HL Deb 10 May 1922 vol 50 cc354-71

LORD HINDLIP had given Notice to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the taxation of the native population and products in the Kenya Colony and in Uganda, and to its effect on trade with Great Britain. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret to have to inflict upon your Lordships a complaint very similar in character to that to which the House has just listened. My complaint is in regard to the condition of affairs on the other side of the African Continent, and, like Lord Emmott, I shall make my remarks in no hostile spirit whatever either to the Colonial Office, or to the local Administration. The Colonial Office and the local Administration have already done something to alleviate the situation which has arisen, probably from exactly the same causes as those which have produced the situation on the West Coast—the heavy expenditure and the heavy taxation.

They have appointed a local Committee of prominent citizens in the Kenya Colony to enquire into financial matters. That is one great step. Whether that Committee will meet with as much success as, or more or less success than, other Committees with which we are cognisant, remains to be seen. They have done another thing which we in this country would very much like to see approached here. They have abolished the Income Tax, which, I hope, may attract a stream of people from overtaxed countries to British East Africa. I do not think they will lose very much by having abolished the Income Tax, because I think that those persons and firms who paid it have been very few in number. They have also abolished the Export Tax on hides, but as trade in East Africa and Uganda and the neighbouring territory in that commodity was as dead as the dodo they would not have raised any revenue if they had retained the Export Tax on hides, at all events not until that particular trade had revived.

They have also done another thing which is even more important. In the last fortnight they have reduced the direct taxation of the native by one-fourth. This is a very important step, and, if I may do so, I would congratulate the Colonial Office upon having done this. But I do not think it is enough. Even after this reduction the direct Taxes on the native are three times as heavy as they were before the war, and I should imagine that the local Administration have had some difficulty to collect even the reduced amount. I should think the arrears, or payments that will never be collected, are very considerable. The fourfold increase of the native taxation did enormous harm. It absolutely crippled the purchasing power of the natives, and consequently, as I will show later, made impossible the importation of European goods. In addition to the increase of direct taxation in 1921 the Import Duties were raised from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. ad valorem, and the railway rates in 1920 were raised 50 per cent. and in some cases 75 per cent. I know that Colonel Hammond, who was sent out to make a Report on the railways, recommended that certain surcharges and rates on the Uganda Railway should be largely reduced, but I am not certain how far those recommendations have been carried out or even if they have been carried out at all.

I will make my remarks as brief as possible, and will refer now to the Export Taxes. The only really serious complaint that I can make in this connection is with regard to the Export Tax on Uganda cotton. Uganda depends to a very large extent on her cotton crop for her Revenue. The history of Uganda cotton is very much to the credit of the Colonial Office, and the Uganda Administration. In 1904 the Uganda cotton crop was under 200 bales, and Uganda was receiving a large annual grant from Imperial funds. In 1914 the cotton crop had risen to 35,000 bales, and no Grant-in-Aid was required. It rose practically every year till 1921 when it was 70,000 to 75,000 bales. The Export Tax and the poor price, and, I admit, a certain amount of bad weather, caused the native to reduce his cotton planted area to a very great extent, and this year (1922) the crop is estimated at only 25,000 bales, which I think is an outside figure. The Export Tax on cotton is ¾d. per lb. It does not sound very much, but it takes, I believe, rather more than 3 lbs. of raw cotton to produce 1 lb. of cotton. Without going further into figures, which are rather complicated, at the current price of American middling cotton this ¾d. per lb. amounts to about 16 per cent. Tax on the raw product that the native produces, which your Lordships will agree is somewhat hard. In 1921 the price of cotton in Liverpool and New York was considerably lower, and this ¾d. per lb. was equivalent to a Tax on native raw cotton of no less than 25 per cent. If cotton fell to a prewar level it might without any difficulty amount to a Tax of 30 or 40 per cent. on native raw cotton. That is a formidable figure. The result of this taxation, and no incentive to production, is very serious.

