HC Deb 28 March 1950 vol 473 cc334-59

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

I should like to express regret to the Minister for Commonwealth Relations, to the Chair, and to the officials of this House, that we are continuing the Debate now, but I believe we shall be discussing an issue which is only second in importance to that which we have been discussing today. The world today is faced by division into two blocs which may, before many years have passed, bring war, but in the long run I believe there is a more fundamental issue even than that—the issue of which the Seretse Khama case is a symbol. It is an issue of the division of the world between the white and what are known as the coloured races. I believe that in seizing this first opportunity after the Minister for Commonwealth Relations made his statement on 8th March we are doing an essential service to this House and indeed to the ultimate peace of the world.

When the case of Seretse Khama was first raised the Minister for Commonwealth Relations made it clear that the decision of the Government was not dependent upon its view of the colour bar. Nevertheless, I say that the colour bar is the real issue behind the decision to refuse to recognise Seretse Khama as Chief in Bechuanaland. I recognise that there are two aspects of the colour bar—that it is not only a matter of prejudice on the side of those who belong to the white races, but that there is also prejudice among older schools of thought among the black races. Indeed, if one turns to the White Paper one finds that the Government places greater emphasis upon the danger of the division of the tribes than it does upon the opposition of the whites in South Africa.

So far as that is concerned, I believe that those who wish to see the influence of the colour bar ended in the world should welcome every tendency in the black races, as well as the white, to overcome that obstacle to human equality and that when, in these tribes in Bechuanaland, Seretse Khama was endorsed as Chief by a vote of over 5,000 to fewer than 50, that decision should have been welcomed by the House and by the Government as a great stepping stone in the advance towards racial equality in the world. I suggest that what has happened since the decision of the Government, the unity which has been shown by this tribe in their championship of Seretse Khama, indicates a unity in the tribe which ought to be welcomed by the House and by all who believe in racial equality in the world.

I want to put this specific question to the Minister. Since the White Paper places the greatest emphasis on the danger of disunity in the tribe, if progress is made in the coming months towards unity within the tribe by the reconciliation of Tshekedi and Seretse Khama, if steps are taken in the immediate months to disprove that there is a danger of disunity and disturbance in the tribe, will the Minister and the Government be prepared to reconsider their decision not to recognise Seretse Khama as Chief of this tribe? I put that question to the Minister in a serious way because I am aware of steps which are being taken in South Africa at this moment to bring about unity between Tshekedi and Seretse Khama.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Southgate)

Personally, I am in sympathy with the arguments of the hon. Member so far as he has gone, but in view of his plea for racial equality I should like to ask him the elementary question—does that include the recognition of marriage and the advisability of marriage between the white and the coloured races?

Mr. Brockway

Certainly, as far as I am concerned. I believe in the absolute equality of white, brown, black and yellow. I do not believe that any Government has a right to interfere with intermarriages between races.

Mr. Baxter

Is the hon. Member aware there is a saying that racial equality is a policy always put forward by a country which has no racial problems?

Mr. Brockway

I am not thinking in terms of this nation. I am trying to think in terms of the world. If there is to be peace in the world, it must be on the basis of recognising every race, whatever its colour, as part of the great human family. If one accepts that principle, there must be no obstacle to marriage between the various sections of the human family.

I want to turn now to the second aspect of this question. This aspect is dealt with in only one paragraph in the White Paper—paragraph 17. It is the effect of the recognition of Seretse Khama, not so much upon divisions in the tribes as upon the whites living in South Africa and Rhodesia. The paragraph states: His Majesty's Government were, of course, aware that a strong body of European opinion in southern Africa would be opposed to recognition; but, as stated in the House of Commons on the 8th March, no representations on this matter have been received from the Government of the Union of South Africa or Southern Rhodesia. I am prepared to accept that statement, but I should like to ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the reports in South African papers, that Dr. Malan did send a telegram upon this matter, and whether he can make any statement about these reports. The paragraph continues: In the view of His Majesty's Government the existence of this body of opinion is no reason why they should not refuse recognition on the quite different grounds stated in paragraph 19 below. I want to ask the Minister whether the opposite is not also true; whether, in the view of His Majesty's Government, the existence of this body of opinion is no reason why they should not give recognition to Seretse Khama. If the opposite is also true I suggest that if unity can be secured within the tribe there is no reason left for the refusal of this recognition.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the reports which have appeared in South African newspapers, claiming that the decision of the Government in this matter represents a defeat of British liberalism and means the victory of the policy of apartheid for which the South African Government stands. I believe that the Government have started on a course of appeasement with the South African Government, which stands for the principle of refusing to recognise those who belong to the black race as members of the human family at all. If one wants to find evidence of the real issues which are behind this case, they are to be found in the treatment which Seretse Khama has received since he has returned to Africa—the refusal by the Government of South Rhodesia even to allow him to stay in a State hotel because there are white residents there, the decision of the Southern Rhodesian Government to regard him as a prohibited alien who must not even land from his plane within a territory in which the over- whelming masses of the people are Africans themselves, the decision of the whites in the town in Bechuanaland to which he has returned, to protest against his coming to that town. That represents a view against which this House should protest with its last breath, because that view represents an exclusion from the human family of one great race.

