CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

HL Deb 02 July 1952 vol 177 cc590-609

2.43 p.m.

LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the proposals for Central African Federation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that we have chosen a singularly suitable temperature in which to discuss African affairs. It is my hope that the outside temperature will not be reproduced inside the Chamber, and that we shall have a cool and objective debate. I do not propose to say anything as to the earlier history of this matter—a history in which, as your Lordships well know, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, played a distinguished part. I should like to say here that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has written to me and expressed his regret at being unable to be present to-day, owing to an important function elsewhere. I am sure we are all sorry that he is unable to be with us to give us the benefit of his long experience in this matter. Therefore I propose to come to the last few years and touch upon them very shortly.

An Official Committee was set up in 1950, and was announced in the House of Commons on November 8 of that year by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In June, a Report (Cmd. 8233) was presented. That Report maintained that any form of co-operation or federation should be acceptable to the inhabitants. It suggested that the best form of co-operation was that of a true federal system. It provided for an African Affairs Committee, under a Chairman who should be Minister for African interests, and it stressed the urgency of the problem. When the Report was published I informed your Lordships on June 13, 1951 (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 172, col. 52): Neither His Majesty's Government … nor the other Governments concerned are at this stage committing themselves to acceptance of any of the particular proposals in the Report, which is published as a basis for consideration and discussion. I then added that the proposals appeared to His Majesty's Government and the United Kingdom to embody a constructive approach to the problem which deserves a careful consideration of all the peoples and Governments concerned. Since that date, as your Lordships know, there have been a number of Conferences. There was one at Victoria Falls in Africa, and there was one in London. The London Conference, unfortunately, was handicapped, because the Africans from all the territories did not participate and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his statement to us on June 18 of this year, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 177. col. 278): It was a matter of great regret to the Conference and to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that African representatives of the African Representative Council of Northern Rhodesia and the African Protectorate Council of Nyasaland who had come to London declined an invitation to participate in the Conference or even to attend as observers. That was not a particularly good start for the Conference.

Now the Government have published a White Paper, Cmd. 8573, and we find on reading it that the White Paper embodies a number of changes from the earlier White Paper—that was the Report of the officials who were gathered together to consider this matter. I do not propose to go through them in detail, because I have no doubt they will be dealt with by later speakers, in particular, I understand, by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. In the immediate future there is to be a visit to Africa by the Minister of State and another Conference is to be held, possibly in October. In the same statement to the House, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said: It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that, after these Commissions have reported, a further Conference shall be held in Africa later in the year to give final shape to the federal scheme. The upshot of all this—and the reason I very quickly run over the course—is that it seems to me that, while it is not absolutely definite, Her Majesty's Government are committed to the federal idea. I have already quoted from Lord Salisbury's statement. There is also the statement which was made in other places on this particular matter. In the White Paper, Cmd. 8573, paragraph 7, the Government said this: After the change of Government in the United Kingdom a statement was made in Parliament on the 21st November, 1951, that His Majesty's Government were in full agreement with the Victoria Falls communique, and that they favoured a scheme of federation on the general lines recommended in the officials' report. They believed that such a scheme would be in the best interests of the African as well as the other inhabitants of the Territories. The statement specifically endorsed the assurances set out in the Victoria Falls communiqué regarding African interests, and undertook to ensure that they should be formally embodied in a federal constitution. Therefore, I do not think there is much doubt about the matter. But if I had any doubt I think it would be cleared up by the last paragraph of the statement made by the noble Marquess to which I have already referred. He said: The federal proposals published to-day take full and fair account of the interests of all the inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. They offer the framework of a new political organism which we believe will satisfy the needs of Central Africa and promote the welfare of the three territories and all their inhabitants. We earnestly hope that the Draft Federal Scheme will be very carefully studied, both here and in Central Africa, and that as a result of the discussions upon it the constitution of a Federation on the basis proposed will eventually be approved. I do not think anyone could deny—I will not say that they have finally committed themselves, but that they have gone a great deal further than the previous Government did in this direction.