It has so crippled the purchasing power of the native that I should like to give a few figures as to the imports into Mombasa and Kilindini, the port for the Kenya Colony. I find that in 1913 bleached cotton goods were imported to the extent of 3,650,000 yards, while in the year ending December, 1921, the amount of bleached cotton goods was only 779,000 yards. Of unbleached cotton goods, in 1913 the amount was 22,400,000 yards, and in 1921, 11,737,000 yards, about half the amount. What is more, important to this country and to Lancashire is the import of printed and dyed cotton goods. In 1913 the import of printed cotton goods was 2,348,000 yards, and in 1921 less than a million yards. In 1913 the import of dyed goods was practically 3,000,000 yards, and in 1921 less than half that figure. I may say with a certain amount of confidence that the goods imported in 1921 were goods which were ordered at the end of 1919 or early in 1920 before the slump was felt. Most of these printed and dyed goods take a long time to manufacture, and if the imports of 1921 are analysed I think it will be found that a very large proportion were imported in the first months of 1921, and that the imports in the latter part of the year and in the early part of this year reached practically an infinitesimal amount.

With regard to the Export Tax on Uganda cotton for next year I suggest that in order to encourage the Uganda native to plant his cotton now—he plants in this month, June and July—His Majesty's Government should reduce or abolish the Export Tax on cotton for 1923. If this Tax is reduced, or abolished, you will encourage the native to plant his crop, and you may get a crop next year of 50,000 or 70,000 bales. The Revenue of Uganda would benefit, the native would get more money, he would buy more goods, and your railway would also benefit by the carriage of the increased crop and the carriage of increased imports of manufactured goods. The more money a native has the more English goods he buys.

What is happening to-day, and what happened last year, owing to the poverty of the native? The native who used to dress himself and his wives in coloured cotton goods made in England, was unable to purchase those goods and was forced to buy far cheaper stuff made in America and India. The first people to feel the effect of the poverty of the native were the people of Lancashire, and the last people to feel its effect were the people in America and India who produced a cheaper class of goods. The poorer native could not even buy the American or the Indian goods, and he reverted to the primitive state. Instead of wearing cotton he wore skins. I do not think you would lose if you adopted my suggestion. You would encourage trade in Uganda, encourage business in East Africa, certainly make trade better in Lancashire and in India; and, as trade improvement in one country benefits another, if you improve the trade of America you would also reap the benefit.

Government Expenditure has risen. It was about £1,000,000 in 1914. The estimated Expenditure in 1921 was £2,371,000, and in 1922 it is just under £2,000,000. I understand, front an answer given in another place, that this last figure has been or is to be reduced. I sincerely hope it is.

I turn now to the Uganda Railway. It may be said that Uganda Railway affairs are somewhat outside the scope of the Question on the Paper, but I think that is not so, because the rates on the railway are paid by the producers and traders in the country. Although the finances of the railway are now kept quite separately from those of the Kenya Colony I understand from Colonel Hammond's Report that the financial situation of the railway is such that it has practically no cash, no depreciation fund, and no renewal fund; it will have to be financed by loans raised here, and the charges paid either by the population in the Kenya Colony or here. It is no use referring to past mistakes. We who are interested in the country are concerned with increased efficiency and decreased expenditure.

Let me refer again to Colonel Hammond's Report with a view of trying to elicit what is in the mind of the Colonial Office. I should like to know if it is possible, something with regard to the question of fuel as wood is practically the only fuel used on the railway. Colonel Hammond in his Report says— The disadvantages of wood as a fuel are immense. Ten locomotives and 100 wagons are employed daily on fuel train duty. These trains occupy the main line for long periods while loading, restrict the capacity of the line and hamper traffic movement very much. It is always pointed out that the money paid for wood remains in the country, but the railway pays to the Government an annual sum of £600 for re-afforestation. Colonel Hammond is apparently turning his mind to oil, and he says that the respective cost per 100 gross-ton-miles works out at 36.06 cents for oil and 40.76 cents for wood. I do not know whether these matters will be considered by the local committee or whether they will be considered simply by the Colonial Office, but I venture to think that any method by which rates and taxation can be reduced is worthy of serious attention.

