you give the amount which is necessary to meet this cost that is all that will happen, but if you do not there will have to be a rate." In the great majority of cases the rate was given voluntarily and that was the end of the matter. My hon. Friends complain that it was not levied on everybody. I suppose that if the same thing happened in this country the rate would be applied to everybody. On the ground of fairness, however, I do not think there is much of which complaint can be made. On the whole, it was the Sinhalese who attacked the Moors. It was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove who was guilty and who was innocent. On the whole, I do not think the method was very unfair. As a matter of fact, when you come to the big towns, where it was not impossible to arrange it in that way, it was done by a municipal levy, and there it was levied upon everybody. There was a good deal of complaint, for which there was a certain amount of foundation, that it was levied on those who were among the sufferers, but that was allowed to remain. That is the way in which that part of the business was settled. It is quite true that while these riots were taking place there were exceptional methods taken in dealing with some of the offenders. Some hon. Gentlemen have referred to what took place in an island near home, which interests us even more. If riots of that 584 kind had happened there, we should be Bound to have such cases occurring. All you have the right to ask the Government of Ceylon is that on the whole it should be not only firm and just, but clement where clemency is possible. My hon. Friends asked for an inquiry. It has been asked for in questions in this House very often, and I have always refused it. I will tell hon. Members why I think that will commend itself to the Committee. There is not the least doubt that these riots were due to the War. It is quite true that they were not specially directed against the Government, but it was the unrest caused by the War that set the thing going. There is no doubt whatever about that.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWMy hon. Friend may take it that there is no doubt about that. It was assumed by those who had charge of the government of Ceylon. What was the object of one of these lawyers who came over? He wanted specially to have an interview with me.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWYes. The information I got from Ceylon was to this effect: That he was asking for an interview with the Colonial Secretary in order to be able to go back and say that the Colonial Office had thrown over the Government. That is what you have to bear in mind. You have this Government out there which you cannot really control, except upon general principles. You have to make up your mind whether you trust it or whether you do not. I am convinced that the Committee will agree with me that, on the whole, in the circumstances which exist to-day it would be very unwise to take any action which gave an impression that the Government there had acted in a way which was not approved by the Government here in London. We must trust in these cases largely to the character of the men who represent this Government in cases of this kind. I think anyone who knows Sir John Anderson, who was well known to me, and had been for a long time the permanent head of the Colonial Office, will give him credit for common sense, for justice, and for a desire to act with clemency. He went out with the intention of examining into this question himself wherever there was a primâ facie case that injustice had been done, and I do not think there is any harm 585 in reading the exact words of a telegram which was sent to me on the subject. He has, in some instances, already ordered release and a substantial reduction of sentences which were excessive. He represents that it is for him, as the person responsible for law and order, to conduct any inquiry into the incidents of the riots, and the proper course for those who feel aggrieved is to apply to him. He will not hesitate to ask for assistance if he requires it. I think the correct thing for the Government and for the Committee is to leave it there and to trust the Ceylon Government to act fairly in the matter.
I come to the other subject which has exercised the mind of hon. Members. I am not disposed, and I am not going to start again the old Free Trade controversy in the conditions in which we are placed to-day. Hon. Members opposite have spoken as if this was a terrible new departure, upsetting everything that all of us once held. That was not the way it struck me. What we have done has been done before in the Colonial Office in precisely similar circumstances. The hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald), it seemed to me, accused everyone connected with the Committee on Trade in West Africa with every conceivable blindness combined with the greatest possible stupidity. He said there had never been anything like it, and he referred to what had been done in the Federated Malay States. The fact is that years ago an export duty was put on in precisely the same conditions and for the same purpose for which it is proposed to put on this duty. The hon. Member says it is not an export duty at all. I do not know what he means. He seemed to assume that it was made prohibitive—that it was impossible that it could be exported at all. That is not the case. There was a duty on tin in the Federated Malay States for the purpose of revenue, and there was a duty on tin ore which was aimed at being the precise equivalent to the duty on the tin; but, in addition, and this was the same crime—I wonder the Colonial Secretary of that day escaped hanging—of which I am guilty now, an extra duty, and a very heavy duty, was put on tin ore exported anywhere except within the British Empire. That is exactly what has been done here, and it was done for precisely the same purpose. They found that tin ore was in danger of being taken to a foreign country and smelted there, and they took this action for the deliberate purpose of trying to keep it, if possible, within the British Empire.
§ Sir J. JARDINEWhen was that?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI think about 1903. If my hon. Friend wants a more recent precedent, I will give it him. The same thing was arranged for before the Coalition Government, with all its vices, came into existence. It was arranged for by the Liberal Government which preceded us in regard to Nigeria. An export duty was arranged to be put on there with the same pernicious Clause in, that ore coming to the British Empire was to be free. All I have done is to apply precisely the same principle to another commodity which has already been applied by both Unionists and Liberal statesmen in regard to other Colonies. I did not expect all this fuss. I have heard the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald) repeat the sordid charge—
§ Mr. BONAR LAWNot at all. It was actually passed in the Colonial Office before I went there, but, owing to the War, which had prevented it being exported anywhere except to the United Kingdom, it had not come into operation. But the determination to bring it in was carried out in every detail before the Coalition Government was formed.
Mr. MACDONALDI was going upon this statement: "It is understood that the same step as regards tin ore is contemplated in Nigeria," and I was waiting until it came for the purpose of raising exactly the same point.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt was already done in the Federated Malay States.
§ Mr. MOLTENOHe gave an answer on 22nd February, in which he stated that no export duties on ore from the Straits Settlements are imposed. But he went on to say that Royalties on tin and tin ore and other ores are imposed.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe different Departments know exactly what they mean by the words. It is the Federated Malay States in which the duty has been imposed, and not the Strait's Settlements.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt is more than that. You have officials who deal with these different Colonies, and the Straits Settlements to them mean one thing, and the Federated Malay States mean quite another.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSDo they still have it in the Federated Malay States?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWYes. I did not expect this fuss from any considerable number, and I hope I am not going to get it, but I think I have the explanation of how so much interest is taken in this. I happened to obtain possession of a letter from the representative of a firm of margarine makers in a neutral country. I am not going to tell the House the name of the firm or how the letter came into my possession, but they may take it from me that the letter is genuine. I am making no charge whatever against the writer of the letter. As a matter of fact I believe he is on our side in this War, and he is just looking after his own trade. I think it will interest the Committee to see how excitement is gradually created in what seems to some people a very small subject. This is the letter, dated 21st June:
I duly received your letter of Saturday, 17th instant, and the memorandum about the Palm Kernel Committee has come to hand. We have considered it best not to do anything at the opening of Parliament as a question of this nature is generally lost amongst the more important business matters which are brought forward, but we have asked a Member of the House to put a question down asking the Premier if time, will be given for a discussion of this matter, which is of great importance to the future policy of this country. In the meantime we have inserted in the Press the following notice—which I saw, as a matter of fact, though I did not know whence it came.When Parliament reassembles a number of Members interested intend to press for a discussion of the Report of the West African Produce Committee before its recommendations are adopted. The main recommendation is to impose an Export Duty of £2 a ton on palm nuts coming from British West Africa except in cases where they are to be crushed in this country. The feeling in relation to this is that it is a change too far-reaching to be made without discussion in the House of Commons. It is not merely a question of Free Trade as against Tariff Reform. The departure contemplated is so novel that the Members interested think it ought not to be made, as it were, behind the back of Parliament. This is for the purpose of drawing the attention of Members to what is going forward, for otherwise matters of this kind are likely to slip through. When the question tion comes on to the Notice Paper we shall send out further notices to the papers in order to bring out various speakers in the House.'
§ Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKDoes my right hon. Friend insinuate that my conduct has been influenced by a margarine maker?
§ Mr. R. MACDONALDWe must have this out. This is an insinuation against the honour of Members of this House, and if the right hon. Gentleman imagines that I have seen that letter or that I took this 588 matter up before last night he is saying a thing which he ought to know is absolutely untrue.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe hon. Member is quite mistaken.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI made no insinuations.
§ Mr. MOLTENOThe right hon. Gentler man has said that a Member undertook to put a question to the Prime Minister asking him for an opportunity to discuss this question. I put a question to the Prime Minister, asking him whether time would be given to discuss this question, but I have never heard of such a letter, and have had no communication with anyone with regard to it. The action I have taken is on this Report alone.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI quite accept that. My hon. Friend does not suppose it would be done in the crude way of a margarine manufacturer coming to any Member and asking him to put this question. There are other ways of getting it done besides that.
§ Mr. L. WILLIAMSThe beginning of Tariff Reform!
§ Mr. BONAR LAWNo; the end of opposition to a reasonable fiscal policy.
§ Sir G. TOULMINHas that letter passed the censorship?
§ Mr. MACDONALDWas the letter stolen? An abuse of the House of Commons. The meanest thing I ever heard of!
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI have already said the Committee must take it from me that it is an authentic letter, and that I have no intention of telling the Committee how I got it.
Mr. HAZLETONHaving quoted this letter, is the right hon. Gentleman not entitled to lay it upon the Table of the House, of Commons?
The CHAIRMANThat would be the case if it was an official document, but I cannot see how that rule applies to the letter which has been read.
§ Mr. MACDONALDIs it not an official document in its present form? I happen to see it where it is. It is an official document, and we ought to get the name of the writer and the name of the Member to whom it was written.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe hon. Member may think he ought to get it. I am at a loss to understand all this. What does it mean? So far as I am concerned, there is no charge against any individual Member of the House. I read that letter for the express purpose of showing that vested interests do attempt to use whatever influence they can to get political pressure brought to bear in this House. [HOn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]' I am glad for those cheers.
§ Sir G. TOULMINOr to get packed Committees!
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI know those hon. Members take the view that that only applies to those who want a change of the fiscal policy. All I want to point out is that in this particular case undoubtedly the thing was bitterly opposed by those who had interests against it, and an attempt was made to influence the House of Commons to favour their views. After all, I would ask the Committee to try, if they can, to look at this question not really from the point of view of any fiscal system, but on its merits. Is it or is it not a wise thing to do? That is how I regard it. What is the position in regard to it? When the War broke out, owing to the fact that almost the only market for these palm kernels was Germany, the West African Colonies were in danger of losing their whole trade for the time being. Efforts were then made by everyone interested in West Africa to try to get some method of utilising these palm kernels here at home; at all events, during the interval when there was no market in Germany where they could be sent. Great efforts were made to get people to crush them. The West African members of the chambers of commerce all interested themselves in this object, and they succeeded to a large extent. They did get these palm kernels utilised in this country. Then they came to the conclusion that if they were to be permanently utilised and the trade they had started was to continue, they ought to have some further examination of the subject. The Colonial Office was approached by the three chambers of commerce I have mentioned, with a view to setting up a Committee to examine into the matter. They did set up that Committee. We are told, I believe, that it was a packed Committee, and consisted of those interested for their own pockets. There is really no foundation for that allegation. The mem- 590 bers of that Committee were appointed to a certain extent of official people representing the Colonial Office, the Board of Agriculture, and the Board of Trade. Others were appointed directly by the Chambers of Commerce I have mentioned, and, so far as I remember, the Colonial Office appointed two, or perhaps three members because of their special knowledge of the subject, and for no other reason. That was the constitution of the Committee which examined into this question. I would ask hon. Members to remember that if they look at the names they will find that the members of that Committee were people who knew a good deal about the subject, and so far as the official members are concerned, I do not think they can be accused of having any interests of their own to serve.