I suggest to the Minister that if any Government takes that course, as the South African Government is now doing, it is not merely excluding another race from the all-embracing human family but is excluding itself from the mind and morality of the world. The Declaration on Human Rights of the United Nations says that we are all born equal, equal in human dignities and in human rights. It is on that principle that this Government ought to stand. I ask the Minister, when he replies, if he will, not in formal language but with warmth and inspiration, declare that His Majesty's Government does stand for the equality of all races, rejects the colour bar and will seek the earliest opportunity to enable the unity of the tribes in Bechuanaland to find reflection in the Chief who is of their own choice.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Southgate)

I believe that the marriage of Seretse Khama and this young London typist was in itself an unfortunate thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I only wish to put my opinion. It may be a case where they found in each other congenial characteristics; it may be a case of complete love. I do not doubt that at all. Therefore, we may say that, with human rights as they are, this man and this woman had a right to seek each other out and marry, but from a broad standpoint, it is politically unfortunate that it should have happened. There is an instinctive belief in all of us that the East and the West do not meet. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not defending or propaganding it, but if hon. Members had travelled as I have in the Southern States they would have found that there is an instinctive feeling that the black and the white do not marry because, for one thing, of the problem of the children.

Dr. Morgan (Warrington)

It has existed in the Caribbean for generations.

Mr. Baxter

There is not an hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady in this House who will not agree with me, whether it is logical or not, that the instinct is there. I think we will perhaps agree that, so far, it was perhaps unfortunate that this marriage took place. I would like to think that I could carry the House with me that far.

Mr. Sorensen (Leyton)

What does the hon. Member mean when he says that the matter is decided by instinct? There are many races in which this instinct does not exist. For instance, there is the case of France, the Caribbean Islands and New Zealand.

Mr. Baxter

I know there is a saying in the French Empire that the Frenchman "goes black." That is a very old saying; nevertheless, there is—and I want to be reasonable and brief in what I have to say—this feeling that coloured and white people should not marry in spite of the characteristics and fine qualities of the different peoples involved. Once that decision had been taken, once this young man had married this young woman, I do not believe anything should have interfered with the marriage. However, if it caused trouble in the tribe, even though God or a local official or a clergyman joined two people together, it seems to me that we had to be very careful.

All I want to emphasise is that on this matter I have a split mind. I regret that the marriage took place, but once it had taken place I think the Government handled the matter with a degree of clumsiness which we all regret. I think that the marriage should have been accepted as an unfortunate fact. I am sorry for the Minister, who came so quickly into this problem with so little preparation, but I think this matter has been handled from our side with great clumsiness from that time.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Bowen (Cardigan)

I rise to support the observations so eloquently made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). All that I would say about the speech of the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) is that while I agree with the last statement he made I feel that it would be the greatest misfortune if discussion of this matter were to be sidetracked into a debate on the question of mixed marriages. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough apologised to the House. I certainly did not think that his speech called for an apology. Certainly, the raising of this matter does not call for an apology. It may well be said that the time is not opportune for doing so; but the responsibility for that rests upon the Government and upon the official Opposition. This matter came to the notice of the House on 8th March. If it were not for the opportunity which has been seized this evening no opportunity would have been given for it to be debated for a further fortnight. Therefore, however unfortunate it is that this matter should be raised at this hour, I do not believe that any apology is required.

I said that I thought it would be unfortunate if this Debate became a discussion upon the relative merits and demerits of mixed marriages. In my view it raises matters which are of far greater concern than that particular issue. The announcement of 8th March set out, in paragraph 15 of the White Paper, two aspects. First, it declares that the Government intends to withhold recognition of Seretse as Chief of his tribe. That is to say, despite the decision of the tribe that it desired that Seretse should be recognised as its Chief, the Government has decided to withhold its recognition and to withhold its recognition indefinitely. The other aspect of their announcement—one which in some ways struck me as being of even greater importance from a general point of view—was the decision to outlaw Seretse from his own homeland for an indefinite period of at least five years.

Dr. Morgan

Diabolical.

Mr. Bowen

Quite apart from Seretse's position in relation to this tribe and in relation to this Protectorate, I should have thought that a decision of the Government to ban a British subject from his native land for at least five years and, possibly for life—a person whom it is not alleged has committed any crime—is certainly a matter which calls for anxiety and which demands a very coherent explanation on the part of the Government. In addition, the position is accentuated by the fact that the person involved is an African. It raises the whole question of the good relationships and the atmosphere of faith and understanding between Europeans and Africans as a whole.

It may have important repercussions on the whole of Africa and, in particular, on the attempts now being made to develop responsible government in the Gold Coast and in Nigeria. From that point of view, I think this question is of great significance. It is important from the point of view of the relationship of the European to the African in our Colonies. It is important also from the point of view of the policy of this Government in its Colonies, in relation to the policy of South Africa, of Southern Rhodesia, and of Northern Rhodesia regarding racial discrimination and how far this conflict—this patently difficult conflict—is to be, overcome and in what way that problem is to be tackled.