There is another question concerning expenditure, and a method by which, I gather from Colonel Hammond's Report, it really could be reduced. I refer to the training of natives, in preference to the importation of practically the whole staff, outside the white men on the Uganda Railway, from India. The highest pay of a native motor car driver in Kenya is 60 florins a month, and the lowest pay of an Asiatic on the railway is practically double, that is, 112 florins a month, and if you take into consideration the charges the railway have to pay to their agents to obtain these Asiatics you will find that the cost is more than double. Colonel Hammond says:— The German railways in East Africa and the British administration of the railways in the Tanganyika Territory, which has only been in charge since April, 1919, both achieved, during their period of existence, far greater results in training and employing native staff than the Uganda Railway has in twenty years. If you could develop that idea and train your natives instead of Asiatics the country would benefit, because when the time of the Asiatic has expired he generally returns to India and takes all his cash with him, while if you train your native his money will stay in the country. He will become, we hope, prosperous and spend his money to some considerable extent on the purchase of goods made in this country.

I do not know whether I should be right in making any suggestions regarding the reduction of expenditure. I suppose it is no use going on saying that you must reduce taxation unless you can point out the possibility of further Taxes in another direction, which I think is a very bad principle, or what I believe to be the proper way of reducing expenditure. I think there are several ways by which the expenditure of the Government in these countries can be reduced. There is in Kenya a law called the Native Pass Law and I remember not very many years ago—I think Lord Crewe was then at the Colonial Office—I was one of those who urged the adoption of that law. I believe this law takes £50,000 a year to administer, and if the country is poor I venture to suggest that it is one of the laws which might be allowed to go by the board, or be held in abeyance until the country has more funds. In the Agricultural Departments we have a very considerable number of inspectors which may possibly be found to be too great. If you take the inspectors of flax, I cannot see their value. They grade the flax which is grown by the settler and it is then called Government graded flax. The merchants in London and the flax millers who purchase the flax take no notice whatever of Kenya Government grading. If the grading inspectors are of so little value they might possibly be put to some better use.

Then the Departments are probably overstaffed. All their salaries were raised during the war, quite rightly I think, because of the cost of living. In addition to that they were given a bonus of 50 per cent. on their salaries. These bonuses are now being reduced by 25 per cent., as has been done by probably every commercial firm in the country, and I think it is not unreasonable to ask whether the remaining 25 per cent. bonus might not also be cut off. I hope that these suggestions may be received in the spirit in which they are made. I do not wish to appear to be in any way hostile to the Colonial Office or the local Administration. All I want to see is the resumption of trade. We had a cataclysm in the two little countries of East Africa and Uganda during the slump and no fewer than sixty firms went out of business altogether. It was astonishing to me, although I had known the country for a good many years, to learn that there were even sixty firms there who could go bankrupt. There is a little light now, but I hope the Colonial Office will not rest on their laurels and take up the Micawber-like attitude of waiting for something to turn up. They have begun the good work, and let us hope that they will continue it.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, before the debate closes I should like to be allowed to say a very few words. I am glad that the subject which has been introduced by the noble Lord who has just sat down should have followed immediately upon the previous debate. The juxtaposition of the two brings out a point which I am quite sure needs emphasis outside, though it may perhaps be taken for granted and, therefore, hardly referred to within the walls of the House itself. We want everybody who reads or cares about our discussions to note that we recognise to the full the principle that our primary object in the whole of these matters, our sole justification for the place that we hold in Africa, is the benefit of the people, of those men and women to whom the land, the trees and the rest to which we have been referring really belong. It is their affair, and our business is, as a great trust, to help them to make more of the land which is theirs. That is alike the explanation and the justification of our being there. In this House these things hardly need saying because every one, and especially those who have spoken to-night from a wealth of knowledge about these different countries, take it as a matter of course, and know for certain that, to use a vulgar expression, that is what we are after in being there.

But it is not so outside. A great many people imagine that what we are thinking of now—as was, I am afraid, the case a generation or two ago—is simply how our administration of those overseas territories is going to profit our own home interests and trade, rather than how it will promote the upbuilding or civilisation of the peoples to whom we go. When we discussed a similar matter in 1919, the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, on behalf of the Government, with perfect courtesy and with great dignity, remonstrated with me for a reference which I had made, in the course of the debate, to the problems which were before us at the time when the great Congo discussions were in progress nine or ten years before, and more in sorrow than in anger, shall I say, he remonstrated with me for seeming to suggest that our action then was similar to the action which at the time of the Congo discussions we were unanimous in condemning. I had no idea of drawing any comparison between our work to-day and the work which was going on in the Congo during a time now happily past.