What was the conclusion that everyone of them came to, with the exception of my hon. Friend behind me? The conclusion they came to, after very careful consideration, was this: that if this business which they had succeeded in establishing in the United Kingdom is to continue, some security must be given that the whole business will not disappear the moment the War is over. My hon. Friend said we are helping an industry which is already expanding. Really that ignores the very essence of the recommendations of this Committee. That Report points out that palm kernels are being crushed by machinery which is not adapted for the purpose. Of course, they can do that now, because there is no competition, prices are high, and it is almost impossible to get trade. Obviously, unless the business is conducted, when peace comes, by machinery which will compete with that of any other country, the whole trade disappears and reverts to the old channels, and the efforts made will be lost. The Committee made these recommendations that this export duty should be put on, and I think everyone will agree that from the point of view of this country that is not a bad thing. Clearly, since this trade is now being done in the United Kingdom, and it is a trade which is of great advantage to the producing of margarine and oilcake, it would be of great advantage that the trade should not be lost. I would like to ask hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to this duty whether they are really prepared to say that they will do nothing to retain that trade in this country, except to tell those who are engaged in it, "You ought to improve 591 your scientific methods and help yourselves in that kind of way." If hon. Members take that view, I hope there are not many in the House of Commons, and I am sure there are very few in the country. If ever there was a case where the facts have shown that a trade based on a raw material produced in the British Empire, which has been done to the extent of three-fourths of it by Germany, can quite easily be done in the United Kingdom, and ought to be done in the United Kingdom, it is this.
We now come to the point which is really the gravamen of the charge against me, and that is that it is going to injure the natives. If hon. Gentlemen have got over their feelings of indignation—[HON. MEMBEES: "No, No!"]. They have not! Perhaps for the moment they have not. If they will consider what the position is, and look at it fairly, they will see that there is not much ground for that view. The proposition is that if you keep away buyers the price, of necessity, must go down for the natives.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWSince my hon. Friend has mentioned that, I may say that before sending out the dispatch which has been read I made inquiry as to whether or not any of this stuff was going to France. I was informed that practically nothing is going there; but I have already arranged to have the matter looked into more completely, and if it should be found that any of it is going to France, arrangements will be made, during the War, at all events, that France shall not pay any of the extra duty which is involved.
§ Mr. L. WILLIAMSWhat about Holland?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWHolland is not one of our Allies.
§ Mr. MOLTENOThe Prime Minister yesterday gave an assurance that the new policy shall not be directed against neutrals, because he understood there was some feeling in neutral countries that it would be.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI equally give the same assurance; but it does not surely mean that a policy is directed against neutrals because it is directed in our own favour. I think not. [An HON. MEMBER: 592 "Why not?"] Some hon. Members seem to think we ought to treat everybody precisely as we treat ourselves. I do not.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWLook at the effect. It is perfectly true that the price of the commodity in the long run will depend on the demand for that commodity. If it happens that as the result of what we are doing there is a falling off in the demand, then it would be bad for the natives and some steps will have to be taken to redress the evil we have done, but it does not follow, on the other hand, if, as a result of what we are doing, we so largely increase the consumption of this material within the British Empire, then the market as a whole is increased, and, in addition, there is room to do what is done in regard to tin ores in the Federated Malay States. Mills can be put up there, where the manufactured product can be sent to any country in the world and, besides, the duty which is put on will not necessarily mean that no foreigners will buy it at all. There may be foreign buyers. The real test is whether or not the proposal adopted is going to so increase the demand within the Empire that there is not any likelihood of a falling off in price. I hope that will be the result. If hon. Gentlemen look at the dispatch which I sent in regard to the matter they will see that that is one of the things which is clearly kept in view by the Colonial Office. It is to be watched closely, and if it is found that the native sellers of these materials are being injured in that way, some steps must be taken to redress the balance in their favour. I would ask hon. Members to bear this in mind. It is clearly one of the undoubted facts of our history in the government of any of these Colonies, that when you send officials out they look upon the interests of the Colony to which they are sent as their business much more than the interests of the Mother Country from which they have come. These palm kernels come chiefly from Nigeria. The Governor of Nigeria is Sir Frederick Lugard, and he was on the Committee. He was not in this country when the work of the Committee was completed, but he has come back now for a short leave. I have seen him and I have discussed this matter with him. He believes that this will help the natives. At all events, he seems pretty sure that, though there is risk of its injuring them, that will not be the effect. It is clear that not only in the interests of the Colony as 593 a whole, but in the interests of the natives, nothing of this kind must be done which is going to injure them, and the Committee may take it as certain that it will be watched from that point of view, both by the Colonial Office and by the Governor and Legislative Council out there, and that no evil such as they anticipate is in the least likely to arise as a result of what is done. It all comes to this: that those who think that as a result of this War it is the duty of this country to get trade for itself in connection with the Empire which has in the past been done by our enemies, will think this is a wise and a reasonable proceeding. Those who take the other view—that the moment war is over we should allow everything in regard to trade with Germany to be precisely as before—will think we are wrong. I venture to say that those who hold that view will be in a distinct minority in any assembly of British subjects anywhere throughout the British Empire.
8.0 P.M.
I shall not detain the Committee much longer, but I would like to say a word on a subject which is not controversial. The Committee may remember that last year I gave an account of what was happening at that time in the German colonies, and I said that the Cameroons were at the point of coming into the possession of the Allies. That happened very shortly afterwards. But then I would not say anything favourable about the campaign in East Africa. Indeed, we felt that we were in a very weak position there, and that there was danger of some bad news coming—that that was likely quite as much as good news. All that has changed, and the fact that it has changed is important, and I think that the Committee will be pleased to hear it, not merely from the point of view of East Africa, but because the reason we could not deal with it earlier was that we had not the troops to spare, and could not send them from any other field, and that we have now got the troops and that the East African territory with something like 400 miles of coast-line, and an area twice as large as the German Empire, is, I think, on the point of coming under the rule of the Allies. And I think that that is a great thing, and all that I say in connection with it is a word of praise if I may, to the General who is carrying out the campaign. We have had a curious experience in this War—that two of the Generals who have been successful in obtaining victorious results—it does not follow by any 594 means that they are the best Generals, for perhaps they had the easiest task—two Generals, one of whom has brought us victory, and the other of whom is on the point of bringing it, were politicians. I do not know whether that proves that politicians make the best soldiers. Possibly there is the other view, that soldiers make the best politician's. General Smuts was a soldier before the War.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat is perfectly true, though not very relevant, but whether Home Rulers or not, they have both done something for which the British Empire as a whole is grateful. While I say that, I need not say that the feeling which we have towards them is a feeling which we extend really to every part of the British Empire. I am not going to say a word—I have spoken often enough about it—as to what has been done by the Canadians, and the Australians, and New Zealanders. I remember that they were accused of want of discipline. I have often heard that, and I have always said, "I know something of the Canadians, though not as much about the others, but wait until you find them in face of the enemy, and you will find that their discipline is all right." They have borne that out in the result. But it is not they alone. There is really not a part of the Empire where men of British race are living where they have not played their part in this great War. Wherever it was possible contingents have been sent, and where that has not been possible, men have come from all the ends of the earth to volunteer in the regiments at home, and are serving in them, and many of them have given up their lives. I think that one of the facts which stand out most prominently in this War, of which the British Empire have most reason to be proud. I know that there are some who say that it is due to the freedom of their institutions, and I am quite willing to admit that—but I say that what will stand out in this War is the wonderful part which has been played, not by the United Kingdom alone, but by every portion of the British Empire.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have suggested that the action which has been taken by some of us was taken on the suggestion of margarine manufacturers, or any other other interest. The action was taken under our sense of duty to our 595 country, and to our Constituents. For my own part, I have had no communication with any margarine manufacturer, and that was why I felt that I ought to say that I have had no communication of any kind with them, and that I do not believe that anybody who has taken action similar to mine has had any such communication.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI did not say anything of the kind
§ Mr. MOLTENOI quite accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he does not think that any of us have done such a thing. My relations with the right hon. Gentleman have always been of a most pleasant character, and I hope that they may not be changed. I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the statement which he has just made about East Africa. He knows that some time ago, when things were very different, I have urged in this House that we should take steps to put our own Colonists in a position of defence, and he acted upon that, and we now see the results which we do see in the success which has been and is being attained. I would like to enforce the appeal made by the hon. Member for Bury (Sir George Toulmin) to the right hon. Gentleman not to encourage the suggestion made by a member of the Committee to the effect that we should capture the evil spirit trade which was carried on by the Germans. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that an attempt was made some years ago to cut down that trade. Lord Salisbury said that owing to German influence, the influence of these great distilleries, he regarded this as an impossible thing. Now that we and the French have the whole of West Afrcia, there may be a chance of doing something in that direction instead of extending the use of spirits for the benefit of distillers in this country.
There is another question on which I would like to have some explanation. That is the suggestion which has been made that a tax should be put upon these West African and other Crown Colonies. I do not know how much may be in it, but I know from a West African paper that a deputation waited upon the Governor and informed him that they had learned from Renter's London Correspondent that they were about to make a 596 gift of £6,000,000 to this country. They said that they had no knowledge of this proposal, and they inquired whether there was any intention of accompanying that with a further representation for the inhabitants of the Colonies. I do not know how far that is correct. The proposal is to place £6,000,000 on the funds of Nigeria, £2,400,000 on Jamaica, and £1,000,000 on Ceylon. I would ask whether there is this intention, because it seems to be a dangerous thing to levy a war tribute on our Crown Colonies without their consent?
Coming to the question of palm kernels, I think we have some cause to complain of the action of the Colonial Office in this matter. Having regard to the immense importance of this question, it seems to me that the Colonial Office was somewhat precipitate in the action which it took. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman must have been very much preoccupied with the affairs of the War and unable to give time to the consideration of what was being done, and therefore accepted rather hastily the recommendations which had been made before the Report of the Committee was made public. Before the Report was published a dispatch was already on its way to West Africa, and in that document which no doubt all hon. Members have before them, they will find embodied the dispatch from the Colonial Secretary adopting the resolution of the Committee and enjoining its immediate operation in the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I have considered carefully the Report of the Committee, and see no reason why it should not be adopted forthwith." Then he tells the Governor that it would be necessary to have legislation in the West African Assembly proposed immediately, and he asks to be given an opportunity of considering the proposed legislation in draft form. Finally, he says that he would be glad if the Report is taken into consideration as the legislation necessary to carry it into effect should be drafted as soon as possible.
In a matter of this great importance there should be some public knowledge of the step intended to be taken by the Colonial Secretary, some opportunity for public opinion to be made aware of what is to be done, not only public opinion here, but in the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is not a very serious step. I beg to differ most strongly from that statement. I consider that this is a 597 step of the very gravest character. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that it is not a new step. I regard it as an absolutely new step. He says that some duty in the Straits Settlement was imposed. As I have already indicated, there is very great doubt about that, and certainly no one was aware in this House of what was being done in the Straits Settlement. It was done wholly behind the backs of this House, without any authority from this House, and what I complain of in this great step is that it has been taken not by this House, not with the approval, knowledge, or sanction of this House, but by the Minister of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not think that this action is going to injure the Colonies or the natives.