Now they do emphasise in the statement, and I am glad of it, the need for study, and they say that a final scheme based on the present draft scheme is to be evolved. That is the position of the Government. What is the position of the Opposition, of the Labour Party? The Labour Party is not committed to this or any other scheme and, quite frankly, it has not yet made up its mind on this question. In fact, one of the reasons—I think perhaps the great reason—for this debate to-day is that I hope it will assist all those interested, not only in the Labour Party but outside, to make up their minds on this question. I think the Labour Party is right in not rushing at this most important question. I think it needs to give it considerable study before arriving at a firm conclusion. The final White Paper has been in our hands for only a fortnight and we need a great deal of time before we can finally make up our minds on what our policy should be.

I should like to tell your Lordships the impact on my own mind when I first heard the proposals for federation. I was then a Minister in the Commonwealth Relations Office, and, of course, we saw these proposals long before they were published. My mind, therefore, was to some extent insulated against any Press suggestions or criticisms from outside, because no one knew what was in the Report. If I tell your Lordships what I thought, I hope I may be excused from the charge that suggestions were made to me from one source or another. It seemed to me, when I first read the proposals, that they deserved considerable care and study. I appreciated the need for a larger unit, politically and economically, in Central Africa. But I foresaw difficulties of public opinion in Africa and in the United Kingdom—difficulties which have certainly proved to be present in the minds of many people.

May I say a word on the political aspect? Here are comparatively weak territories with various types of government. There is Southern Rhodesia, which is a self-governing Colony; there is a Protectorate; and there is an ordinary Crown Colony. The lines between them are often drawn without much reference to any of the economic advantages—and, in fact, the international treaty line cuts right across Northern Rhodesia; it does not even follow the boundary between the two Rhodesias. So that when this part of Africa was first delineated, when it was first mapped and political organisations and organisms; were created, it was quite certain that they were not necessarily those which one would have chosen from purely economic reasons. These territories, with comparatively small populations, create to some extent a vacuum of power in Central Africa. There are powerful forces to the north and there are powerful forces to the south. The old slumbering Continent of Africa is stirring. I remember General Smuts saying to me just before he died: This old country of Africa that nobody took any notice of years ago is just waking up and is coming into its own. The people of Africa are demanding new lamps for old. If the vacuum that is left in this part of Africa is not filled by us, there is the possibility that other forces may fill it—forces, perhaps, that we should not like.

There appeared to me certain economic advantages in federation. I thought that there was quite a strong case for federation economically between Northern and Southern Rhodesia; but I was not convinced that there was such a strong case as regards Nyasaland. Nyasaland is one of the countries which have been sadly neglected and exploited in the past. It is only in the last few years that any one has paid much attention to Nyasaland, and it may be that the future of Nyasaland lies rather to the east, with Tanganyika and the ports there, across Lake Nyasa and along the railway now being built than through the Rhodesias to the port of Beira. It would, moreover, be a good thing if the people of Nyasaland could work for Nyasaland rather than be used as a labour force in the copper mines of Northern Rhodesia, in Southern Rhodesia and even down as far as the Rand. I think it would be very useful to have Nyasaland in the Federation, but perhaps more useful from the point of view of the Rhodesias than from that of Nyasaland.

The other matter that struck me was this. Economic affairs in the Rhodesias are mainly concerned with copper and coal. These two questions go on and on like a roundabout, where wooden painted ostriches, camels and horses and ducks go round and round till the music stops; and when it resumes they go round and round again. Let me give your Lordships an example. There is a great demand for copper, either from people in this country or instigated by the United States. The United Kingdom Departments go to Northern Rhodesia and say, "We want more copper." Northern Rhodesia says, "We will give you more copper if we can get more coal from Southern Rhodesia." The Departments go to Southern Rhodesia and ask for coal, and Southern Rhodesia say, "Yes, but we should like another engine." You say "Another?" they say "Yes, another." And so the Departments rush round to get an engine.