The principle, however, remains the same. What we cared about then, when we made our protests with regard to the Congo wrongdoings, was first and foremost that these people to whom the land primarily belongs should not be exploited for the good of the world outside. I am glad, therefore, that we have this opportunity of discussing these things here and now. This principle must lie at the very basis of everything that we do, and I am particularly glad that in a discussion which naturally turns somewhat upon European trade and profits, we should have been brought back, by the discussion which immediately followed, to think of the natives and of the gain which we wished to bring to them in the trust which we hold on their behalf. Since those days to which I have alluded we have had emphasis thrown again and again upon the Mandate given by the League of Nations to those Powers to whom the trust is given of being the mandatories of particular regions—the trust which belongs to us as a people for the training up and improvement of the child races, the backward races of the world.

What I am anxious about is that before these debates close a reminder should go out that that purpose lies at the root of our thoughts, and of all the speeches which have been delivered. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen a book published within the last week or so by Professor Albert Schweitzer, who is now working as a missionary in Africa. Beginning as one of the greatest theologians of the day, he became one of the great musicians of the day, and then he studied as a doctor and acquired a great reputation. Now he is giving his great attainments to the service of these people in Central Africa. If anybody reads his book, "The Edge of the Primeval Forest," he will find great new ideas given to us by a great thinker, who, without mawkishness or sentiment of any kind, brings out the way in which their races and ours, when they come into contact, can be of mutual advantage one to another. What I desire to do to-night, in these few sentences, is to emphasise the need of everybody understanding that these are the thoughts for which we care, and that these are the principles on which our action as a nation is based—that we desire to promote in every way we can the well-being and uplifting of the peoples with whom we have to do, either in East or in West Africa.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, before the noble Duke replies to my noble friend, although I do not pretend to have the knowledge of East Africa which he has, may I say that I think he has done very useful service in bringing forward the aspects of the question discussed by Lord Emmott as they affect our position on the Eastern side of the African Continent. It seems to me that the problems are even more difficult on the Eastern side than they are on the Western side, and that the financial position of the Government in the East is much worse than that of the Government in the West, that the railways are in a worse condition, and the native is much more severely taxed. Certainly nothing whatever can be said in respect of the native on the West Coast which cannot be said with regard to the native on the East Coast. Their taxation has been increased, I understand, by 75 per cent.

LORD HINDLIP

It has increased fourfold, and now is being reduced to threefold. It was four, and then sixteen, and now it has been reduced to twelve.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Surely the cause is the same both in the East and in the West, and that is that the Government and the Colonial Office had an undue optimism with regard to the future in the boom time, and that when the great world slump came these unfortunate Colonies were overwhelmed to an even greater extent than we have been at home. The surest source of revival, both in the East and the West, would be the revival of the world's trade, which will create a demand for the products of these regions, and enable the natives of the East and the West to buy Manchester goods and other imports of this country.

My noble friend touched upon two points to which I wish to draw the special attention of the noble Duke. He alluded to the fact that the Export Duties had absolutely killed the hide and skin business of East Africa. I am afraid that exactly the same is true in West Africa. I do not think it would be true to say that the trade in fine skins is killed—I understand that the finer skins are goat skins—but the hide trade has been absolutely killed by the Export Duties. I submit for the consideration of the Colonial Office that it is of no use for the Government to impose a Duty which produces no revenue, and they might get a larger revenue from a smaller Duty which did not kill the home trade. The tanning and leather trade of the world being in a parlous condition, the Duties in East and West Africa have stopped any chance of these Colonies participating in any demand which still exists for their products in hides and skins.

Another point mentioned was the fact of the existence of Indian engine drivers and firemen on the East African railway. I was very surprised to gather from the noble Lord that they were not using African engine drivers and firemen, because I can testify from my own recent experience on the West Coast that Indians never were used. Englishmen, of course, were in the first place used, but they have now almost entirely disappeared, and almost the whole of the engine work on the West Coast is done by native Africans, not by imported Indians, and I should have thought that what was possible on the West Coast would be equally possible on the East Coast.