The Under-Secretary has very kindly given me a series of the prices of this product, both in Lagos and in this country. I do not quote all the prices, but I take some representative prices before the War, during the War, and to-day. In the second half of 1913, the year before the War, the price at Lagos in July was £19 6s. 8d. per ton, and in December £19. In Liverpool it was £24 in July, and £24 at the end of the year. Two years later, in 1915, the price at Lagos had fallen to £9 a ton both in July and December, and in Liverpool it had fallen to £15 5s. a ton in July, and it rose again to £19 12s. 6d. in December. On 10th January of this year the price had fallen to £10 at Lagos, while it had risen to £25 3s. 9d. in Liverpool. On 9th June there was a further slight fall to £9 10s. at Lagos, and a fall to £19 15s. in Liverpool. I have a West African paper of the 17th July, and I find that the price has now fallen to £6 15s., a fall almost of 50 per cent, between the June prices this year and the July prices. The hon. Member will recollect the fact that this Report was made known on the 8th June, and it is very difficult to disentangle the facts, for owing to various causes the matter is very complicated; but the already low price of £9 10s. 2d. has fallen in one month to £6 15s.—a fall of 67 per cent.—a very grave and serious fall. We can conceive what must be the effect on West Africa of such a very great fall in prices as that. We know what before the War was the situation of this country. Prices were then constantly rising, and they were extremely good. The exports from that country increased at a very rapid rate as compared with the preceding ten years, but we have now the fall from £19 or £20 at 598 Lagos to £6 15s. That must have an enormous effect on palm-kernel cultivation in West Africa. The effect to my mind will be to most seriously cripple the development of West Africa, because you will reduce the number of customers and you will have in consequence a reduction of prices, unless the consumption in this country restores the balance. What will happen under this handicap against West Africa? If I were a West African merchant, and exported to Holland, with this tax of £2 a ton on the palm kernels, the Brazilian rival could afford to undersell the West African merchant in neutral markets by £2 a ton. So with the Congo merchant, and the Congo and Brazil would be developed at the expense of West Africa. The effect, therefore, will be to depress the position of West Africa in the markets of the world and to prevent the development of that Colony. In addition, there are other competing oil-producing fruits, and the result would be that, without the duty on them, they would take the place of palm kernels. I may mention the fact that palm kernels constitute half the whole of the export trade of West Africa, and it would be very serious to hinder the development of that very valuable export. But I need not pursue the details any further.
I wish to refer to the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday, when he said that he desired to state most distinctly that the new policy was not in any way aimed at the interests of neutrals. He added that there seemed to be some apprehension on the part of neutrals that this would be the result of that policy. To-day we learn that it is intended that the palm kernels shall not go to Holland or to Denmark, both neutral countries. Holland is particularly affected, because that country has an enormous margarine trade, for which she uses the oils expressed from palm kernels. The amount of margarine we purchased before 1913 was 1,500,000 tons, 1,400,000 tons of which came from Holland. It is a gigantic trade. It is perfectly clear that Holland cannot contemplate the loss of trade of such enormous value to her without most serious concern, and I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he contemplates taking any steps to secure neutrals in accordance with the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, or are we to regard that statement as meant for yesterday and not for to-day. I desire to say a word or two as 599 to what I believe may be the political consequences to our own Empire of the action we propose to take. I contend that this dispatch is a reversal of the policy that has been consistently pursued towards our Crown Colonies and all our Colonies ever since the loss of the American Colonies. That policy was never to tax the Colonies without employing the taxes for their own good. We always let them deal with their own taxation, and what they did was not at our dictation. But what does this proposal amount to? I have had a long experience of these matters, and I have read great numbers of dispatches dealing with them, but I must say I never knew of any instance in which a dispatch of this character was sent to a British Colony. It is quite true that we once had the experience of taxing exports in West Africa and our Colonies, but that was not done by administration; it was done by Act of Parliament. We were acting on a wrong principle at that time, but even then it was done by Act of Parliament, and not by administrative decree. This was in the time of Charles II., when they put a tax on exports from the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman, however, is now taxing exports by administrative decree, whereas if it is to be done at all it ought to be done by this House and not by administrative decree of the Colonial Office.
Another very grave feature of this dispatch is that no consultation has taken place with the inhabitants on the spot. In all our Colonies there are Legislative Councils, and there are local persons of note who are the link between the Government and the inhabitants of those Colonies for the purpose of communication with the Government here. In this case no consultation has taken place. The dispatch was written here, it was conceived here, and its language is as peremptory as that of any dispatch within my experience The opinions of the Governors of those Colonies are not asked; no attempt has been made to consult with the Governors, the inhabitants, or the Legislative Councils. It is quite true that these ordinances must go before the Legislative Council, but the fact remains that the Government have power to put them through whatever view the Legislative Councils may take of them. In its crudity and in its absoluteness, this dispatch has never been surpassed by any dispatch in regard to any question. I am aware that the right 600 hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary has been very much occupied on other important matters, and that, therefore, he has not been able to really follow what has been the course of events in this case. Perhaps the Tight hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to sign a dispatch of which he does not quite realise the extremely serious effects. I have some knowledge of our Crown Colonies, and I venture to say that the inhabitants have the greatest devotion and loyalty and love for this country, and that those feelings have been earned rightly and properly by us, because we have always administered those Colonies for the benefit of the inhabitants of those Colonies. We have never before taxed them for our benefit, but only for their own. To such an extent have they appreciated that that to attempt to make the connection between our Crown Colonies and ourselves less direct, the inhabitants have always said, "No; we desire to be directly associated with you, because we know from long experience you have our interests at heart and will safeguard them. We know that you act from the point of view of our benefit, and that that and not your direct benefit is your chief concern."
The policy which is now suggested has been tried before, not only by ourselves, but by other Powers. Venice tried it in her Colonies in the Mediterranean, and Spain and Portugal tried it. It was tried by ourselves, with most disastrous results, in America. Whenever an attempt has been made to monopolise the trade of a Colony it has had the most disastrous effects upon the interests of that Colony and eventually upon the relations between that Colony and the Mother Country. That has been the universal experience of all Colonial government, no matter in what place it was attempted. We are flying in the face of that experience. Adam Smith went very fully into that, and called commercial restrictions of this kind "impertinent badges of slavery." If this line of policy is pursued, there is no reason why an export duty should not be placed on every product of a Colony, as the same arguments will apply. We shall then have that kind of monopoly which created such bitter resentment and finally lost us our American Colonies. It is, indeed, a Tiery bitter reflection that Lagos, which was ceded to us by its inhabitants for the purpose of facilitating our abolition of the slave trade, and where we succeeded in abolishing the slave trade, is to have this 601 duty placed upon it at our dictation, which will tend to make the inhabitants of that Colony commercial serfs, because you get the product of their labour at a lower price than the price of the open market. That will be realised in a very short time in these Colonies. Are we to deny to these people the right of disposing of their produce in the best market, which is a right we claim for ourselves. We do not offer to those people as much as other people do. Why not? If there is any organisation which is inferior, make it equal to that of Germany, and in that way put ourselves in the position to offer a proper price. It is a very strange thing that while in this country we are asked to put on duties to raise prices, in these Colonies we are told to put on duties to depress prices, a difference which will soon be discovered and have very serious consequences.
If this were a war measure, one could understand it, but it is to last for five years afterwards. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ponder this fact, that our own flesh and blood have never endured this yoke, and if we find it absolutely impossible to ask our own people anywhere to do this at our bidding, how then can we expect persons of other races to accept from us treatment which we would disdainfully reject for ourselves. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that great Empires have been ruined by attempts of this kind. Venice, Spain and Portugal are examples. The evils of monopoly, to any student of them, are absolutely fatal. They always produce discontent. They did in this very West Africa, which was the scene of the most complete monopoly there was ever given to any company, the Royal African Company. The then King Charles II. and his brother James, who afterwards became James II., were both shareholders. They were granted a complete monopoly of West Africa, and it was to last for a thousand years. By Petition of Right that monopoly was cancelled, and it was entirely abolished in 1689. Here are we engaged in a war of freedom, and are we to impose these commercial and economic fetters upon our own subjects? I can conceive of nothing more mad than to destroy the magnificent loyalty, devotion and love which we have seen displayed without exception by all our great Colonies and Possessions. I certainly never passed a more thrilling moment in my life than when I listened to that magnificent list read in this House of the 602 offers of service, of aid, of devotion, of loyalty, ranging from India, West Africa, South Africa, and all our Colonial island's and Possessions. What is that loyalty based upon? It is based upon the belief that we have their interests at heart, and that we are not willing to do anything to sacrifice their interests to our interests in our commercial policy. We are constantly told that the rights of small nationalities have been put on an indefeasible foundation as a result of this War. Here are small nationalities, though great in numbers, for the people affeted by this will total some twenty millions of human beings, many in a high state of native civilisation, which are completely in our hands. With what conscience can we invade their rights, as the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do, and stand out as the defenders of the rights of small nationalities. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ponder that point of view, and not allow into this Empire the seeds of a poison which has worked ruin in other great Empires. We, great as we are, cannot withstand the ruinous effects of actual injustice to those who are unable for the moment to defend themselves.
§ Sir J. SIMONI had no intention of taking part in this Debate as I made a considerable draft on the time of the House yesterday. I intervene only to call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to the effect which he has produced on the minds of, at any rate, some Members of the House, I believe unconsciously and unintentionally, by a reference which he made in his speech a short time back. Those Members who were present will recollect that the Colonial Secretary expressed some surprise that the subject of this export duty on palm kernels should excite so much interest in this House. He told us that he had not expected that there would be so much fuss from such a considerable number of Members, and he went on to tell us that he thought he had found the explanation. My right hon. Friend produced as his explanation something which he told us was a letter. It was written on a somewhat unusual medium; I dare say it was a photograph, and I should infer is a portion of the activities of the Censor's Department. I do not trouble whether that is a convenient or a usual course, but it is perhaps a little unfortunate, if such a letter is to be read, that we should not be told from whom it comes or to whom it goes I can assure my right 603 hon. Friend that, however unconsciously he may have given offence, the language which he used most clearly appeared to impute to the considerable number of Members who have taken an interest in this matter this very great offence—the offence, namely, of coming here as Members of this House to argue this subject as a matter of public interest and importance, not because these were their own views which they thought it their duty in the public interest to express, but because they had been put up to it directly or indirectly by some persons who were interested in the margarine trade.
I have so often had controversy with my right hon. Friend on economic subjects that I should be the first to testify, when he takes part in these controversies he always makes it quite plain that he himself is speaking from a sense of public duty, and that he recognises that same sense of public duty in those who do not agree with him. I should be doing very poor justice if I did not say that he has always shown that courtesy to me, and what he shows to me I am sure he wishes to show to everybody in this House. This is more than a matter of courtesy, because unless it be corrected, as I am sure my right hon. Friend would desire to correct a mistaken impression, a most serious imputation is made against, Members of this House. In the first place, the Committee which dealt with this matter was not unanimous. One of the members sits below me—the Member for one of the Divisions of Islington. Is he supposed to have been put up by the margarine manufacturers? I do not know in the least who the other members of the Committee were or what connection they may have had with this or any other trade. But no one would suggest that my right hon. Friend could have been actuated by any such motive. If he, in making a Minority Report, called attention to the very grave consequences of this decision, it is most regrettable that when it comes to be discussed in public here it should be treated as though the discussion was to be explained in this way. The Colonial Secretary thought he had found the explanation; it was interesting to know how interest in such a subject was created, and he explained it by referring to some anonymous letter. I am sure that cannot have been the intention of my right hon. Friend, who usually speaks without notes, 604 and we admire the extraordinary skill with which he pitches on the right word. It would be a most unhappy incident in the history of economic discussion in this country if we fell back into the attitude, not, I believe, entirely unknown in some other countries when political controversy is high, of making imputations of that sort one side against the other. I would, with the greatest respect, ask my right hon. Friend to make it plain that he does not make any such imputation against any hon. Member here, because I am quite sure that, until that is done, we shall not get the Debate back to the level on which we would all desire to maintain discussions in this House.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWith regard to the feeling aroused by my reading the letter, it never occurred to me for a moment that it would be thought that I intended to imply that hon. Members who were interested in this matter were influenced by any personal or pecuniary motives. Though hon. Members may resent my having read the letter, I should be very sorry indeed if there was any occasion for feeling that, by introducing it, I had caused any such impression as that stated by my right hon. and learned Friend. What was in my mind, and what is well-known to every member of the Committee, is that if anyone is interested in a subject which is a matter of controversy, nothing is easier, without involving any question of money or anything of that kind, than to makes its influence felt. If it gives satisfaction to any hon. Member, I have the greatest pleasure in saying that I should never have read the letter at all had it even occurred to me that there would be a suspicion on the part of anyone that I was imputing anything like corruption either to the Press or to any Member of this House. Since, to my surprise, that view was taken, I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving me the opportunity of making this clear.