In a month or two's time there is a great outcry for more copper. You go to Northern Rhodesia and say, "We want some more copper." They say, "Very well, but we need more coal." So you go to Southern Rhodesia and ask for more coal. They say, "Yes, if you can get us more wagons." So you rush round and get them wagons. Shortly afterwards there is still another outcry for copper; and you go to Northern Rhodesia and they answer, "We want still more coal." You go to Southern Rhodesia and ask for coal, and they say, "Yes, if only we can get more labour." So you go to the experts here and send them out to try to improve the labour situation in Southern Rhodesia. Once again the same thing happens and you go to Southern Rhodesia and say, "What about more coal?" They say, "Yes, if only we could have another engine." You say, "We got you an engine," but they reply sadly, "Another engine." So it goes on: copper, coal, engine, wagons, labour. The roundabout goes on, and in my experience there is no end to it. In that way and in many others the two countries are bound together; and this playing off of one against the other is not helpful. And, of course, from the larger economic point of view both Rhodesias need large-scale investment. Barriers should be swept away. They need unified, better, and more comprehensive services; separate services are wasteful and uneconomic.

For all these reasons there is a great argument for economic union or federation between the territories. But I realised then and I realise now that the European settler and African opinion may be hard to convince of the need for the scheme; and even if they were satisfied of its need they might be hard to convince that their interests would be safeguarded. In the event, we know that what I forecast has happened, and that European opinion in Southern Rhodesia has been apprehensive that federation would mean too much Whitehall control, and that African opinion has been apprehensive that it would mean too little.

Mr. Stockil, the leader of the European Opposition Party in Southern Rhodesia, has described the federation proposals as "a bridge to Gold Coast ideas." African opinion, so far as I have been able to ascertain it—we have met Africans here, and we have had a large number of letters and communications from people in touch with African people in the territories concerned—is based upon fear. I think it would be a mistake if there were too much concentration upon the details of this particular constitution. Africans are not worried about the details at all, so far as I understand. They have a certain fear, and it is our duty, as a House of Parliament responsible for them, to study the reasons for their fear.

What is the fear at the back of the African mind? I would say that it is twofold. First of all, they are afraid that they will come under the domination of the white settlers; secondly, they fear that their land will be taken away from them and given to the Europeans. They have no faith in entrenched clauses; they have no faith in paper constitutions. Now they will hear—which I think is a very sad thing for them to hear—that there will be no proper discussion in this Parliament of the details of the proposed constitution. Because when the Secretary of State for the Colonies was asked in another place on June 25 whether it would be possible for Members to move Amendments to any Bill which embodied the federation proposals, he said, in a Written Answer (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 502, col. 182): No. It is contemplated that the Bill (if there is one), should be an enabling one authorising Her Majesty to establish a federal constitution by Order in Council. The details of this constitution would by then have been agreed by the four Governments concerned and there would have been earlier opportunities for the House to discuss them. That seems to me an extraordinary bit of constitutional theory: that because somebody else has come to an agreement the Members of this Parliament are not to discuss the agreement and are not to move amendments to it. It seems to me that we are going back to the days of King Charles I, and that all that has happened since has been forgotten by Mr. Lyttelton. I hope that the Government and the noble Marquess will not agree to that proposal. I cannot help thinking that it must have slipped by when the noble Marquess was not looking; otherwise, he would not have agreed to it.

As I say, we on this side of the House, and no doubt noble Lords on the other side, have talked to Africans about this question, and I tell your Lordships quite frankly that I was both impressed and touched by what the Africans told me on this question. They see things in simpler terms than we do. For instance, Sitemabulu, the Barotse Chief, whose grandfather first made a treaty with Queen Victoria and who himself, as a small boy, knew Livingstone, told me that he looked upon it as a straight deal between his grandfather and Queen Victoria, and he felt that he did not want the relationship which had subsisted between the Queen and the Chief to be altered in these present days. As he put it, he did not want "the shadow of the young Queen to grow less." They feel that they are being brushed aside, as it were, from our portals: they are to be sent away from the doorstep of this country.