Why did the Government decide, on 8th March, to withhold its recognition of Seretse and to outlaw him from his own territory? One thing is quite clear, and I respectfully suggest that it is that the decision was not based on any allegation that Seretse himself had been guilty of any criminal conduct. It was not a case of the Government deciding that he was a person who, either from a moral or some other aspect, was wholly unfitted to be a Chief of a tribe. The only personal allegation made against Seretse is that he failed to seek the advice of others before entering into a marriage.

According to the White Paper, and I accept it, the decision was not based on the ground that Seretse had married a white woman. It expressly provides that that did not form part of the argument or basis for argument for coming to the decision which was announced on 8th March. One thing, I would respectfully suggest to the Minister, is quite clear; that the African peoples and the people of this Protectorate in particular, will be left in no doubt in that the real reason for this decision on the part of the Government was an adherence to or an acceptance of South African and Southern Rhodesian policy in relation to racial discrimination.

It is true that a judicial inquiry was set up in November to consider this matter. The point has been made by the tribe, by Seretse and by those who advocate their cause. In June, the authorities chose to refer this matter to the tribe. The tribe decided that it wanted Seretse as its Chief and the tribe expect their decision to be honoured by the British Government.

One of the difficulties in this matter is the point raised by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough in relation to paragraph 17 of the White Paper. It is true that the Minister for Commonwealth Relations, before the judicial inquiry was held, stated that the attitude of South Africa was not relevant in this matter. I refer to what he said on 3rd November when, in reply to a supplementary question he said: The Government of South Africa did not come into this matter at all."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 563.] That was his statement.

Again, in the White Paper, we are told that the views of South Africa and of Southern and Northern Rhodesia did not come into the matter at all; but if one looks at the way in which that judicial inquiry set up by the Government was conducted, it clearly shows that those taking part in it regarded the views of South Africa and of Southern Rhodesia as of prime relevance in coming to a decision in the making of recommendations by this Government.

Might I refer to some of the evidence and to the cross-examination of Seretse by the Attorney-General? I will read from the transcript of the evidence taken at the inquiry.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

On a point of Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member has agreed to tell us the name of the document he is reading from, and whether it will be laid on the Table.

Mr. Bowen

I believe I said I would read from the transcript of evidence given at the judicial inquiry, set up at the instigation of the British Government.

Mr. Hynd

On a point of Order. Should it not he laid on the Table. Sir?

Mr. Brockway

This evidence was given in public. It is public property. Surely an hon. Member has every right to quote from it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

I think the hon. Member is in Order.

Mr. Bowen

I inquired whether there was a copy of this transcript in the Library and I was told there was not. I think it would be an advantage to hon. Members because the evidence—in particular, the cross-examination of Seretse by the Attorney-General—makes very interesting reading. What I find difficult to reconcile is the statement of the Minister that the attitude of the South African Government did not come into the question and the contents of the White Paper published a few weeks ago, with the conduct of the Attorney-General and the chairman of the judicial inquiry.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker)

I should point out that I am not responsible for either of those people.

Mr. Bowen

I agree that the Secretary of State is not responsible, but he has recognised in the White Paper that one of the matters he has taken into consideration in coming to this decision is the findings of that judicial inquiry.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I have not.

Mr. Bowen

As paragraph 11 of the White Paper states categorically that the judicial inquiry unanimously advised against the recognition of Seretse Khama what was the object of referring to it?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

Merely because allegations to the contrary had been made.

Mr. Bowen

But paragraph 10 of the White Paper says: As the report and the accompanying evidence form only a part of the matters considered … Surely that means that one of the matters considered was the evidence of the report.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

Considered, certainly.

Mr. Bowen

Yes, considered. I am not arguing that the Minister was bound' to accept the recommendations of the inquiry but, in fact, he did. He came to the same conclusions. He may have taken the view that they came to the right conclusion on wrong grounds. He has not thought fit to reveal the wrong grounds.

May I refer to the evidence given to the inquiry? This is the Attorney-General cross-examining Seretse: Question: You know the position about Southern Rhodesia? I am not making any suggestion whether Southern Rhodesia or the Union is right or wrong, but do you know what the position of the Government of Southern Rhodesia is about you and your marriage? Answer: I know that they are prejudiced, have colour prejudice. Question: Have you any objection to my putting in Southern Rhodesia's HANSARD? Answer: I have no objection. I have the minutes of the meeting of the House on Thursday, July 7th, 1949, when a Member by the name of Mr. Stockil moved the adjournment of the House "on a definite matter of urgent public importance"—

Mr. Wyatt (Birmingham, Ashton)

Lucky chap.