§ Mr. MACDONALDMay I say a word of personal explanation? As one who interjected, perhaps the most warmly, when the right hon. Gentleman was reading the letter, I wish to say that, to my mind, there was no doubt whatever as to what the implication was. I accept without demur the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman that he had no intention of making any such imputation. I absolutely accept his statement, and banish the matter from my mind. What 605 I should like to say is that, unfortunately, that impression was made, not merely by the words which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, but the way in which he said them. From the manner in which he produced that letter, the nature of which was perfectly evident to anyone sitting here, it struck us as being something which really, in the interests of the dignity, the high honour, and the sense of colleagueship which binds all parties and all opinions in this House together, was not to be considered to be a very proper thing to have done.
§ Mr. MACDONALDIt is a matter of taste. In addition to that, the right hon. Gentleman said, "I have discovered the reason of all this. I have got this letter from this foreign margarine manufacturer, who has some means of getting Members of Parliament to put questions, and so on." All I say is that the whole statement did imply an objectionable source to the whole discussion. So far as I am concerned, I have been interested in the matter for years. It is not a new interest of mine. I did not read this Report. I did not make up my mind to take part in this Debate until late last night. So far as I am concerned, I knew nothing about this matter. I have never heard of it. I never read the paragraph in the newspapers. I have done, in the ordinary sense of public duty, what I have to-day in raising a question upon which the right hon. Gentleman knows very well I disagree from him and his party. I will continue to do so. However, I am very glad to accept absolutely the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. WILESI am very glad that this unfortunate little incident has been cleared up before I come to make the few remarks that I desire to make about this Report. Especially so, because I really thought that I was included in She statement. Now, however, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said so generously and emphatically, there is no more need to think about it. I must say something about the formation of the Committee. I have served on Committees of this House during the ten or eleven years I have been a Member, and when it was suggested that I should become a member of this Committee I thought it would be possibly the same kind of Committee on which I had often served before. I ex- 606 pected to find Members of Parliament there, possibly a Government official or two, and a few outside people. When I came to find who my colleagues were, I must say that I felt, and I feel, after what has resulted, that the Committee was not the right Committee to deal with a question of this kind. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies was chairman. I should like to say what an excellent chairman he was. I do not think he has ever presided over a Committee of this kind before. He was always courteous, and gave me, in my miserable minority of one, every opportunity of getting what information I required. After I had been on the Committee for a short time, however, I learned the intention of all was to put on duties of this kind.
To come back to formation of the Committee. I was the only Member of Parliament on it, excepting, of course, the chairman. We must remember what the Committee had to do—it was to give a very important Report on this matter since the War started. We had on it Government officials—the Governor of the Gold Coast, who, unfortunately, gave no opinion on, the matter. I cannot help thinking that, if he had he might possibly have given a different opinion to the rest of the Committee. We had Sir Frederick Lugard. He also was recalled. After that, as the hon. Member for Leicester has pointed out, we had people who were interested in this business. I once heard a story—whether true or not I do not know—relating to three Law Lords. They were going to try an appeal case relating to a Colonial railway. One of the Law Lords, when the case was about to begin, announced that he had some shares in this railway, and inquired of counsel whether there would be an objection to him sitting? The learned counsel replied, "Certainly not." The second Law Lord said that his wife, or another relative, owned a large number of shares in this Colonial railway: would that disentitle him to sit? "Certainly not," replied counsel. The third Law Lord said: "I do not happen to have any shares in this railway; I hope that that will not be an objection to me serving in this Court?" I rather feel in that position. Now that it has been cleared up that I have no interest in foreign margarine manufacture, I feel that I can give my views quite clearly on the Report of the Committee.
607 In the Majority Report of the Committee, which begins, I think, on page 23 of the White Paper, we find that it says that "the question at issue is between Germany and the United Kingdom." I differ from that altogether. I say in my Report that I am perfectly prepared to sacrifice any feeling of fiscal principles that I have which it may be necessary to sacrifice in the great settlement of commerce after the War. Yet I would point out that for the moment we do not know what our terms of settlement with Germany will be, or what our position will be to make a settlement. Starting in this way, and putting on this export duty against all countries but the United Kingdom, does not seem to me altogether the matter at issue between Germany and this country. When we speak about the issue with Germany we must remember from this Report that it looks as if palm kernels were the only produce from which edible oil is extracted. We must not forget that copra will always take the place of palm kernels, although not perhaps quite so well, and that can be obtained in large quantities outside the British Empire, although palm kernels are nearly all produced within our own Empire. The next point in the Committee's Report is that ample facilities can be provided in the United Kingdom for crushing the whole of the kernel crop. There is no doubt about that. The manufacturers, I think it appears from their evidence, are quite alive to the fact, and do not want any bounty or assistance to lay down machinery to produce this edible oil and cake. They were doing it before the War broke out. Directly the War did break out they were able to use this with great success, and if they are able to go on doing it, I feel sure, from the evidence, that it is quite unnecessary to help the manufacturers of Great Britain, who will be able to hold their own with any part of the world when the War is over.
There were three methods mentioned in the Report. The first one that was considered was a Government grant to the industries concerned in the United Kingdom. Personally, I would rather give a direct grant to industry all round, to be paid by everybody, than I would give a grant to be paid by everybody for the benefit of a few manufacturers. The Committee considered the imposition of an import duty on margarine and edible oil. 608 That would be a straightforward way of doing it. That would have kept out the German oils, and would have been a clearer way than that proposed, which I think a clumsy and heavy way, and, without using any offensive expression, rather a back-door way of producing the particular effect. One of the dangers which I foresaw was not only trouble with the natives, but that a ring of manufacturers would be easily formed in this country. In fact, I believe since the recommendations of this Report began to be apparent, certain oil mills have already changed hands in this country. I quite see that, with the comparatively small number of oil mills there are in this country, if things of this kind are to come their way so easily for this great benefit of £2 a ton in their favour, it is very likely indeed that a further conference will take place. It has been said by some of my hon. Friends, "But you do not in your recommendations give any solution of the difficulty." I think the Under-Secretary will probably say that I have not given a solution of how to prevent kernels going to Germany. I do not think there is much difficulty about that myself, though I cannot build this golden bridge. It will only be by the gradual way in which British trade has always been built up.
One of the strong points made was that the majority recommended that the duty should be put on against every other country but Great Britain and her Colonies. I do not think we need consider the Colonies very seriously, because they are producers rather than importers of kernels. But, at a time when we are having all these conferences with our Allies to bind friends together and for the great advantage of the Allies, is it not a most extraordinary thing that a Committee should come forward and propose this tax? I could not quite understand what the Colonial Secretary said, but I think he suggested it might be altered under certain conditions, and I hope my hon. Friend, when he comes to speak, will in some way allay my anxiety about that, because it does seem a most unfriendly thing to do, to slam the door in the face of our Allies, when we are proposing to make trade arrangements with them. France, at the present time, I believe, is the largest manufacturer of edible oil in the world. I think we shall find the edible oil produced in France is 609 even greater than that produced by Germany before the War. She has a committee set up considering the question of edible nuts and seeds after the War, and, therefore, I do hope, if my right hon. Friend will not agree to withdraw this Report, that he will withhold the dispatch and keep it back till the end of the War. I hope it is not too late, and then, as far as I am concerned, my opposition to-night will be at an end. I hope further that, if he cannot go to that extent, he will allow our Allies to come into the same benefits which we have from the bounty.
9.0 P.M.
I think a matter like this, involving such a great change of far-reaching importance, altering the whole of our international commerce practically, should not be done by a Committee—I will not call it a packed Committee, because I do not like that word, but rather a one-sided and interested Committee. An interested Committee is not the Committee that should be set up to make a change like this. I do not think any action should be taken by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in putting this into force until the Mother Parliament has thoroughly thrashed it out and decided that it is to be her policy. But what about our Colonies? Crown Colonies have not a Parliament of their own and have no representative House—and I do not think it is possible for them to have it—but then, if they have not got that form of government, it is all the more reason why no step should be taken in this extraordinary way without coming to Parliament; and I do think, if we are to deal with all our Colonies, the whole thing should be settled at one time. It is rather unfortunate for people in business to know that matters are so uncertain, and not be able to toll what the future is to be like at all. I do not think it is necessary for me to say much about the natives, because hon. Members who have spoken before know far more about the condition of natives in that part of the world than I do, but it does not do to tell people who have been in business for a good many years that the elimination of foreign buyers, or buyers from other countries, will make no difference to the natives. It is very often the object of business people to try to eliminate competition. The tendency of great businesses like shipping and manufacturing is to work in conference, and these people in those Colonies who buy the goods will certainly meet together and no doubt fix the 610 price which they are going to pay for kernels. Therefore, the native has practically no voice in this matter and one cannot say what his views are. On the Committee we had no native witnesses. I will not say it was possible to get a native witness, but I do not think throughout the long evidence there can be found one witness who can be said fairly to represent the case of the natives.
I do not think there was anybody there to represent the case of the natives. Hon. Members will agree that it is a very bad position in which those natives are at the present time. I do not want to see a German anywhere again myself or have anything to do with them, but I do not want to eliminate other people for that would be a fatal thing, I think, before we go to a Division, which I hope may be avoided by my hon. Friend making some statement about this question, so that we may feel that the natives are not going to be in the hands of only a few buyers, and without much competition in the sale of their kernels. I believe certain manufacturers have already tried to crush kernels in the Colonies, but difficulties have arisen with labour and running the machinery there, and those difficulties were not got over some time ago. I do not know whether they have been got over now. Having put a duty on the export of the raw material you do not put it on the palm oil, a great amount of which is made by the natives in a rough way. As there is no duty on manufactured articles there is nothing to prevent enterprising British firms putting mills up there after the War and making an article which will be a half manufactured article, and which might be sent to our German enemies. I see nothing unless you frame fresh Regulations to stop this, and when you once begin on this kind of thing the Colonial Office will be very busy, because they will have to have a different net in every Colony, and they will have to have schedules for every article produced. What I have suggested is not an impossible way for an enterprising manufacturer to get out of paying the duty and sending those goods to Germany.