I am not saying they are at all right in that view, but I am trying at this moment to investigate the fear that is in their minds and the reason for it. It is perhaps a rather curious commentary upon so much anti-British criticism in the world outside, when we are so often called, in certain places, "Imperialists" and the rest, that here are large numbers of Africans, millions of them, whose one hope it is that they will not go from the shield and protection of the British Crown; that, so far from regarding us as Imperialists, they desire that connection between them and us shall long subsist. It is rather a curious factor that it should be the Conservative Party who are trying to force on Africans a different frame of mind. I look upon this as essentially a problem of human relationships, not a question of paper constitutions. I will tell your Lordships why.

When the party from Northern Rhodesia arrived at the airport in Africa, they were hungry, they were tired and, as we can well understand in this weather, they were thirsty; but they were not allowed into the airport restaurant because they were black. They came over to this country at the invitation of the Secretary of State; they were entertained in your Lordships' House, in another place and in the best hotels; and, of course, they were able to use, among other places, the airport restaurant. It was not a very good start for a Conference at which these people were being asked to remove themselves from British authority and to place themselves under the authority of people who would not even allow them to drink a glass of lemonade in that airport restaurant. That is why I say that this is primarily a question of human relationships; and while this colour bar exists in the extreme form in which it does in certain parts of the world there will never be a proper human relationship.

Is this the only way? Supposing that African opinion cannot be persuaded in the way that the Government think, and a great deal of objective opinion thinks, is the best way of dealing with this problem, is it the only way? What about a system on the lines of the East African High Commission? There is a system working to the North which gives, I think, practically all the economic advantages that this system would, without the political disadvantages. I do not want to weary your Lordships with this point now because I shall be raising it in a later debate, but I have always suggested that we lack imagination in these schemes. This idea of shelving off Dominions really applied to Dominions which were peopled originally by Europeans from this country. It evolved out of the American Revolution. That fact bears no relation at all to most of the territories in the Colonial Empire. And yet we have not faced this position. We have made no provision for those territories, whether they are too small to be able to stand economically on their own feet, or whether a multi-racial problem is involved. That has the same effect. I have proposed a Council of Greater Britain where this country and all those territories which I have described should meet and to which they should send representatives. If there were a Council of Greater Britain of the type I have mentioned, then I think Africans and others would be prepared to have economic and political groupings within the orbit of that greater Council.

The Africans and others would not be afraid that they would emerge from or be driven away from the shadow of the Queen if such a Council existed. But it does not exist; it may never exist. The Colonial territories may crumble away as the Roman Colonies crumbled, and become a source not of strength but of weakness to the Mother Country; and they and we in this country may then be overrun, as we were once before, by barbarians from the banks of the Rhine and the Elbe. To force through federation in the teeth of African opinion—that is if Her Majesty's Government fail to persuade Africans of the desirability of federation—would, in my view, be both a crime and a tragedy. It would be a betrayal of all that we, as a people, stand for. It would be a justification for all the malicious, bitter, anti-British feeling expressed in so many quarters. It would have wide repercussions. Only to-day in The Times there was a report of the Presidential Address to the United Central Africa Association by Sir Godfrey Huggins, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. He said that he believed that Europeans could not remain in Africa unless they carried the indigenous inhabitants with them. He went on to say: If they work together"— that is, the Europeans and the Africans— there is no reason why our descendants should not remain here indefinitely. But if you are going to refuse Africans to take any part at all in the Government of their country, then it is only a matter of time when your descendants will be pushed out of Africa altogether. That is the view of Sir Godfrey Huggins.

Furthermore, I would say that to push the Africans into a situation of this kind would in fact be useless, because the elaborate machinery (I am talking about the constitutional machinery) envisaged by the federation proposals implies that Africans will co-operate freely with the Europeans. If they do not, then the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on; and if they will not attend a conference at Lancaster House in London, called by the noble Marquess, is it likely that in this frame of mind they are going to form part of the various bodies, the legislative councils and the like, envisaged by this federal proposal? Therefore, I appeal to the Government to take time over this matter and to do everything possible to carry African opinion with them. If the scheme is a fine scheme, then we should be able to convince African opinion, opinion in this country, and world opinion that it is a fine scheme. There is no need to steamroller the thing through. I ask the Government not to do that. The noble Marquess's grandfather once said that Africa is a continent created to be the plague of the Foreign Office. I hope his grandson will regard Africa as an inspiration for wise statesmanship. Africans in all parts of Africa are watching intently these developments. By our actions we shall be judged. Pray God we act wisely and do well! I beg to move for Papers.