Mr. Bowen

It is not without interest to compare the way in which the Southern Rhodesian Government behaved in relation to this matter compared with our Government. They at least considered it a matter of urgent public importance. That Motion was moved with a view to considering …. the immediate necessity of a statement by the Government on its attitude towards the decision taken at Serowe to accept Seretse Khama, Chief of the Bamangwato tribe, notwithstanding his marriage to a European woman. That question was raised specifically by the Attorney-General. Then Seretse asks the Attorney-General this question. I want to know whether I am to be asked about the attitude of the Union of South Africa. The Attorney-General replied: I am not going to ask any questions on that. However, when we come to the examination of the Resident Commissioner the question is raised by the Attorney-General and the chairman himself. These are the questions directed to the Resident Commissioner: Do you know officially, or semi-officially, the attitude the Union are taking towards this particular matter? I mention this matter because, naturally, I read the newspapers and reports for instance of Mr. Malan's attitude, and apart from the fact that Seretse and his wife have been made prohibited immigrants, Mr. Malan is alleged to have made certain statements and certain representations. Could you, for the purposes of recording it in our inquiry, tell us what the effect is? Then certain documents were put in. The next question asked was: Now can you tell us, with regard to Northern Rhodesia, their attitude and that of Southern Rhodesia? The views of the Southern Rhodesian Parliament have been put in in a copy of HANSARD. Then the Attorney-General goes on to put in a newspaper cutting of a speech made by Dr. Malan at the Nationalist Party conference. May I perhaps quote from the chairman: Beyond these two occasions we have no official information on the attitude of the two Governments to which I have referred? No. It is quite clear from that that the Attorney-General presumably took part in that inquiry on behalf of the British Government.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

No.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is quoting extracts from documents which are obviously of vital importance if this House is to form a considered judgment. These documents are in the possession of the hon. Gentleman. Can we have any guidance as to how they can be made available to us, Sir?

Mr. Baxter

The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has been reading for a considerable time extracts which do not convey the slightest impression of anything to the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Any hon. Gentleman is entitled to quote from any document and the House attaches what importance it thinks fit to it.

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)

If the Chair is unable to assist us in this matter would the hon. Gentleman opposite be good enough to say where the document is available?

Mr. Bowen

It is simply a record of evidence given at the public inquiry, and I have not the slightest doubt that on application to the firm of shorthand writers who made the transcription the hon. Gentleman could obtain a copy of it. I did suggest earlier that one might be made available in the Library of the House.

One point which I have rather laboured was that the judicial inquiry was concerned with the attitude of the South African Government and the attitude in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, and that this was regarded as highly relevant. The other point I am trying to make is that this was a public inquiry, held in the presence of large numbers of the tribe concerned. It is, therefore, idle to suggest that the tribe, and indeed the African population generally, are wrong. At least, it is understandable that they should consider that the real basis for the division in this matter is simply that South Africa and Southern Rhodesia have racial discrimination. I am not saying for one moment that they are right. They may well be wrong in their conclusions. But the way the inquiry was conducted, the whole line of conduct in this matter, certainly gives strong reasons for these conclusions. That is what I regard as one of the most unfortunate matters in this problem.

Before I deal with statements advanced by the Government—[Laughter.] There seems to be considerable conflict in the House between hon. Members who regard this as of significance and importance and those who treat it in a completely frivolous fashion. I do not regard anything which may jeopardise the relations between Europeans and Africans in the African continent as a frivolous matter. Before I come to the reasons given by the Government for their position, I would refer to one other matter, which is referred to in paragraph 13 of the White Paper: At no time was any assurance given to Seretse or to his representatives that if he came to London he would be permitted to resume residence in the Protectorate. This has been the subject of controversy in the Press and by different people. The legal adviser of Seretse who took part in the judicial inquiry has alleged that an undertaking was given orally by the Chief Secretary of the High Commissioner. I certainly do not challenge the statement in the White Paper that no assurance was given, but I feel that in a matter of this kind, where the integrity, the honesty and good faith of the Government are in question, we should have far greater detail relating to this than we have at the moment. There is the bare statement that no assurance was given.

What I should like to know is: Was an assurance asked for? Was there a discussion about whether an assurance would be desirable or otherwise? What conversations took place between the legal adviser of Seretse and any Government official in relation to this matter? I feel that the uneasiness, probably created solely through a misunderstand- ing, is not going to be dissipated until we have a far fuller statement about this aspect of the matter.

According to the Government, they have three reasons for coming to their decision. The first is set out in paragraph 19 of the White Paper: Peaceful administration would have become increasingly difficult. Surely one direct result of the British Government's position has been to endanger peaceful administration in this territory. In Fact, a considerable amount of unrest and uneasiness in this tribe has been created by the fact that the Government have chosen to go contrary to the wishes expressed by them last June. Therefore, I would suggest that the validity of the first point is questionable. The second is that in contracting a marriage without prior consultation and against all the advice tendered to him by the tribal authorities, Seretse showed himself to be unmindful of the interests of his tribe and of his public duty. Seretse's evidence at the inquiry put that aspect fully and fairly. He admitted that it was a grave mistake on his part that before entering into this marriage he did not consult the tribal authorities and consider the advice tendered to him. He went on to add that that matter had been fully discussed by the tribe. They had had months, in which Seretse himself was out of the Protectorate, in which to consider the whole matter and they had decided, in spite of his indiscretions in that respect, to welcome him back and to wish that he should be their Chief. I suggest that if the Government have that consideration in their minds—his failure to take appropriate action, according to the tribal customs, before entering into marriage—then it is a view which is certainly contrary to that held by the tribe.