I am sorry that the hon Member for Chester (Captain Sir Owen Philipps) is not here, but I did think, with his vast knowledge and his great interest in shipping, he would have dealt in some detail with the shipping question. One of the reasons, I think, which will make it worse than ever, if this duty is insisted upon, is 611 the position of shipping in West Afrca. Those who read the evidence will find that the hon. Member for Chester represents almost the whole of these interested steamship companies that deal with the traffic from West Africa, and those steamships, in conjunction with the German steamers, brought all the goods to this country to Rotterdam and to Hamburg. Before the War there was no competition as far as we know. There were subtle suggestions that if you went by one German steamer some rebate was given to you. One witness said if you shipped by a German line and wanted a little extra credit at the bank it was possible that a German bank might help you if the goods were sent by German steamer. We had a lot of suggestions at that time about subsidies, but when you are trying to find out these things which happen in a belligerent country it is very different indeed. My view is that not only will the natives have little competition in which to get a better price for their nuts, but after the War it will be no good for a German ship to go there, and I hope they will not go there. We shall find, however, that a monopoly will come into the hands of the steamship companies that serve West Africa at the present time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester said to-day that they had been very generous and had not put up their freights very much from West Africa. I believe that is perfectly true, but they were very high before the War, and I think the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) will agree with me when I state that before the War the freights were very high on account of the conference. They have gone up since, but not so much as other freights. We examined the hon. Member for Chester, but we did not not have any other shipowner as a witness. The hon. Member offered to go into the chair and we had the pleasure of examining him, and we discovered the very clever way in which the trade of West Africa had been captured. In chartering a freight the first thing you have to do is to go to one of the shipping companies and agree for a whole year to send all your goods by that line, and if you send one ton by any other competitor during that year the whole of the rebate of 10 per cent., which is not a paltry amount when you are doing a large business, is lost. That means if you start a business in West Africa you cannot charter a steamer to 612 bring a cargo of kernels from West Africa except with the monopoly company, because if you do you cannot get your 10 per cent, rebate from the monopoly company. That is a great tax on the Colony The hon. Member for Chester said they would never put up the rates unreasonably, and my reply to that argument is that while there is a chairman like the hon. Member managing the company, of course nothing would be done which is unfair, but you never know what may happen afterwards. That is the position, and is that a proper position for a British Colony to be in? New Zealand has been buying steamers. There they have Home Rule, and manage their own affairs, but the country we are dealing with is in the hands of these monopolists who cannot be got rid of.
I suggested in my report that where you have an absolute monopoly of steamship companies going to a Colony, and if they are allowed to have that monopoly, their rates should be settled in the same way as the rates of a railway company which has its maximum rates settled by going before the Board of Trade or the Railway Commission. Competition, I think, would be almost impossible after the War but in the case of a monopoly of this kind the rates certainly ought to be regulated by the State in some way. We made careful inquiries into the conditions at the German ports compared with the conditions at the British ports. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the schedule of charges on goods arriving in this country, they will find that every port in England is different, and that nearly all the charges for landing and handling the kernels are far higher than they are at Hamburg, Rotterdam, or any of the Continental ports. That is one reason why kernels went to Germany. I do not know whether the docks there are State or privately owned, but I do know that they are far more up-to-date than the docks in this country, and that their charges are insignificant compared with our charges. If we want to bring business to this country, we must give fair treatment to the natives when they send their goods here. I hope the day is not far distant when in the case of all monopolies—docks, rivers, railways, and so on—the maximum charges will be fixed or regulated by the Board of Trade.
I admit that my proposed assistance is slow, but I believe that the proposals I make will deal with the question even 613 when the War is over, and will bring the kernels to this country. If we can give proper facilities at the hundreds of ports which there are along the West Coast of Africa for dealing with the kernels—proper lighters and smaller vessels to bring them down the rivers, proper harbours, and silos if necessary for loading the steamers—we shall be doing far more to bring the trade to this country than by this old-fashioned, clumsy and unfair way. I therefore hope that we shall hear to-night something definite about what will be done for our Allies, and what will be done to prevent the natives from being greatly damaged. This is a large and useful trade, and we want to bring it to this country, not merely for five years. We do not want to have to consider the question every five years. Colonial Secretaries do not generally last for five years, and, if it is considered every five years, you will certainly have a fresh Colonial Secretary every time, and you do not know what his views may be. It would be very difficult for people to arrange their business. Capital is not attracted by changes in the office of Colonial Secretary. You will be much more likely to get capital into this business if it is known that it is not subject to the whims of political parties or of Colonial Secretaries. If you can only induce the goods to come in the way I suggest, you will be on much safer ground.
I felt that it was impossible for me to sign a Report like this at the present time. I do not want to tread on this ground too far, but I felt that it was a breaking of the political truce. I felt that a Coalition Government, doing this sort of thing, especially without coming to Parliament, was not quite keeping the political truce. We ought not to be arguing about things of this kind now. Have Committees to consider them, but do not let us argue about things of this kind until we go into conference with our Allies and can settle matters altogether. I feel very strongly about this. I feel that the Colonial Secretary, if he takes action on this Report, will be taking a very serious step. It may be a small amount in the whole of the business of the British Empire, but he will be treading along a path which is very dangerous, and I hope that he will hesitate before he finally takes action.
§ Major HUNTThere seems to me to be a very large controversy about nuts. This is my way of looking at it. If a man or 614 nation owns a large quantity of nut land, and has to administer it and look after the people—
§ Major HUNTThe land belongs to the Empire, does it not; and the people who live on it grow nuts, do they not? If a man or nation owns nut land, and has to look after the people who live on it, and protect them from Germans and other barbarians, it is perfectly right that man or nation should have the first and a better chance of buying the nuts off that land than anybody else. All this controversy merely comes to that, and it seems to me that the Colonial Secretary is perfectly right, and that the principle is perfectly right. I am quite sure that the natives will be very much better off under us, even if there is an export duty, than under the Germans, and I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen are making such a fuss about it. I want to call attention to another matter. Certain time-expired soldiers, or men whose health, through wounds or otherwise, is not sufficiently good for them to continue in the Army, are going to the Colonies under an impression which appears to have been allowed to grow up by the War Office that positions will be found for them directly they get there. I want to bring a particular case relating to Australia to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, because, as the man himself said, it is a case which in the near future is likely to be multiplied by hundreds unless something is done by the Imperial and the Colonial Governments to put things right. The officials in charge of the Pension Department commuted part of this man's pension to enable him to go to Australia, and what I want to impress on the hon. Gentleman is that, until things are properly settled so that the man can find a home when he gets to a Colony, he should not be allowed to commute his pension merely for passage money, so as to leave him nothing when he gets there.
This case is the case of ex-Gunner Smith, and might have been a very sad one indeed if he had not been helped by local people. All the local funds in Australia are ear-marked for the assistance of Australian soldiers only, and if it had not been for the Australian Immigration League and their friends, this ex-gunner and his wife and family would have been, undoubtedly, in a state of starvation, 615 because the balance of his pension was only 1s. a day. It was paid quarterly, so that when he had spent the £55 given him he had nothing at all to live on. It is really the want of ordinary business arrangements, and the co-operation of the Government, that caused this man to arrive in Australia without any means of providing for himself or his family at all. It caused great consternation in Australia, and this is particularly unfortunate, because Australia is the country whose very existence as part of the Empire depends on immigration, of getting man-power. This man, J. Smith, was thirty-nine years of age, and his wife was about the same. They had five children, smallish girls, from eleven to two years old, and they arrived in Australia on the 8th May. The man had been in the Royal Artillery seven years, and he was invalided. This is the point to which I direct attention: He read the statements in the newspapers to the effect that the Australian Government were providing small farms and equipment for ex-Service men. The War Office appear to have taken these statements in the newspapers for granted, and allowed the man to have £55 down, instead of 3d. a day. When he arrived in Australia the friend who had got him out there could not provide for him. The only thing he got him was a cottage at 16s. a week. Luckily the case was brought to the notice of the Australian Immigration Society, and he was eventually provided for. If, however, it had not been for them—and there was no reason why he should have found them; that was good luck rather than good management—it would have been a very serious case, and the man might have starved. Smith's opinion is that unless the true position of affairs regarding the settlement of ex-Service men on the land in Australia is made public, there will be many other cases of the same sort arising in Australia. He was highly recommended to the British Immigration League by the Naval and Military League of London, and he was just the sort of man that Australia wanted. He wanted to get on to the land, and did not want to stay in the town; but there was nowhere for him to go, although that was eventually provided for by the Immigration League. It appears that if these ex-Service men are to be a success in our Colonies there must be a sum provided for them by the Imperial Government to take them over during the first few weeks they are 616 there. The hon. Gentleman looks rather bored. I dare say I am boring him, but the matter—
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland)I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not think I was discourteous. To tell the truth, I am not in the least bored, but a little hungry.
§ Major HUNTI have had some dinner, so it is not quite fair; but I will be as quick as ever I can.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDNo, no!
§ Major HUNTI am going on all right. The War Office and the medical men examined this man to see what his life value was worth, took it for granted that the newspaper statements were correct, and the money was advanced to him on that understanding. It took nearly all this money which the War Office advanced to him to get him to Australia. Sir Rider Haggard, I think, has just come back from Australia. He was given splendid offers by all the Australian Governments, and what is wanted is financial assistance from the Imperial Government to provide and equip with the necessaries of life British soldiers and sailors and their families just for a brief period. In cabling to Lord Grey the British Immigration League suggests that they should confer with, I think it is, Mr. Hughes, and secure his co-operation. They also said:
We warmly endorse the Report, of the Ontario Commission.It does not seem to me that it is quite clear that the Home Government and the Colonial Government should get together, and get out some scheme for immigration within the Empire, whether to Canada or to Australia. I think the Report of the Commission which was appointed by the Ontario Government to consider the problem of the employment of ex-Service men is really very well worth the consideration of the Government. It is this:To discharge the Empire's obligation to these men, and in order to obviate what may prove a grave economic and social crisis, the Commissioners suggest that for the general purpose of inter-imperial immigration and land settlement the United Kingdom and the Dominions should review it as a single whole. It should be possible effectively to unite the Imperial and Dominion Governments in a policy which will keep immigration more and more within the Empire, cheek the drain of population to foreign countries, and so conserve British manhood for the development of British territories, and for the support and defence 617 of British institutions against future contingencies. Finally, the Commissioners recommend that an Imperial Immigration Board be organised in London representing the British Government, the Governments of the Dominions, and such Provinces and States as desire to be represented—the cost to be borne jointly by all the Governments concerned—and with a Board to be responsible for the distribution of information regarding opportunities in the Dominions, labour conditions, and the cost of transport.I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this matter is well worth his consideration, and that it is quite time he was up and moving in regard to it. It will not do for him to be too late, because he will not be able to do everything at the end of the War. There is one other thing I should like to bring before the Colonial Office. It was told to me by a man who came over with me from Canada in 1912. When a large number of Australian soldiers arrived in this country they were sent to a certain camp, but no bedding or food was provided for them when they arrived. This man's own son was one of the men who came over. The excuse of the authorities always was that the men were not expected. The right hon. Gentleman might look into that, which is a thing that should not be. The men should, at all events, be provided with decent bedding and food when they reach here. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the War Office upon the subject and arrange that it does not happen again.
Sir HERBERT ROBERTSI recognise to the full the very important question of international trade policy which has mainly been considered by the Committee up to the present moment, but I should like to go back to Ceylon for the purpose of referring to a question in which I have for a long time taken considerable interest, namely, that of the Excise system there and the result of that system upon the people. Everyone in the Committee will agree that under present war conditions it is impossible for the Colonial Office or any public Department to supervise these things quite in the same way as they would in normal circumstances. We all know the absorption, not only of the Department, but of the whole country in the War, and how impossible it is to give that attention to details in all parts of the world which it is necessary should be done under normal conditions. I desire to make it quite plain that the present Colonial Secretary was not responsible for the Office when the new Excise system was instituted a few years ago. The right hon. Gentleman has always shown me, 618 when I have made representations to him on this point and on other matters, every courtesy, and has been ready to inquire as quickly and effectively as possible into the points with reference to which I made representations to him. Ever since this new Excise system was established in Ceylon there has been created between all sections of the people of the island—Buddhists, Tamils, Europeans—and the Government an antagonism which I cannot help thinking has had very prejudicial results. The main effect of the new Excise system in regard to the liquor traffic was that it established rather more than one thousand additional toddy shops. When that was done opposition arose against the Excise policy of the Government. It was particularly manifested by the Buddhist community, which represents rather more than two-thirds of the population of the island. All Buddhists are by religion and immemorial tradition required to take the pledge of total abstinence.