3.15 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, although I am speaking at an early stage in the long list of speakers who wish to address your Lordships' House, and although my view I hope and think represents the opinion of probably many millions of Liberal-minded people, not only in this country and in the Commonwealth but also in the world, I am nevertheless going to keep my remarks extremely short and not elaborate my points. Briefly, what I have to say in criticism of this proposal is that I deplore any scheme of federation in Central Africa, or indeed in any part of the world, which is not supported by the freely expressed consent of the populations concerned. That seems to me to be a fundamental principle of democracy which must be the basis of any sort of organisation or idealism in the modern world. Further, with great respect I would remind noble Lords on the Government Benches that the peoples of Nyasaland and of Northern Rhodesia are actually under the protection of Her Majesty the Queen, and to effect any unilateral alteration in that status would surely amount ostensibly to a grave breach of trust. Stated quite baldly and crudely, that is the criticism which we on these Benches have to make.

But when we seek to fill in the existing framework with some alternative, constructive picture, I do agree that we meet what seems a formidable task. However, the fact that we have a frame of certain measurements and an unfinished picture which has to go into that frame but does not yet quite fill it up, should not lead us on this side of the House to despair, nor, I hope, noble Lords on the other side of the House to precipitate action which, in the opinion of many people, might have quite disastrous results. I believe, as I am sure many of your Lordships believe, that African opposition is real and widespread, and is based on a genuine fear of exploitation—not exploitation by Government officials, the white officials whom I believe the majority of the African peoples have come to respect, to admire and to trust (and I am sure we should all like to pay a great tribute to the magnificent work they have done), but exploitation by what are called the white settlers, who in the past have not scrupled, and in the future will continue not to scruple, to turn things to their own advantage in a country where civilisation is only slowly coming to political adolescence.

There is surely no doubt that those who have carefully and with genuine good will evolved this scheme have tried, and on paper perhaps have succeeded, to protect the African from the form of exploitation which he fears. But the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland cannot help smelling danger in the set-up of the third State in the Trinity which is to form this Federation—Southern Rhodesia; and perhaps they may have the aroma of something even more frightful not so very much farther off than Southern Rhodesia itself. Can we blame them for their suspicions, when they, as a race, have not yet come up to the standards of civilisation and political education of European countries? We must, I suggest, arrive at a balanced judgment between those who maintain that the white man must always hold the whip hand, and those who see in the hand of the white man nothing but a whip. Those are two extremes which are quite unrealistic and must be discounted. I therefore urge Her Majesty's Government not to force this matter through, or, more important, not to seem to be forcing this matter through in the present state of African opinion. If the Government is acting on the principle of Bis dat qui cito dat, may I suggest this possible translation: "He who gives too quickly will have to give twice"?

The accusation which I make against this scheme in general is simply that the timing and the order of battle have gone wrong. That this federal scheme should be evolved at all is admirable, but I submit that it is regrettable that it should be published as ready to be implemented, ready to be put on the African people whether they want it or not, when the main element in it—that is acceptability by the people to whom it applies—is still in a completely fluid slate. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is, I believe, still hoping to persuade the African people by a personal visit to Africa. The Governments of Northern Rhodesia and of Nyasaland are still charged with the task of altering and educating the African attitude, so far as they can, in every way. The very fact that these hopes, expectations and desires are still ahead of us and not abandoned behind us surely means that the frame of federation, as it is conceived, and the picture which we have to fit into it, are not at the moment quite ready to be mated. Finally, I would urge Her Majesty's Government to live up to their name, and in this critical matter, as well as in the cause of democratic progress, to be for once just a little conservative.