I should not like to sit down without making some allusion to what the most rev. Primate has just said about the sphere of our responsibility in East and West Africa. All your Lordships would entirely endorse the principles which he has laid down, but I am sure he will be glad to hear, and the House will be glad to hear, that in the course of my little experience in connection with the Empire I never came across Governments more thoroughly imbued with that sense of responsibility or a more general recognition of the rights of the natives than those I found on the West Coast of Africa.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

My Lords, we have listened with much interest to the speech of the noble Lord who raised this question to-day, and also to the observations of the most rev. Primate, who dealt very forcibly with the question of the well-being of the natives under our control. I can assure him that His Majesty's Government, as I feel sure he knows, fully realise their responsibility for the well-being of the vast millions of natives under their control. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, alluded to the same matter in a rather different way, and we are glad to hear from him that, wherever he has been in every part of the world, he has always found a full acknowledgment of the care with which the home Government watches over the interests of the native populations.

I am glad that the noble Lord has brought forward this subject to-day. The question is one of the most important connected with East Africa with which the Government is called upon to deal. The problem is not confined to Kenya or Uganda, but is common to all the tropical African Dependencies alike. It is, in one aspect or another, constantly before my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing his views in your Lordships' House.

What are the facts with regard to taxation in the two countries mentioned by the noble Lord? The chief sources of Revenue, both in Kenya and Uganda are (1) the Customs, (2) the Native Hut and Poll Tax. In Kenya, out of a total Revenue of £1,952,876 the first produces £516,972, and the second £656,070. In Uganda, out of a total Revenue of £845,109 the first produces £165,828 and the second £407,102. I am referring to the 1922 Estimates in each case. In Kenya there is in addition an Income Tax which it is now reported is to be abolished, but which is estimated to bring in this year £141,442; and in Uganda there are various Duties connected with the cotton industry which are estimated to bring in about £60,000. There are, besides, other sources of Revenue, e.g. Game Licences, Traders' Licences, Stamp Duties, etc., but these are, individually, unimportant as compared with the sources of revenue already mentioned.

Of the two main sources of Revenue, while the Hut and Poll Tax is, of course, paid by the natives, the Customs Duties are in the main paid by the non-natives, and it is the aim of the Government, so far as it is practicable, to preserve a proper balance between the two. Now, it is true that as compared with before the war, we have, roughly speaking, doubled the rate of Customs Duties, and that there has also been a considerable increase in native taxation, but this increase of taxation is one of the inevitable consequences of the war. It is not only in Europe that the war has necessitated a great increase of budgets. The rise in prices and the general increase in the cost of administration has affected tropical Africa just as much as it has this country. The increase in the cost of administration must be met, and it can only be met by an all-round increase of taxation. That increase is, no doubt, uncomfortably heavy on all classes of the community, but I venture to think that if taxation in this country had increased in proportion as little as it has in East Africa, noble Lords would consider that they had every reason to congratulate themselves.

At the present time it is really useless for anyone to propose reduction of any particular Tax unless he can suggest some alternative means of raising the Revenue required, or some economy in administration which will render the reduction possible. The only other alternative is an Imperial Grant-in-Aid, and I do not think that this is a proposal which at the present time could be placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer with any prospect of success. What we have to try to do is to cut down expenditure generally, so far as this is possible without impairing the vital interests of the community, and to consider whether some alteration of the incidence of taxation is possible so as to secure an adequate Revenue with less injury to trade.

In Kenya the Governor, Sir E. Northey, has appointed a strong Committee with the object of making recommendations as to what steps are immediately possible in the directions I have indicated. In Uganda also a searching examination of the Estimates has been made by the Governor, Sir R. Coryndon, since his return, with a view to cutting down expenditure. In particular, he has under his careful consideration whether any revision or reduction of the Duties in connection with the cotton industry is possible for the purpose of giving relief to that industry. Both Governors are fully alive to the necessities of the situation, and may be relied upon to effect every economy possible.

As one of the first results of the recommendations made to the Governor of Kenya by the Committee I have just mentioned, I am glad to be able to announce that the Governor has proposed the reduction of the Hut Tax this year from 16s. to 12s., and that the Secretary of State has telegraphed his approval of this recommendation. But while I fully admit the desirability of reducing native taxation, and am sincerely glad that some reduction has been found possible, it would be incorrect to attribute the set-back in native industry in East Africa entirely to high taxation. That set-back exists, but is due to the glut in markets, falling prices and general trade depression. High taxation may be a factor, but in my opinion it is not the determining factor, as to a certain extent taxation of the individual should act as a stimulus to effort. I may observe that in Uganda the increase of the Poll Tax from 5 rupees to 7½ rupees was announced in December, 1918, but this did not prevent the native cotton growers from planting a record acreage in the spring of 1920.