The practical question I should like to ask is, What has been the result of the new system? Has it tended to reduce or to increases the consumption of intoxicating liquor on the island? Upon this point it is rather difficult to obtain a clear view from the official figures. There are two facts I would wish to place before the Committee in regard to statistics. During the five years prior to the coming into operation of the new Excise system the average consumption of arrack in the island was just over 1,000,000 gallons. During the four years after the coming into operation of the new system the consumption of arrack, on an average, has been 1,400,000 gallons. The effects of this Excise policy upon events in the island have been unfortunate and deplorable. Reference has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) to the steps taken by the Government in the first place with regard to the village headmen, by prohibiting them from taking any part in temperance work. Anybody who knows the conditions in Ceylon knows how influential these men are. That Order was withdrawn, owing to representations made in this country on the point, but the effect of the Order and the fear which was created in the minds of the people by it have not been forgotten. It remains to-day a factor in the situation. There is another point in relation to the Excise policy to which I should like to 619 refer. It is a recent event. A rule or order has been passed recently which makes it plain that owners or managers of schools or schoolmasters, if their action is considered to be action against the Government, render themselves liable to lose all the school Grants, and the impression which has been created in the island by that rule is that it is not safe for any schoolmaster in Ceylon to take any part in temperance work or to be a member of a temperance society. I think that is a serious result of the policy of the Government. I could give facts showing that instances have already occurred of resignations having been received by schoolmasters in consequence of these orders. I do not wish to over emphasise this point, but I feel that it is an important one. There is a deeply-rooted conviction in Ceylon to-day that all persons who are active temperance workers are regarded by the officials as being hostile to the Government, and are looked upon with suspicion and distrust. I cannot help thinking that to convey that impression must be bad for the Government and for the island as a whole. It is a bad thing that the impression should get abroad that people by taking part, as I believe they do, upon constitutional lines and in a peaceful way should be liable to suspicion and to the penalty of State interference, and, holding those views very strongly, I would again urge upon my right hon. Friend the desirability that some public declaration should be made in Ceylon which will put these points beyond the possibility of doubt in the public mind.
There is one more suggestion I should like to make of a general character. We all recognise the immense changes which are taking place and which will take place in regard not only to every department of our home life, but every branch of our Imperial life, and I think it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman would consider this suggestion: Cannot the House of Commons in some way help the Government in formulating the policy of the future in regard to our Colonial Empire? Would it not be possible for, say, a certain number of Members of this House, a small Committee drawn from all parties, to be appointed for the purpose of making suggestions to the Colonial Office as to certain very important administrative questions which will have to be settled in the near future, and which strike at the root of real and permanent 620 success in our Colonial Government. I hope my right hon. Friend, in regard to this question of the drink traffic in Ceylon, will give me some assurance that at the end of the War there will be a fresh and independent inquiry into the whole question.
Mr. CHANCELLORI wish to refer in the first place to the incident which took place just now. I am glad the Colonial Secretary withdrew what looked like an insinuation against his fellow Members, but this statement of his, and the production of the letter by a foreign manufacturer to a Member of this House without the name of the Member being specified, will throw suspicion upon every person who takes any opposition whatever to the proposals in the Report of the Colonial Secretary. We cannot get away from that, and therefore I find it necessary to say that that letter was not addressed to me and I know nothing at all about it. In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's justification of the policy lie has adopted, and its effects, it seems to me that the policy is aimed at enabling British manufacturers to escape reasonable competition. But I am much more interested in the question raised by my hon. Friend (Sir H. Roberts). I do not want to deal with the question of the Ceylon riots generally, but only with one aspect of it. In the course of this Report certain statements are made by the then Governor to which I want to make reference. The religious convictions of the mass of the population of Ceylon are strongly against the use of alcohol in any form whatever. The Buddhists and the Mahomedans are both against it. Also under the new system which has been referred to toddy shops have been opened against the wishes of the local people in many villages in different parts of the island. The introduction of drink where it was not before, and the forcing of the sale of drink upon people who do not want it have led to a good deal of agitation and to the organisation of strong bodies of local temperance opinion into effective temperance societies. These societies were formerly largely organised by the headmen, who at one time were prohibited from taking part in temperance, though afterwards the prohibition was removed. Until recently there has been a great demand by those interested in the education of the country. It is perfectly natural that men who are interested in education would be amongst the most intelligent of the population. It is most 621 likely to see the evils resulting from the use of intoxicants, and to see the moral wrong done by its use against the religious convictions of the people amongst whom the traffic is carried on, and they have been the effective centres around whom local temperance sentiment has gathered. In 1915 an alteration in the education code created an impression that schoolmasters who took part in temperance work would be debarred from receiving the usual Government grant. The result of that has been that a large number of schoolmasters and owners and managers of schools, which depended more or less on Government grants, have felt compelled to resign from their positions and that the temperance movement, which, remember, originated as a religious movement amongst the Buddhists themselves for self-protection against what they regarded as the Government forcing upon their people a temptation from which they had before been free, have felt compelled to withdraw from that work. The result has been the closing down of a large number of these local temperance societies, the reduction of temperance work, an increase in the consumption of alcohol, and an increase in the income derived by the Government from the sale of permits to sell alcohol. In connection with these riots, I see that the Governor makes the statement that—
The ground (for these riots) has been prepared for animosity against Mahomedans by articles printed in vernacular newspapers, and by oral exhortations at meetings of village societies, which, though originally formed to promote temperance, have long since been extended to other purposes.That is a direct suggestion that the temperance people of Ceylon have been disloyal and seditious, that they are at the bottom of these troubles, and that the temperance societies are societies not honestly engaged in the social and religious upliftment of their fellows, but are engaged in political propaganda of a disloyal character, directed to upset the English Government. These men are amongst the most high-minded men in the population, and they resent this suggestion and call for proof of it. The Colonial Secretary has again and again been asked for proof, but not one shred of proof has ever been produced. Beyond this assertion of the Governor they have produced only one item of proof that the temperance organisations are assisting in any way with this kind of propaganda. That item is this statement:As all instance—622 the only instance given—of what temperance occasionally means in this country, I might quote the case of a temperance orator and Buddhist preacher, who was arrested while inciting the mob to wreck the Moorish boutiques in Kurmogala, and who pleaded in excuse that he was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing.That is the only association of the temperance societies with this movement. It was thought desirable that certain leaders of the temperance movement should be brought into this matter, and when the riots took place a number of the leaders were arrested. Some are in this country to-day. About one of them a question was put in this House not many days ago—he is a gentleman named Mr. Jayatiloka. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said:Mr. Jayatiloka was arrested on the 21st June, 1915, by order of the general officer commanding the troops as a result of evidence disclosing seditious speeches and writings."—The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:I see no ground for reparation or for further explanation in this case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1916, col. 686, Vol. LXXXIV]10.0 P.M.Mr. Jayatiloka is a man of undoubted respectability, with a large circle of friends amongst the most intelligent natives of Ceylon. He is a practising barrister before the Courts of Ceylon, and has been for many years an eloquent exponent of temperance and loader in the temperance movement in Ceylon. He was arrested and kept in prison for many days, if not for many weeks. He was asked to give a bond and lodge a sum of money as security, which he refused to do, but his friends lodged the amount, and I believe he gave the bond to be of good behaviour for a certain length of time, and he was thereupon released, without any charge having been made against him. He is under suspicion of being a seditious person. He lives under that suspicion, and he resents it strongly. He has appealed again and again to the right hon. Gentleman to allow some charge to be formulated, to allow his case to come before the Courts, and to produce some evidence of his guilt. The question regarding him was put by the hon. Member (Mr. Ginnell), who was suspended from the service of this House the other day, and that the right hon. Gentleman used the words "as a result of evidence disclosing seditious speeches and writings." That is either true or it is false. If it is true, the evidence can be produced. If it 623 is false, it is a slander, and this gentleman, who is only one of a number—and I am only mentioning him because he is one of a number—has again and again appealed to have justice done to him, and that his character should be vindicated in public before his own fellow citizens, so that, at any rate, they may know that he is not the kind of person described in this House by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In the interests of justice, and in the interests of our reputation as a governing Power, bound by responsibilities to these people, not only to do justice to them, but to give them the impression that they can rely upon our justice and upon the justice of this House, this gentleman, and a number of others who have suffered like him, ought to be brought before the local Courts, tried and condemned if guilty, or, if not, the matter should be made perfectly clear that no stain whatever attaches to their character.
There is a further matter. I want to ask the Colonial Secretary whether he cannot do more than has been done to make it clear that the impression which exists among this Ceylon population that the financial interests of this country and the interests of the Revenue Officers are against the temperance movement, may be removed by a clear declaration that it shall not be regarded as sedition or as political opposition to the Government for these men to organise, owing to their convictions, for the purpose of inducing their people to be true to their religious faith and to fight the great evil of alcohol which is growing amongst them. I ask that the impression that we as a Government are against that should be removed. During the last year there has been not only a largo increase in the sales of alcohol amongst this population, pledged to total abstinence by their religious faith, but there has been a large increase in the revenue from it. Out of a total revenue of £520,510 received all over the island, £70,000 represents the increase last year, and that increase has taken place in every single area except one, and that area is the Nogombo district, which, I understand, is quite near to Colombo. It is an area in which a number of these imprisoned gentlemen live, and where they have been able, in spite of all discouragement, to maintain a temperance propaganda. Everywhere else the temper- 624 ance propaganda has been damaged by this unfortunate impression created by the Act of the Government in altering the education code. Where you have gentlemen sufficiently strong and capable to continue their temperance propaganda, they have defeated what looks like, but what is not, the aim of the Government to push the sales of liquor in the interests of the revenue. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to remove that most unfortunate impression, which associates the English Government in the minds of the local population of Ceylon with the drink trade, and causes the Government to be regarded as the enemies of the religious convictions of the people of Ceylon.
§ Mr. BIGLANDThere has been moved to-night a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman, and there has been a good deal of what I might call carping at the Colonial Office. If there has been one Department of the British Government that I think deserves the very highest praise from this House, it is the Colonial Department of the present Government. I have had a great deal to do with it during the last six months, and I wish to testify to the magnificent work done, not only by the right hon. Gentleman and his Under-Secretary, but by the permanent staff in the Colonial Office. It may be news to the Members of this House that by the foresight of the permanent officials in that Department this War, and the means of carrying on the War, have been most materially advanced. Very few Members of this House know that, in the preparation of cordite, glycerine is the essential article required, and owing to the foresight of our Colonial Office when the whalers transferred their trade from the Arctic to the Antarctic we were enabled, as the guardians of the British Empire, to control the whole of that trade by giving out the licences. When the War broke out the Colonial Office went a stage further. They had the foresight to see that if we supplied the whalers with coal and other necessities of their business, it was only fair to attach to the licences the condition that the product of their catch must be sold in the United Kingdom. The result has been that during this year we have received in this country 600,000 barrels of whale oil, one-tenth of which is glycerine, that is, 60,000 barrels of glycerine brought into this country, enabling us to produce 625 cordite at an exceedingly reasonable price, and this altogether owing to the foresight of the members of our Colonial Office staff. Therefore, in my opinion, Mr. Davies and Mr. Darnley, the two gentlemen who are at the head of that Department, deserve our warmest thanks, and I trust that in the days to come they will receive some honour, because it is true that it is one of the greatest assets of our permanent staff that they have the foresight to lay down the lines of policy in such a way that years afterwards good will come of what they have done.