3.20 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

My Lords, the proposed federation of these three territories in Central Africa has an importance far beyond the territories themselves. It has to be considered in the context of world politics and in the context of the British Commonwealth, with the great changes that have taken place since the war, as well as in relation to the self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia and the Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and of Nyasaland. Take the world politics aspect first. In the last seven years, a political revolution has been accomplished in Eastern Asia with astonishing speed. The greater part of the Oriental nations dependent on the West have become free. Britain has given unconditional independence to India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma. Holland has transformed its East Indian Empire into the Republic of Indonesia. The United States have given independence to the Philippines. The temper of nationalism has its perilous side. Thanks to the wise statesmanship of the West, its aims have been achieved and its dangers averted. The problem still confronts us in Asia, in Korea, in Indo-China and in Malaya, as we know to our cost. A similar nationalism and similar forces of social revolution confront us in Africa, and one of the great problems before Western statesmen is how to guide and control them aright.

One of the outstanding results of this political revolution in Eastern Asia is that the British Commonwealth is no longer a White Commonwealth. With the independence of the numerous peoples of India and Pakistan, in particular, it has become multi-racial. The balance of power is altered. Britain is now an equal member of a multi-racial Commonwealth. This fact has a significant bearing on the future of Africa. A characteristic problem of Africa is that it is a plural or multi-racial society, and what Britain does there affects every corner of the Commonwealth. Therefore, it should not surprise our British fellow-subjects in Central Africa that the Draft Federal Scheme should arouse keen interest outside Central Africa, and that it should even be regarded as a test case of the attitude of the British people and Parliament to the interests of the Africans. I know that many British settlers in Africa and many British magnates in this country with large business concerns in Africa are deeply concerned about the welfare of Africans, and are doing what they can in vigorous ways to promote a better understanding between the races.

The Churches have a particular claim to an interest in this matter. Their fundamental concern is the concern to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has referred—human relationships between men of different races. Also the Churches and the Missionary Societies were closely connected with the beginnings of European interest in the territories, through Dr. Livingstone's discoveries and their follow-up. Many missions of various Churches are at work in all three territories. The British Council of Churches, meeting in Belfast during April, made a statement on the general situation from the human relationship point of view. That Council represents all the non-Roman Catholic churches in the British Isles. The statement recognised that there are two main races concerned in Central Africa, and that each has its contribution to make to the total life of the community. Then the statement continued: It is the conviction of the Council that the future peace and prosperity of the territories must be sought neither by way of the domination of either race nor by way of the segregation of the races, but by way of partnership. … The achievement of partnership will not be furthered by brushing aside the fears of Africans as completely unfounded or as the creation of a politically-minded minority. There is good reason to believe that a considerable proportion of them are well aware of the fundamental choice to be made. They value freedom above economic or administrative advantage. An attempt to impose a plan of federation in the face of almost unanimous African opposition, even suposing it were ill-informed, would destroy the basis on which its success would depend—willing partnership. Such partnership requires that African trust and co-operation be won by sympathetic understanding of their misgivings and by clear demonstrations of good faith. The Churches, in that statement, offer no opinion with regard to the constitutional merits of the scheme. It is, as the noble Lord who spoke last agreed, a question of confidence or trust. The Church of Scotland at its recent General Assembly made the same point—that full consideration must be given to African opinion and that no scheme should be adopted without the consent and co-operation of the Africans. The Presbyterian Church of England passed a similar resolution.

When amalgamation was first proposed in 1938 there were only 76,000 Europeans in the territories, and 4,330,000 Africans. Nevertheless, the Royal Commission under the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, rejected the proposal for amalgamation, and two of the main reasons given were differences in native policy between the three territories and the opposition of African opinion. The situation now is that the 76,000 Europeans have grown to 169,000 and the number of Africans has increased to 6,000,000. The former Secretary of State, Mr. Griffiths, in November, 1950, before the London Conference of 1951, promised that full account would be taken of African opinion. The Report of the officials at the London Conference affirmed that the similarity in the native policy of the Governments was plainer than the difference. That is hardly an opinion which Africans in the Northern territories would share. The Victorian Falls Conference made it quite plain that one of the main obstacles to the general acceptance of Federation rests in the apprehension felt by Africans in the two Northern territories that federation might impair their position and prospects in respect of those territories.