The third argument is that it would increase the danger with regard to the authority of the chiefs. Surely there is ample provision to deal with that situation in the Proclamation of 1943 which, as I understand it, was the Proclamation invoked in order that an inquiry might be held into this matter. I entertain some doubts as to whether the holding of that judicial inquiry, by reason of that Proclamation, was lawful, because the basis upon which the inquiry was held is that there should be a vacancy in the chieftainship and at least it can be argued, as, indeed, it was argued before the judicial inquiry, that there was no vacancy in the chieftainship and that Seretse was Chief before this Proclamation came into existence, although it is true that there was a Regent. In paragraph 2 of the Proclamation it states that the chief in existence at that time shall be deemed to be recognised by the High Commissioner and confirmed by the Secretary of State.

Quite apart from that, the Proclamation provides for the situation where, as a result of opposition to the chief, his authority might be weakened. The Proclamation implies that the High Commissioner could suspend or depose the chief if that was the position. I should have thought that if there were any dangers in that direction the powers contained in the Proclamation would cover the situation completely.

Another reason given is: The tendency in this tribe to disputes about the succession would be aggravated by uncertainty as to their future attitude towards the children of the marriage. But the question of the succession might well not arise for many years because Seretse is now only 28 years of age; the question might not arise for 30, 40 or 50 years. I do not think that is an argument to advance for the Government's decision. In any case, there is ample machinery provided for the High Commissioner to intervene and for a judicial inquiry to be held into the merits of the case.

I agree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough that the Government would be doing much to undo the harm they have done to European-African relationships through their handling of this matter if they were to show themselves brave enough to reconsider the decision they announced on 8th March. From the point of view of excluding Seretse from his territories, from the point of view of civil rights and civil liberties, it is a decision which the Government will find it difficult to justify. I feel that their conduct in not respecting the wishes of this tribe, or their being put into a position of being accused of attempting to change the constitutional position of this Protectorate, is something that is unfortunate. I urge the Government to consider again, in the light of all the circumstances, whether it would not be better, in the interests of a happy and healthy relationship between the European and African populations of this area, to review their whole attitude.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

I think that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has done the House a service in raising this matter even at this late hour, since we are engaged in discussing a problem of great importance to an imperial country. This House of Commons, although it may find it difficult to discuss many topics, is almost ideally suited for discussion of this matter, as it is something upon which Members of all parties may feel different from one another. I broadly endorse the criticisms that have been made, although not always for the same reasons.

I did not agree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough in thinking that the question of mixed marriages was at issue in this Debate, if only because the Government themselves have disclaimed the view that they are actuated by any prejudice against them. I must say that I find the disclaimer a little puzzling, having regard to the conclusions to which they have come. I can understand, although I should not approve, a Government which said that marriages between races were so undesirable that they would punish or discriminate against people who indulged in them. What I do not even begin to understand is the attitude of a Government which apparently says that they have not the smallest prejudice against unions of this kind, but, nevertheless, decide that this man, who has embraced such a marriage, is not to be permitted to continue in his official position, in spite of the fact that that position has been endorsed by those over whom he is to rule for reasons which have nothing to do with mixed marriage, and which, having regard to that disclaimer, remain completely obscure to me.

I fully concede the principle that the marriage of a prince has to be governed by considerations rather different from those which govern the marriage of an ordinary person. We have, after all, had experience of that ourselves. Those who are free to adopt unions of one kind or another by the civil law might, none the less, be rejected by a people on the grounds that the marriage is unsuited to a prince. That has happened within living memory in places other than Bechuanaland. But surely that is a matter for the people concerned. If the kgotla, which decided in favour of Seretse Khama, had decided, as the White Paper says, that he had undertaken a marriage which rendered him repugnant to the trible, I should have been the first to say that that is a matter for the kgotla to decide, and that the British Parliament would be foolish to interfere in such a decision. But it came to the opposite decision.

What we have to discuss here tonight is whether the Government have acted wisely, not in endorsing or refusing to endorse the marriage between a Bechuanaland prince and a London typist, but in over-riding the decision of the Bechuanaland tribe to accept this man and his wife as their prince and princess. It seems to me that this is the matter upon which the Government have virtually offered no case at all.

I do not want to say a disrespectful word of the attitude of Europeans in Africa on the subject of mixed marriages, but, again, it seems to me that that is something which is not relevant to this discussion, because the Government have disclaimed that as a motive for their action. They say that there have been no representations from the European peoples of Africa to try to influence their decision. I must say that, whether their attitude on such matters be right or wrong, if the attitude of hostility to marriages of this kind is to be carried outside the boundaries of the territories over which they have jurisdiction, if it is to amount to the proposition not merely that such marriages are undesirable in the territories over which they have sovereignty but that they must attack the free decision of another people to take a different view about such marriages, then I think that whatever we may think about such prejudices, we are bound to resist an extension of them to the degree which I have indicated.

Unless we were to resist it we should virtually be handing over imperial policy on this extraordinarily delicate and difficult matter to those who many of us believe are acting foolishly in the interests of the white races, because one would only in the end have to find a minority sufficiently determined to assert its will and the Government would have again and again to submit to that will notwithstanding the fact that it was, according to the best judgment of this House and of the peoples concerned a mistaken attitude to adopt.