Further, in considering the amount of native taxation in Kenya, it should be observed that the position as regards the taxation of the natives in that Colony is very different from what it is, say, in Nigeria, where there are local native treasuries, and where the Taxes paid by the native to the Central Government do not represent the total amount of taxation which he is called upon to pay. The position in Kenya, owing to historical causes which I need not detail to-day, is very different. There the white administrative officer is the sole collector of Tax, and the Hut Tax of 16s., now reduced to 12s., is the sole amount which the native is called upon to pay. So much for the reduction of native taxation.

As regards the other chief source of Revenue, the Customs, though I fear I cannot hold out any hope that in present financial circumstances any large reduction of Customs Duties may be practicable, yet I trust that it may be possible to substitute for the present rough-and-ready ad valorem system a more scientific system of specific Duties which, by differentiation between articles in accordance with their importance to the trade and industry of the country, may do something to reduce the burden which is at present imposed. But we have not only to reduce the burden of native taxation so far as it may press unduly on the native. We have also to increase the provision for native services, for education, for agricultural training, for medical work in the Reserves. We have to take all steps possible to foster native industries and to encourage native production. This policy of education and betterment, besides being the only one compatible with our trusteeship for the natives, is in the long run the one best calculated to promote the commercial prosperity of the country. It both stimulates the native's wants and affords him the opportunity of satisfying them.

In this respect the native of Uganda has at present the advantage over Kenya. In Uganda, we have found a staple industry for the natives in the shape of cotton growing, and, though the cotton industry has received a temporary set-back owing to the general world depression, I trust that this is merely a passing phase, and that a larger and larger amount the cotton required for the Empire will be grown by the natives of Uganda. In Kenya, so far, we have not been so fortunate in establishing native industries, but I do not think that the fault can be laid to the charge of the Kenya Government. During the early days of the Administration the Government was constantly crippled by lack of funds. So long as the system of Imperial Grants-in-Aid continued, it was impossible to set aside any large sums for native development or to inaugurate any organised scheme. But in spite of financial handicaps, experiments were being made with cotton in Kavirondo, and with other crops in other parts, which by this time might have proved successful. But at that moment the war came, gathering East Africa into the general turmoil, and for five years the whole energies of the Administration had to be devoted to the task of conquering the Germans in East Africa.

When the war was ended pressing postwar problems of various kinds, including the settlement on the land of ex-Service officers and men, left little opportunity for the consideration of other problems, however important they might be. Then came the trade depression which affected East Africa as severely as any other part of the world, and it is only now, when, as we hope, trade is beginning to improve and things are beginning to get back to the normal, that we are able to give to these questions the time and thought which they deserve. The latest Report of the Kenya Department of Agriculture shows the steps that are already being taken to improve native agricultural production.

The problem in Kenya presents peculiar difficulties. The development of Kenya, especially since the war, has largely gone on the lines of the employment of natives by European settlers, due in great measure to the fact to which I have already alluded, that there is no staple industry for the natives. But if the native and the country generally is to progress it is essential that he should also become a producer on his own account, as he is in Uganda and other parts of tropical Africa. The Report of the Native Labour Bureau Commission, which has just been published, draws attention to the importance of the introduction of improved methods of cultivation, house building, and afforestation in the Native Reserves, and the Governor has expressed himself as entirely of the same mind as the Commission on this subject. Nor need the encouragement of native production necessarily mean any serious subtraction from the European labour supply.

Every one who has knowledge of East Africa knows that in the past the most economical use of native labour has not been made. Experiments are now being made by means of instituting a system of piece work, and in other ways, to effect economy in the use of such labour by offering a larger reward for better work. This, undoubtedly, is a step in the right direction, for, until the native is given an opportunity of earning better wages in return for a better output of work, one labour expect him to come forward to cannot in increasing numbers. In the present state of the industry of the country it is probably true that higher wages cannot be afforded, but as trade improves wages are bound to rise, and in its turn this rise of wages will have the effect of improving the labour supply, of restricting wasteful employment, and of leading to labour-saving methods and the more general use of machinery. At first sight the interests of the Europeans and natives in this matter appear divergent, but in my opinion the divergence is apparent rather than real, and I am far from being without hope that a way will be found of effecting a harmony between the two.