The recent London Conference told its own tale. Not only were the delegates and other spokesmen from the Northern territories absent, but they made their reasons for absence plain in a long letter to The Times on April 29. I need not trouble your Lordships with the whole of the letter, but in it they said this: We oppose Central African federation on principle on the following grounds. We fear the extension to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland of the native policy of Southern Rhodesia if the three territories are federated. … The native policy of Southern Rhodesia approximates more closely to native policy in the Union of South Africa than to native policy in any other British Africa territory. Later they said: We have no faith in professed safeguards for African interests. The constitutions of the Union of South Africa and of Southern Rhodesia have proved that they are valueless. They added: We prefer political reforms in each territory first. The question of atmosphere is crucial. It' cannot be denied, whatever one may feel, however one may wish it otherwise, that there is a deep-seated mistrust. What are the grounds for this mistrust? The Africans in Northern Rhodesia have always objected to a close alliance with Southern Rhodesia. Thousands of them have worked in Southern Rhodesia and know at first hand the general attitude of the European to the African. They are convinced that the position of the Africans is worse in Southern Rhodesia. They are also convinced that the move comes from powerful white groups who desire to get rid of Colonial Office control under which the Africans want to remain.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said that questions of constitution are secondary; and I agree. Nevertheless, there are points in the constitution which deserve a little attention. The constitution provides that out of thirty-five members of the Federal Assembly, only six are Africans. That is the crucial weakness. The Protectorates are retained up to a point, but among the subjects transferred from the two Northern Territories to the Federal Government are the vital interests of immigration and higher education, including African higher education, which is crucial because, unless the Africans have higher education, they will not be able to take responsibility in government. Further, under the heading "Miscellaneous" there is a provision for amendment of the Constitution by a two-thirds majority, in which the six Africans would play a very small part. While in theory the Constitution may be amended favourably to Africans, they fear, after what has been said in Southern Rhodesia by the Prime Minister and in Northern Rhodesia by Mr. Roy Welensky, that it will be very much the other way. There are safeguards offered, and I am not saying that safeguards of this kind may not be valuable: it all depends on the degree of trust and confidence felt in the safeguards by the Africans concerned.

The African Affairs Board to be set up under the scheme is composed of three Africans, three Europeans and an independent Chairman. They have powers of objection to the Bill. They have powers of representation to the Government, but they have no powers of positive action for the advancement of Africans. Because the consideration of African interests is so distasteful in certain quarters in Southern Rhodesia, even the African Affairs Board is being represented as a necessary evil, which need not last long and which might be the first step towards complete freedom from Colonial Office control. I fear the Africans have no belief in safeguards. The Africans also observe—because I think we must consider this in a world context, in a British Commonwealth context and a general African context—how different are the provisions in this scheme from the developments in the Gold Coast, different as I know the circumstances to be, and how different they are also from the provisions in the proposed new Constitution for Tanganyika, which is a major step forward in political responsibility for Africans. What a fall from the policy of 1923 announced in the White Paper on Indians in Kenya, issued by a former Duke of Devonshire! Let me quote from that Paper this paragraph: Primarily Kenya is an African territory, and His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives must be paramount, and that if, and when, those interests and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail. Obviously the interests of the other communities European, Indian or Arab, must severally be safeguarded… But in the administration of Kenya His Majesty's Government regard themselves as exercisng a trust on behalf of the African population, and they are unable to delegate or share this trust, the object of which may be defined as the protection and advancement of the native races.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, may I ask the right reverend Prelate whether he is referring to a document for which I was officially responsible, with my noble friend Lord Halifax, a document known as the Wood-Winterton Agreement? This was an Agreement between representatives of the India Office and the Colonial Office in regard to the position of Indians in Kenya. Is the right reverend Prelate aware that at that time there was practically no immigration into Kenya, and that there is no resemblance between the situation there and that in Northern Rhodesia? There is no huge immigration of European settlers into Kenya, as there is in Northern Rhodesia.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