That brings me to the conclusion which I have reached in the matter. Sretse Khama's marriage has become a symbol. It is perhaps a curious, perhaps a slightly ridiculous, fact that it should have become so. There are many other things which it might have symbolised, but in truth and in fact at this moment the case of Seretse Khama symbolises the determination of this Government to override the decision of a native people to accept as their prince and princess the person and his wife whom they would wish to see. I am not saying that there can be no circumstances at all in which such a decision might not be necessary, but what I do say is this: the Government have been given an opportunity to justify the decision which they have come to. It is a grave decision, and they have failed to justify it. In the long run the future of our country and of its Empire depends very largely upon the confidence with which we are regarded by the African race, not only in Africa but in other parts of the Empire as well. The future of our civilisation and our religion very largely depend upon the extent to which we can carry these people with us in the fight against Communism.

It is not by any means a coincidence that the case of Seretse Khama has been eagerly taken up by Communists already all over the world in order to drive a feeling of hostility between the African people and their British friends. If that is so, and to the extent which it has succeeded, it is the fault of the want of statesmanship on the part of His Majesty's Government. It is perhaps fortunate that following this Debate tonight there can be no Division, because in such a, Debate we can express our opinions freely without any fear of upsetting the position of Ministers opposite. But I hope they will understand that not merely many hon. Members behind them, not merely hon. Members on the Liberal benches, but many hon. Members on these benches, question, on the highest Imperial grounds, the wisdom, as well as the humanity, of the decision which they have taken.

12.31 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker)

I would like, if I may, to reply to two points made by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). He made reference to, and read extracts from, the evidence given before the judicial inquiry. But I must make it clear, as, in fact, it was made clear in the White Paper, that His Majesty's Government has not accepted the arguments produced in the report, and that it is not at all responsible for the way the inquiry was held and the evidence given before the inquiry, and so forth. The hon. Member is quite entitled to criticise the judicial inquiry, but not to go on from that to criticise the Government for what went on before that inquiry.

Mr. Bowen

Will the right hon. Gentleman give some reason for not publishing the report and including a statement of the grounds on which the Government based its findings?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

The reason we have taken that course is given in the White Paper. The reason is that the arguments are unacceptable to the Government, and that if they were published they would be made use of by Communists all over the world—and not only by Communists but by all sorts of people—as official Government policy. It would be impossible to catch up with the misrepresentation which would occur everywhere.

The second point which the hon. Member made was whether Seretse Khama was in any way tricked into coming to London. There has been a great deal of feeling on this point, and if he had been tricked into coming that feeling would be justified. The hon. Gentleman asked me to give some details about the interview between Mr. Fraenkel, Seretse Khama's legal adviser, and Mr. Clark, Chief Secretary to the High Commissioner. It was a brief conversation only and a note was taken of it. Mr. Fraenkel asked, on behalf of his client, whether there would be some guarantee about a return to the Protectorate. Mr. Clark replied that, as Mr. Fraenkel knew, no power existed to prevent a British subject having a valid passport from entering the territory; but there were powers existing under which an order could be issued for a person to leave the Protectorate. The legal position was explained quite clearly. At that time no decision was taken on this matter.

I would like, if I may, to go straight to the root of this question, which has been raised in different ways by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). That is, that we have taken a fundamentally wrong decision in this matter. I would like to meet that, and to state our argument on this point. It seems to me that, in part, the charge that we have reached a fundamentally wrong decision rests upon the ground that we have been anti-democratic, that we have over-ridden, or refused to accept the decision of, the kgotla.

It must be made clear that the kgotla in this particular Reserve in the Bechuanaland Protectorate is not, and cannot be, accepted as a parliament. These are not a sovereign and independent people. Critics of the Government on this point must make up their minds upon which leg they are standing. If they talk of the kgotla as a Parliament, if they talk of these people as an independent people, they should go all the way and advocate withdrawal of the British Government from this Reserve. We must have it one way or the other. If they are not independent, if we must stay there to preserve order and good government, and to preserve the integrity of the territory, we have responsibility, and we must have rights to go with that responsibility.

We must give due weight to kgotlas, but it cannot be argued that if we have the final duty of preserving good government in this territory and of preserving its integrity, we must accept, without question, the decision of a kgotla as if it were a Parliament in Britain. We must be clear, and critics must make up their minds which of the arguments they will follow. It is perfectly fair to argue that we ought not, in the circumstances, to have ignored or over-ridden a kgotla, but it is not right and fair to argue that we had no right to do so and to come to the decision we did. I think the argument, therefore, must be upon the question whether we were, in fact, justified, as the hon. Member for Oxford said, in coming to this decision which we had a right to come to.

The reasons for our decision are set out in the White Paper and I do not want to traverse the whole ground again. It is that, in our view, having taken all evidence we could and having consulted all opinions we could, the unity of the tribe was better served by the suspension of the recognition of Seretse Khama as chief. In our view, there were and would be, if he were recognised, grave dangers of a serious, continuing division and split among these peoples.