The action that has been talked about so much to-day is on the same lines. The policy propounded to-day on which there has been so much discussion, to my mind, is absolutely certain to bring good results to our Empire in the days to come, and I fail to understand the Gentlemen who have spoken so violently against the Colonial Office and the Committee who proposed this duty on palm kernels on the West Coast of Africa. I can only conceive that this attitude of mind is one of these virtues that are almost gone mad. We have in our own country men who believe so intensely in humanity and in what they are called on to do for the sake of humanity that they forget entirely their duties to their own people. It is almost a disease among some of our Friends in this House. Their humanity has become morbid until they have not a just sense of where humanity begins. Humanity, in the minds of a great many of our Friends, seems to begin altogether outside of their own country. They never think for our own people. They are always thinking of some other people. But there are times when we, as Englishmen, have got to think for the people of our country and not for the upholding' of our enemy.
The hon. Member for Leicester, referring to the enemy business in palm kernel oil, said that we should follow the policy of buying machinery and having chemical research work, and doing the other things by which Germany has built up its trade. I will tell him how Germany built up its trade. Thirty years ago in Liverpool, where we had a good start with this trade, Germany said, "We will not take your palm kernel oil. We will put a duty of £6 per ton on it." And that is how they built up their trade. No one could send the manufactured oil to Germany. They imported their kernels to Germany with- 626 out duty, but we were charged £6 a ton on the manufactured article, while Hamburg sent its oil to Liverpool free of duty. This enabled them to charge £2 per ton more for the oil which they sold in Germany than they charged for that which they sent back to Liverpool, which was £2 under cost. The result was that the Liverpool crusher was ruined. Our Friend says, "Why not follow the policy of German?" If we did we should do exactly the same thing in another way which the Secretary of the Colonies is doing to-night. If we put a duty of £6 a ton on the manufactured oil and imported the nuts free of duty, and in addition put a duty of 1½d. per 1b. on the manufactured margarine, which is the outcome of the palm kernel oil, then you would have exactly the same thing—the industry centred in this country. It is a matter of indifference to me whether the industry is centred in this country. By an export duty on the kernels, rebated to ourselves, and, as the Secretary of the Colonies said, to our Allies, or by the other more roundabout means of putting the duty on the manufactured oil and the manufactured products of the manufactured oil. It is a matter of indifference as long as we get the trade.
The Member for Leicester said that this was not one of the key industries. I want to tell the Committee that it is. This extraordinary trade that has developed in my business life in forty years is becoming one of the key industries of this country, and I will explain why in a few words. As has been stated over and over again, this palm kernel oil is the basis, or one of the bases, of the manufacture of margarine. Margarine, owing to the fact that butter is and must be comparatively scarce for the number of people who want it, has an enormous future before it. I am told by experts that before this year is out we shall see the wholesale price of butter £190 per ton. This article can be made at a profit at £60, or at all events, £65 a ton. The position is simply this: The whole trade begins in that raw article, from which arises an enormous trade in the manufacture of margarine. And we shall have what they have in Hamburg to-day, a centre of trade for export to all parts of the world of this particular oil that is becoming a necessity of the human life in almost every nation, instead of having the raw British product being sent to the enemy for manufacture and then sent back to the different 627 Dominions. Here we have Hamburg sending palm kernel oil to Canada in great quantities. This proposed change by the Colonial Office, I say as an expert in business, will bring the trade to this country.
It will not cost in the manufacture of margarine any more whether your kernels are crushed here or crushed in Germany. The price of the food of the people will be just the same, but the amount of work and industry developed in this country will be immense. It has been said by Members on the other side who know nothing of what they are talking about, because they have never been in business, that if this duty is put on we cut off the trade from the native seller. We shall not. The people in Germany know this article and love it, and they are going to have all they require for their own home consumption. But this measure will prevent them taking the export trade from us. The £2 a ton is a bagatelle in the cost of the margarine that will be made. It is often merely the market fluctuation of a week. But the £2 a ton will kill them except in the buying of what their own people want to consume in Germany itself, and it will enable us to compete with them in the export trade in this article. That is what we as a nation are here for—to manufacture the products of our own Empire, and to send the goods all over the world. We are going to do this thing, and do it heartily. I trust that no Member of the House will vote against this proposal. If he does, it means that he has not any grasp of the situation as it is at present. This is a measure of war, a measure to strengthen the decision which we arrived at last night, that we are going to conserve the raw products of the countries that are allied together in this great fight, in order to assist one another as Allies in such a way that we shall punish the enemy. I am not afraid to use the words "punish the enemy" in trade and commerce. I am convinced that the feeling of this country is that whatever reasonable and legal kind of business can be carried through, we are going to carry it through. We are going to prevent Germany from rebuilding her stolen trade, for it was stolen trade, not trade obtained in natural competition with a Free Trade country-like ours, but trade stolen through clever artifices and tricks. I, for one, am going to fight, and if any hon. Members can stand up after the War in the same spirit as they did in regard to Germany before 628 the War, I say the feeling of this House and the country will down them, so that never again will they disgrace this House of Commons by being sent back to sit on these benches.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI propose to deal with some of the subjects that have been raised, though not at any greater length than necessary, and, with one exception, I have nothing whatever to complain of in the spirit with which hon. Members approached the question of Ceylon or the question of the Palm Kernel Duty. In regard to Ceylon, my right hon. Friend, in his speech, covered all the points, save one with which I now propose to deal. The hon. Member (Mr. Chancellor) brought up the question of the general attitude of the Government towards temperance and temperance societies in Ceylon. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no wish on the part of the Government in Ceylon to do anything whatsoever except to further the cause of temperance. The hon. Member quoted what was rather an amusing instance of on? particular temperance orator.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDAt any rate, the hon. Member will agree that the proof in these matters does not rest on the single assertion that the temperance societies were not true to their name. In regard to this question of temperance, I propose to quote the answer of the Governor, given in the Ceylon Legislative Council, with regard to the temperance movement. The Governor said:
I will answer hon. Member's first two questions together. The Clause in the Code is not meant to apply to temperance societies acting in a constitutional manner, and will not be applied to them. It would, however, apply to cases where, as has happened in the past, so-called temperance societies have endeavoured to spread their views by wholly illegitimate means, including intimidation and boycotting, or have used their organisation, not for temperance purposes, but for the purpose of a general political agitation against the Government. As I indicated in my answer to the hon. Member's first two questions, the Government have no desire to restrict he activities of genuine temperance societies which confine themselves to propagating their views by constitutional methods. The Government has no reason to believe that any of its officers would be likely to take any action in opposition to this policy, and would not approve any such action.That was the statement in public in the Legislative Council before all the members of the Legislative Council.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDIn the first place, may I say that being the open and public statement of the Governor, I think the hon. Member probably went further than he himself meant to go by saying, if his words reached me right, that the Government was forcing the sale of drink on these who did not want it. The question of the arrack shops is an old one. By means of having different shops for the sale of arrack and toddy the object, instead of encouraging drink, was the reverse, and was to prevent these who frequented toddy taverns being in the neighbourhood, so to speak, of arrack and taking to its use. As regards temperance societies, I wish to quote two instances of their political use. They happen to my hand, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is not based on one such statement as that which he has quoted. In the first place, you get the statement made in public at the Convention of the Temperance Societies.
It is becoming evident that our temperance convention will in the near future become our national convention, and we should all work with that object in view.If the hon. Member will read that in connection with the general movement in Ceylon he will see that it is a demand for political action on the part of these temperance societies. That is the whole tendency up to the time of the rebellion last year. Let me also quote from an article in one of the local papers. In the article the Buddhists are told of the trouble experienced at the hands of the Moors, and it is stated that the time has corns for taking speedy measures to stop this sort of thing. It proceeds to say that exertion should be made by the noble altruistic men who go from the Central Temperance Union to make public speeches in the country districts. All the members of the temperance societies should awaken the public to a sense of this, and that if action is taken on these lines a good lesson can be taught to the Moors. That paper is edited by one of the principal speakers at the meetings of these societies. these instances could be multiplied, and they quite definitely show that teaching of that kind, quite possibly against the immediate wish of the people who allowed it, led to that spirit which was at the bottom of the rebellion which caused such damage and injury last year.
§ Mr. MORRELLDoes the hon. Gentleman mean to call it a rebellion?
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDIf not a rebellion in the strict sense of the word, it was quite certainly a revolt, in the sense that it was a complete disregard of ordinary lawful authority, accompanied by loss of life and by very considerable material damage, and that in defiance of all the ordinary laws of government. I do not know whether the hon. Member really means to describe as a religious "squabble" a movement which caused a very large loss of property and the loss of a considerable number of lives. I should call it by a very different name. Such at least has been the effect of mistaken tendencies in the temperance associations. But so far as these tendencies are put a stop to, let me reassure hon. Members perfectly definitely that there is no ill-will whatsoever against the temperance side of their work. If they will keep to their temperance work, there is every wish to encourage and not to hurt their operations.
I pass now to the subject which has been dealt with at greater length—the report of the Palm Kernel Committee. Exception has been taken by my hon. Friend (Mr. Wiles), who was a member of the Committee, to its composition, and I think the hon. Member for Bury (Sir G. Toulmin) said it was a packed Committee. That, I think, may cause hon. Members to come to a very untrue estimate of what the composition of the Committee really was. May I refer to the actual composition of the Committee? It consisted, in the first place, of three representatives chosen by the Chambers of Commerce, who asked for an examination to be made into the subject. It was composed, in the second place, of three public officials—representatives of the Colonial Office, of the Board of Trade, and of the Board of Agriculture—who, so far as I know, had absolutely no political and no economic bias of any sort or kind. We had on the Committee two Colonial Governors, the Governor-General of Nigeria and the Governor of the Gold Coast. The Governor-General of Nigeria quite explicitly expressed his approval of the proposal, and, if I may say so to my hon. Friend, because I know that he and I both wish to be fair to the point of view of the other, the Governor-General of Nigeria, whose sympathy for the natives is well known to every Member of the House, was really quite as good a representative of the native point of view as any individual 631 native could have been who could have been brought before the Committee as a witness. In addition to these members, we had the director of the Imperial Institute. No one in this Committee would challenge the propriety of his being a member. We had one banker—the general manager of the Bank of British West Africa. I have not the least idea what his political views were. There were three other members. I asked the Liberal Chief Whip that a Liberal Member of Parliament might be placed upon the Committee so that no one should think it unfair because I was a Unionist Member, and there was no Liberal Member, so to speak, to counterbalance me. There were only two other members of the Committee, one who knew the business excellently from the point of view of the makers of margarine, and the other a manufacturer of soap. Sir George Watson, the margarine manufacturer, was a Liberal, and the representative of the soap makers was a member of the firm of Sir William Lever. If the Committee had been biassed in any way it would have been biassed against the political party which I represent. If anyone will consider its composition—
§ Mr. WILESMay I interrupt? I never suggested that it was political bias at all. What I suggested was that this interest to go into this matter consisted of people many of whom were interested in this particular trade.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI am afraid I misunderstood my hon. Friend. It was the hon. Member for Bury, perhaps, in a moment of temporary irritation, who called it a packed Committee. That, certainly, was to my mind a perfectly clear indication of what I gathered from his interruption. After that I want to deal perfectly frankly, and as temperately as I can, with the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, who took very great exception to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. Even after the explanation had been made that no imputation on his character was intended, he said that, as a matter of taste, he regretted that any such course had been followed. I would preface my subsequent remarks by appreciating the way in which the subject, on which there has been a great difference of opinion, has been treated by others. But may I say, in regard to the hon. Member for 632 Leicester, that I think the innuendoes and imputations contained in his speech were as offensive as the imputations which were contained in the speech, or which he thought were contained in the speech, of my right hon. Friend, though with this difference that they largely concerned people who are not present. At the same time, the statements on which he founded his observations are really devoid of foundation.