My Lords, what I was seeking to point out to your Lordships was that the policy of the British Government, which in 1923 was a Conservative Government, was that the interests of the Africans are paramount and that, whatever other races come in, and in whatever numbers, the interests of the Africans must be safeguarded and must remain paramount. I happen to know something about that situation because I was closely concerned with Archbishop Davidson in the negotiations with the Duke of Devonshire and the India Office at that time. All these things depend on adminis- tration and practice, but I would have your Lordships and my noble friend Lord Winterton mark that the safeguards here are for Europeans, Indians and Arabs, and not the other way about.

I believe that formidable objections are raised by African opinion, and that these formidable objections have in some way to be met. I am not blind to the importance of closer association. I am not blind to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made about the vacuum of power, or to the importance of power and discipline. But it is extraordinarily important to meet the objections of the 6,000,000, and more especially the Africans in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. There is to be a referendum of the Europeans, and the result of that referendum is to be decisive. How are the Africans' views to be gathered? What steps do Her Majesty's Government propose to take? Little has been done, so far, in this direction. Too little time has been given; too few words have been said. It is not enough for the Governor, or for Mr. Roy Welensky to broadcast grave utterances: something much more personal is required. Nor, in my submission, are the district officers the proper people to canvass the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland as powerful champions and advocates of a scheme, because the success of their relations with the Africans depend on trust and confidence. I would also dare to affirm that a threat to ignore African objections must necessarily weaken any possible African trust in safeguards.

I have spoken much of the objection of the Africans, for it is on this point, I think, that the main issue depends. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I had the opportunity, when representatives from the two Northern territories were here, of conversing with some of them. I have also been in touch with various missionaries in the territories. There is no doubt at all about the African opposition. One such missionary, speaking of Nyasaland, in April, said that the resistance of the Africans to federation has grown greatly since the Victoria Falls Conference, and all the fears which they have expressed are proving only too well founded—and here I quote: The Africans are absolutely united. Any attempt to suggest that only a few hotheads are stirring up all the trouble, or that Africans' opinion is divided, or that they say 'No' without understanding, is sheer folly. More remarkable still, yesterday I happened to be with the most prominent French Protestant pastor living. He has just returned from a visit to Northern Rhodesia, where he was engaged in visiting the French Protestant Mission. He is a man of great judgment and great wisdom. He saw the paramount Chief of Barotseland, and many Chiefs and many Africans, and he summed up his judgment thus: There are no more devoted subjects of the Queen in any part of the British Empire than the Africans. They are loyal to the core. They go back to the great Queen Victoria and to the Treaties made with her, on which they absolutely rely. But they are as one man against federation. I therefore join with the two noble Lords who have spoken in begging the Government not to commit themselves in this scheme now; to take note of the opposition among the Africans: to take note of the great and, I would say, growing anxiety in many quarters at home.

The decisions which Her Majesty's Government have to take are grave. They will have repercussions all over the world, all over the British Commonwealth and in all the African territories, including the High Commission territories. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, spoke on another occasion of the urgency of this matter, and said: I firmly believe that this might, and probably will, represent the last chance of maintaining the British way of life in that part of the world. That is an important consideration on which I am Sure the Marquess will enlarge. But no convincing reasons have so far been given for the urgency. I would say that it is riot part of the British way of life to attempt to force a plan through against the overwhelming opposition of Africans after their opinion has been asked. To do so is to ask for trouble; it is to ask for failure. I am aware of the vacuum of power; I am also aware of the Central African Council, and how little that has really been used. I am aware, as all your Lordships are, of the great loyalty of this wonderful cohort of Her Majesty's subjects in Africa, and I beg Her Majesty's Government to adopt a policy of building up confidence and trust, and to do nothing in haste.