We had indeed, as the responsible Government, to take into account not only the decision of the last kgotla but all the three kgotlas on this point because we had the duty to try and anticipate whether a certain action would lead to a split or not in the people. The three kgotlas, as is made clear in the White Paper, I think, were, in some respects, different one from another. The first kgotla, which is the only one in which the question of the mixed marriage in this particular case was a sole issue, was overwhelmingly against Seretse Khama and in favour of his uncle, Tshekedi. Seretse was at all three kgotlas. The second kgotla took up an intermediate position and the third kgotla swung in favour of Seretse. In the last kgotla the issue was no longer solely the question of the succession, the acceptance of the wife, the acceptance of the children alone but another issue had cut across it and had become increasingly more important—the issue whether the tribe wanted Tshekedi or Seretse.

Tshekedi did govern for a very long period with very great ability and his reputation has been somewhat ignored in this matter. Tshekedi had become, as other good Governments occasionally become, unpopular. I do not know the rights or wrongs of that but what is clear is that when the kgotla was voting solely on the question of mixed marriage it was a very clear view, right or wrong. When it was voting largely on the question of Tshekedi and Seretse it had a different view. We had to take all three kgotlas into account to try and estimate what would be the effect of any action, recognition, or non-recognition, upon this people and I think it is fair to say that the people might well in this matter revert, when the issue again became the sole issue of the mixed marriage, to the position they took up when that was the sole issue. It can also be argued, I think, uncontrovertibly, that it has never really been settled by this people whether they do accept the marriage, and certainly it has not been decided by the people whether they accept any children of the marriage. A chief who could exist in those circumstances would be in an extremely weak and in an increasingly weak position against the opposition that would come under a good chief, as it did come to Tshekedi.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough what would our attitude be if a reconciliation between Tshekedi and Seretse takes place. Of course, a reconciliation between the two is very much to be desired. It would certainly, I think, reduce the tension and difficulties among these people, but I cannot give an absolute, categorical answer to a hypothetical question. What we would have to consider is the question of the unity and so forth of the people. Quite clearly, that would amount to a new factor and would necessarily involve us in a very careful reconsideration of the matter.

Mr. Brockway

I do not want my right hon. Friend to give a categorical answer to a hypothetical question—but he would not rule out a consideration of this matter if such a reconciliation took place?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

That is just about what I said. I should also point out to the House that it was Tshekedi himself who raised, in the first place, the issue in this case and that all the time we have had to make a choice between two African views in this matter, as between Tshekedi and Seretse and his followers. There is no doubt, also, that if the hon. Member for Cardigan will read all the evidence he will find that African opinion was extremely divided in the Bantu Press of the Union and that evidence was given against the recognition of Seretse. Spokesmen of the neighbouring tribes did the same.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

Not spokesmen—they were there as individuals, not representatives.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

They were two leading people who were not contradicted by other members of the tribe. I do not say, of course, that African opinion is unanimously against Seretse. All I would say is that it was far from unanimous on the other side, and there was much weight of African opinion, quite distinct from European opinion, that Seretse should not in the interests of the tribe—and for very much the same reasons that led us to our conclusion—be recognised as chief.

Lord John Hope (Edinburgh, Pentlands)

It has been suggested that those two spokesmen were not representative of their tribes in that the rest of their tribes were in favour of recognition. I think it is important that the Minister should say whether those tribes from which the two spokesmen came were against or in favour of recognition.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

The leading people who spoke on behalf of those tribes said they were against recognition. There were other tribes that took another view. Views may be divided among the Africans themselves on the point, as the hon. Member for Cardigan said. From the difficulties in the tribe resulting from our decision, and, indeed, after the act of marriage contracted by Seretse, there were bound to be difficulties whatever decision was taken. The difficulty, rightly or wrongly, was created by the act of marriage. We had to balance one set of difficulties against another and we came to the conclusion that the difficulties that would result from the suspension of recognition—though possibly for the moment that was more difficult—would be much less grave and less lasting than the difficulties that would result from recognition.

It is a difficult transition that we are going through. Reorganisation of the tribe, the setting up of the new native authority in these circumstances, will involve difficult handling of the problem, and there is no doubt that Seretse's followers, about half a dozen of them, in the absence of Tshekedi's followers, who have gone into exile with him, have attempted to create some trouble in this tribe and have to some extent succeeded. They organised a display of considerable force, although not violence, and they used threats to stop the kgotla convened by the High Commissioner, and on 14th March a group of young followers of Seretse threatened to burn down the house of an African doctor because they thought Tshekedi was there, and made it clear that if they had found him they would have made it tough for him.

There are difficulties of this sort and I have given new facts to the House; but the Government's decision is a firm decision—a decision not to recognise Seretse for five years or thereabouts. We are not going to be intimidated by violence or threats of violence and I ought to repeat that Seretse's return to the Protectorate, which I announced the other day, is on condition of his own good conduct and also that the order and good government of the tribe are not disturbed. That ought to be said because if those conditions are not fulfilled, of course, we must reconsider the permission we have given him to return to the Protectorate.

The last point is this: I admit, and it is obvious, that the critics of the Government in this matter are moved by very deep feelings. As the hon. Member for Oxford has said, Seretse has become a symbol. To a large extent the reason why he has become the symbol of the clash of colour in Africa is because of the dangerous misconception to which many of these critics jump and spread irresponsibly. It is largely, although not entirely, due to the critics that it has got abroad that our decision over Seretse Khama is almost a complete alteration of our colonial policy, our policy on mixed marriages and the colour bar.