The. hon. Member accused the traders of neglect and inefficiency. He accused the members of the Committee of ignorance—of ignorance even of what an export duty was. He accused us of ignorance of what had happened and what had been done in regard to tin in the Malay Federated States. He was wrong as regards the Malay Federated States. In respect to export duty, though perhaps it is hardly worth arguing with him, I venture to think that the statement that the whole Committee did not even understand what an export duty really was is not an argument which will convince any body of reasonable men. As regards the fact that this is not a key industry? How to define a key industry may be; rather a difficult matter, but at the same time may I just ask these friends of mine, who are dubious about the key industry, to consider at the present time the position of Germany in regard to oils and fats? If there is one item in the blockade which they are feeling most acutely it is the lack of oils and fats. The hon. Member has accused us of lack of care on behalf of the natives. I can bear that accusation perfectly easily, because I have as great a solicitude for the natives as has the hon. Member for Leicester As regards others an indication of the presence or absence of such are seen from the letters sent by native chiefs, quite spontaneously, to the Governor-General of Nigeria, and forwarded to the Colonial Office. Neither the letters nor the gifts accompanying them were prompted, but were absolutely spontaneous, unsought, and unsolicited.
§ Mr. R. MACDONALDWas it because of the proposed Export Duty?
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDThe hon. Member's remark, if I may say so, is wholly inapposite. The hon. Member has accused all these on the Committee, except my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, of a lack of care for the natives, and I would ask the rest of the Committee 633 is it possible that the man under whose rule you get all these spontaneous gifts is a man who is likely to have a lack of care for the natives? Lastly, we are told that the men who are engaged in commerce have stripped themselves of, I think it was, every rag of decency. At any rate, the word "decency" was used. And, finally, there was an imputation on my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Captain Sir O. Philipps). Let me say quite candidly I resent the imputation on him made by the Member for Leicester, and can say so more freely than can my hon. Friend himself. I know perfectly well that freights from West Africa to this country are a little over £2 a ton, but if that steamship company did not convey goods at £2 a ton and anyone went into the open market to charter vessels, he would have to pay £6 a ton or more. Under the circumstances, I think the only thing the hon. Member can do is either to substantiate his own charges or else to apologise for them frankly. With regard to one or two of the other points that were raised, we were told again by the hon. Member that this action had been taken at the bidding of the merchants and the crushers, and his argument was that it was taken to benefit their interests. Does the hon. Member, who has studied this trade for so many years, realise that it makes not a hap'orth of difference to a merchant whether he imports the goods to Liverpool or Hamburg? And yet we are told it is in the interests of the merchant as well as of the crusher that it is being brought to this country. That kind of knowledge of the subject robs his criticism of any value whatsoever, and I would only say, without dealing with all the statements one after the other—I do not wish to do the hon. Member really an injustice, but I should very much doubt whether he could really tell me he had read the evidence on which the Committee based its recommendations.
§ Mr. MACDONALDI have read the published evidence.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI am glad to hear that the hon. Member has read that. I am almost amazed after that that he could have made such a statement with regard to merchants.
I now come to the question itself and to some of the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Wiles), and some other critics during the Debate. What was the real state of 634 affairs when this Committee was started? Before the War these palm kernels went almost exclusively to Germany. France and Holland have been mentioned almost as though they were on the same level as Germany. The average importations into France before the War were something like 3,000 tons a year, or about one-third of 1 per cent, of the kernel importation of oil seeds and oil nuts. The importation into Holland was something like 4,000 tons, as distinct from 240,000 tons into Germany. The whole importation of France and Holland combined was an absolute bagatelle as compared with the importation into Germany. What happened was that these oil nuts went right through to the big German mills, where they were crushed. Being crushed through, the oil was then exported into Holland and other places where it was manufactured into margarine and then exported into this country. We went into all the evidence carefully, and in addition to the printed evidence I went right through the trade interviewing many people, and we came to a conclusion which was perfectly inevitable, namely, that this was a kind of trade in which once given a start we could manufacture just as cheaply and efficiently as ever the Germans could do. What was equally clear was that some sort of a start had to be given. In modern conditions and modern industries you may have two countries whose natural aptitude and advantages are almost precisely the same, but the fact that an industry has got a start is in itself a reason why it should continue in that particular place and why it does not take root elsewhere. Not only had this crushing industry with a particular kind of machinery got a start in the large German mills but there was a second kind of industry which also got a start, which is the habituation of the farmers to the use of the oilcake which is the other product of the kernel besides the oil. What has been recognised by experience in this country—and I think any agricultural Member will bear me out—is that a country will not take to a new kind of foodstuff quickly. It is only gradually that farmers will get accustomed to it. It took a very considerable time before the country got accustomed to cotton cake, quite apart from its value, and in the same way that until it has got accustomed to them it will not take some kinds of cake, so also it will attach to others a value beyond their 635 intrinsic worth. When you take these twin difficulties, both centering round a single point, it is quite clear that unless this country could really be given a start it could not take full advantage of its natural aptitude. The conditions of the War gave the country, for the moment, the start. When the War broke out the kernels could no longer go to Germany. They came here. They were crushed here, in many respects uneconomically to start with because the old American presses in this country are not suitable for crushing palm kernels, and would be beaten in competition. There was every tendency on the part of manufacturers to put up fresh machinery here. The hon. Member for Bury (Sir. G. Toulmin) talked about bringing in science in the person of Professor Wood, of Cambridge. It was I who, in order not to neglect either science or ordinary good organisation, asked for the help of Professor Wood. It was quite clear that manufacturers throughout the country were just considering whether they could go to the extent of putting up a large amount of fresh capital for the new machinery. They were just swaying to and fro. Similarly, it was also clear that farmers, under the stress of circumstances, were just beginning to use the feeding cake in this country and to find out its value. I am sure the agriculturists will bear me out as to the value of an increase of butter fat. If in the making of butter you can make nine cows do what ten have previously done, it is an improvement which can hardly be overrated. That is really the case with regard to the economic position of introducing this industry into this country. Once introduced, I do not think that the duty will be needed for a long time. The natural aptitude of this country is quite great enough provided we give the people who are on the fence a start so that they may come to a decision on the right side. With regard to the effect on the natives, really and truly, the wish of the Governor-General of Nigeria to do justice to the natives is quite beyond question, and I would ask the Committee to take my own assurance that I feel just as much the obligation towards them, and I honestly do not think that the proposals will harm them economically. The hon. Member for Leicester—I really do not want to do him an injustice—talked as if the subject was disposed of because you were limited 636 to one particular market. The incidence of an export duty is even harder to determine than the incidence of an import duty. In this case I sent a perfectly brain-racking memorandum round the Committee with regard to the possible incidence of the export duty in all its bearings. The facts are these: There is likely to be a large growth in the demand for oils and fats throughout the world, and all the evidence points to the demand after the War finishes being far greater than the ordinary supply on the old basis can satisfy. You can not get a large increase of edible fats from animal sources. It is the vegetable sources which must be largely drawn upon. There is, therefore, going to be a very large demand throughout the world, and the absolute level of prices is not likely to come down, but, indeed, is likely to be driven up. By the way, I think the instance of £6 15s. given by my hon. Friend in the corner (Mr. Molteno) was an error. I gave him all the information at my command, and I will only be too glad to do so to any hon. Member of the Committee, because the case can be proved up to the hilt. I did not get his letter in time to point it out to him, or I would have cone so to prevent his falling into error.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI should be very happy to show the hon. Gentleman the paper quoting it.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDI know the hon. Gentleman is perfectly genuine in his statement, but, of course, the price falls as you go up country, and his quota-tation refers to Abeokuta and not Lagos. There will thus not only be the general demand for vegetable oils which will prevent the native suffering, but, in addition to the general demand, there is a quite special demand for this particular kind of palm kernels for Germany. That has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland), and it really means that with the duty at the present level the Germans will probably take kernels for home consumption, and so far as can be foretold I truly do not think the natives will suffer. It was, however, because of our real sense of responsibility with regard to the natives that we did our best to take safeguards, even against a possibility of what we did not think would occur. That is the reason, amongst others, why the Governor is to have the power to vary the duty. If there should be undue advantage taken of it, 637 he can vary the duty for that reason, and the very knowledge that he can do so is one of the most efficient safeguards to prevent people taking that undue advantage.
I wish there had been time to deal with one or two other points, but I feel I have done my best to put the facts before the Committee so far as I could. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire asked me another question with regard to the position of the public debt for which Nigeria has undertaken responsibility; the hon. Member for Shropshire (Major Hunt) has spoken about the case of emigration to Australia; and again I think I have heard remarks in the speech of the hon. Member for one of the Surrey Divisions with regard to future Imperial development. All these really come into the subject of Imperial organisation. It is too late to deal with that in full, but may I just say, with regard to what the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire said, that the undertaking on behalf of Nigeria was not pressed on the Colony. What happened was that it was brought forward in the Nigerian Council. On that council are representative men of every class in Nigeria, natives as well as white men. It was received by them with absolute unanimity and accord. It was a perfectly spontaneous wish, and yet at the same time, when the request came here to the Colonial Office, we only accepted it provisionally, on the understanding that Nigerian finance could fully and freely afford it when the War was over, and not otherwise. It was, therefore, absolutely freely offered, and even so, it has not been definitely accepted, and that out of regard to Nigeria itself.
The same has truly been the attitude with regard to the one or two other perfectly spontaneous offers to help this country in the matter of finance. That help has been given quite freely to an extent that is not, perhaps, generally known. It has been given in the way of finance, just as it has been given in the way of men. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) referred to what had been done by the Dominions of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Might I, to round it off, because otherwise I feel there would be a slight unfairness, refer to the smallest Dominion of the whole constellation—Newfoundland. I feel very much that because they are the smallest attention is not paid to them, and I should like to have this opportunity of doing them justice. A population half 638 that of Wandsworth is that of the "Island." We have known of their battalion that did so nobly in France and suffered such loss; but what I would like to draw attention to for a moment is that it is not only the battalion they have sent. It seems to me that there must be something in the blood in more than one class or rank of the population when I reflect that Newfoundland was largely peopled by men from Devonshire, starting out from Barnstaple and Bideford. It is just that island that has been populated by men who set out from the same seaports from which Drake, Frobisher and Hawkins sailed so long ago, that has furnished more largely the seamen for British ships and British trawlers than any of the other Dominions.
Perhaps, also, it is a pity that it is not sufficiently known how far the whole material resources of the Empire have been organised for this struggle. It is not only that the Dominions have concerted with us in their measures for giving us wheat or that their crossbred wool has been placed at the disposal of this country and their Allies. The same applies to their hides and their metals. It is equally true that the whole resources of the rest of the Empire, with a true regard for the interests of the Crown Colonies have been mobilised in order to enable this country and our Allies to get the maximum resources for the present War. Take the question of oils and fats. They are vital as propellent explosives, they are vital as food, and they are most important as feeding stuffs. Throughout the whole Empire they have been organised so far as they could be with the slightest possible derangement of trade and other interests. We are getting the best we can out of them, whether for ourselves or for our Allies—France and Russia. The same is true with regard to feeding stuffs. We do the same with regard to rubber and tin and all these metals which are needed for high-speed steel, wolfram, molybdenum, and the rest. It is a pity that it is not fully realised how, little by little, there has been a complex organisation worked up as a whole by which, with due consideration to each part, whatever be the colour of its people or whether it is self-governing or not, the whole resources of the. Empire have been placed at the disposal not only of this country but of our Allies. That has been done I say with a due regard to the population.
639 I end as I began, by saying that our object in performing this duty has been to keep away from old prejudices on either side, to try to analyse the economics of the situation so far as in us lies, to get the maximum of benefit and, so far as ordinary human prevision is given to us,
§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit upon Monday next.