With regard to the references which the noble Lord has made to Colonel Hammond's Report on the railways of East Africa, I fear I can only say that Colonel Hammond's recommendations are now engaging the most careful consideration of the local Government and until the views of the local Government have been received it would be premature for me to make any statement with regard to them. The training of natives as engine-drivers, the use of oil instead of wood as fuel for the locomotives, and other matters have been mentioned, all of which will be put before the local Government when they consider the Report and, no doubt, we shall hear from them what they desire to recommend. But the noble Lord may rest assured that when the time comes for the points to which he has referred to be considered by the Secretary of State, the observations which he has made with regard to them will receive the most careful attention. The noble Lord referred to locomotives, and we are contemplating having the new locomotives now being ordered fitted for burning oil fuel; so that if and when it is decided later on to burn oil instead of wood the change may be effected as easily and as expeditiously as possible.

I trust I have said sufficient to show that the Government are fully alive to the importance of the question which forms the subject of the Notice of the noble Lord to-day. Steps have already been taken to effect economies in administration and to reduce taxation, and I trust that further steps may be practicable in the near future which, by increasing the sums available for native services, will encourage native development and production, and will make for the greater welfare, progress and prosperity of East Africa generally.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

My Lords, I think your Lordships must be satisfied with the reply which the noble Duke has given to both Questions, especially to that which we have just been discussing, I heard with sympathy and gratitude the statement of the most rev. Primate in which he urged that too much could not be done in order to convince the outside public of the fact that the first object of British statesmanship in connection with the administration of our Colonial possessions, is the welfare of the native and the development of his territory in his own interest. That is a view which, as the most rev. Primate said, is not too widely held outside, and it is one which ought to be driven home because it is the fact. As an ex-Secretary of State for the Colonies I know that it is the policy which always has been, and is now, ever present to the minds of those who are charged with the administration of our Colonies, whether Ministers in Downing Street or those devoted and able men who from time to time administer our possessions in different parts of the world.

Through one or two of the speeches to which your Lordships have listened this afternoon there seemed to run an undue note of pessimism. Certainly all the information which reaches me confirms the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, whose speech I heard with great gratification—namely, that the native himself is not so depressed and downhearted as some of your Lordships appear to think he is. No doubt he is not able to appreciate the reason which has led to the fall in prices, but after all that from which he is suffering is that from which the world is suffering. As my noble friend, Lord Hindlip, admitted, the world is suffering from the effects of the great war, the depression which has followed it, and serious interruptions in the ordinary flow of trade. It is only in a return to better trade and better conditions that we shall find the solution of the most difficult of these problems with which we are now confronted. I fully share the view of my noble friend, Lord Hindlip, that the utmost care must be taken to see that the natives are not unduly burdened with taxation and it is certainly the duty of every administrator, whether at home or in the Colonies, to secure all the economies that can be secured.

I know in these days it is the fashion to say that Ministers of the Crown do not care how much they spend, and do not seek economy. These bad times are very trying to the nerves of all of us, and I dare say it is an extremely good thing that Cabinets exist in order that men who are suffering under the depression of the moment may have somebody to abuse and to kick. My own limited experience suggests that everybody except the wildest idiot is doing his utmost, whether he be an administrator of the State or an administrator only of his own small affairs, to effect economy, and, if he possibly can, to increase revenue. It has been clearly shown by the noble Duke, in his interesting statement this afternoon, that is the policy of the Colonial Office and of the Government, and I think we ought to contratulate ourselves that these efforts are being made so strenuously, and that they are really trying to help forward the return of better times.

The two debates to which we have listened to-day, if I may respectfully say so, have been of the greatest possible interest, and I hope that the affairs of our great Overseas Dominions and Crown Colonies may come more often under the notice of your Lordships' House. If we had the money the Colonial Office would have a very different record to show. We want money to develop all our Colonial possessions, and, failing that, all we can do is to pursue the policy that has, to my certain knowledge, been pursued—namely, that of securing not only the development of the territories themselves, but attracting to both countries people with capital, so that the countries may be developed in the interests of all concerned, but first and foremost in the interests of those natives who inhabit the countries.

LORD HINDLIP

I beg to thank the noble Duke for his reply.