People have said in my hearing that the British Government's policy has been put back 20 years, and all sorts of other things have been loosely said. They are totally untrue. It is exactly the same as before. We are progressing exactly the same as before with the development of the colonial peoples and democracy. Not a single mixed marriage, including this one, is illegal in the Colonial Empire as a result of this decision we have taken. The issue is whether a person can, as public head of a community or people, do things which it is his undoubted right to do as a private individual. I maintain that our decision in this matter was right, but even if hon. Members say that our decision was wrong, it still does not involve the question of our colonial policy, mixed marriages, and the legality and validity of such marriages.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan asked me to give a restatement of the Government's views, but I do not think there is any need to do that. Our record is satisfactory, our policy speaks for itself. Only because of misrepresentation is it necessary to re-affirm with emphasis that the Government's policy in this matter remains unaltered by the decision in this case.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Questior be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 198: Noes, 80.

Division No.5.] AYES [12.50 a.m.
Adams, Richard Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Moyle, A.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Hale, J. (Rochdale) Mulley, F. W.
Awbery, S. S. Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.) Nally, W.
Bacon, Miss A. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Neal, H.
Baird, J. Hamilton, W. W. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Hannan, W. Orbach, M.
Bartley, P. Hardman, D. R. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Beswick, F. Hardy, E. A. Pargiter, G. A.
Bing, G. H. C. Hargreaves, A. Paton, J.
Blenkinsop, A. Harrison, J. Pearson, A.
Blyton, W. R. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Peart, T. F.
Boardman, H. Hayman, F. H. Poole, Cecil
Booth, A. Herbison, Miss M. Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Bottomley, A. G. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Proctor, W. T.
Bowden, H. W. Houghton, Douglas Pryde, D. J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hoy, J. Pursey, Comdr. H.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Hubbard, T. Reeves, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.) Robens, A.
Brown, George (Belper) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Burke, W. A. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Hughes, R. M. (Islington, N.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Carmichael, James Hynd, H. (Accrington) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Champion, A. J. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Royle, C.
Cocks, F. S. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Coldrick, W. Janner, B. Shurmer, P. L. E.
Collindridge, F. Jay, D. P. T. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Cook, T. F. Jeger, G. (Goole) Simmons, C. J.
Cooper, J. (Deptford) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.) Slater, J.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham) Jenkins, R. H. Snow, J. W.
Cove, W. G. Johnson, J. (Rugby) Sorensen, R. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Sparks, J. A.
Crawley, A. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Crosland, C. A. R. Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Jones, W. E. (Conway) Sylvester, G. O.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Keenan, W. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Darling, G. (Hillsboro') Kenyon, C. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Davies, Edward (Stoke, N.) King, H. M. Thomas, T. George (Cardiff)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Kinley, J. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lang, Rev. G. Thurtle, Ernest
Deer, G. Lee, F. (Newton) Timmons, J.
Diamond, J. Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Turner-Samuels, M.
Dodds, N. N. Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.) Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Donnelly, D. Lindgren, G. S. Wallace, H. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Watkins, T. E.
Dye, S. Logan, D. G. Weitzman, D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Longden, F. (Small Heath) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) McAllister, G. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) MacColl, J. E. West, D. G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) McGovern, J. Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Ed'nb'gh, E.)
Ewart, R. Mack, J. D. Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.
Fernyhough, E. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Wilkins, W. A.
Field, Capt. W. J. McLeavy, F. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Follick, M. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Forman, J. C. Mainwaring, W. H. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)
Freeman, J. (Watford) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Manuel, A. C. Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Wise, Major F. J.
Gibson, C. W. Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Gilzean, A. Messer, F. Woods, Rev. G. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Middleton, Mrs. L. Yates, V. F.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mitchison, G. R. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale) Moeran, E. W.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Monslow, W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Delargy.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard Gage, C. H. Ormsby-Gore, Hon W. D.
Alport, C. J. M. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Pitman, I. J.
Amery, J. (Preston, N.) Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh) Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Arbuthnot, J. S. George, Lady M. Lloyd Prior-Palmer, Brig O.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Granville, E. (Eye) Raikes, H. V.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Baxter, A. B. Heath, Colonel E. G. R. Roper, Sir H.
Bowen, R. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Russell, R. S.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Hogg, Hon. Q. Sandys, Rt Hon. D.
Brooke, H. (Hampstead) Hope, Lord J. Scott, R. D.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Howard, G. R. (St. Ives) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Butcher, H. W. Hutchinson, G. (Ilford, N.) Soames, Capt. C.
Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead) Keeling, E. H. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.) Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Spans, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Colegate, A. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Crossman, R. H. S. Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S. W.) Teeling, William
Crouch, R. F. Low, A. R. W. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Davidson, Viscountess Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Thompson, K. P. (Walton)
Digby, S. Wingfield McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Tilney, J. D.
Drayson, G. B. Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh) Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)
Drewe, C. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)
Driberg, T. E. N. Maclean, F. H. R. Wilson, G. (Truro)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Wyatt, W. L.
Fisher, N. T. L. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Foot, M. M. Manningham-Buller, R. E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone) Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.) Mr. Mikardo and Mr. Grimond
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for today.