CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

HL Deb 01 April 1953 vol 181 cc457-75

3.7 p.m.

LORD NOEL-BUXTON rose to call attention to the Report by the Conference on Federation (Cmd. 8753), and to ask whether Her Majesty's Government intend to proceed with Federation in Central Africa, regardless of African opinion as expressed by the chiefs and representative organisations in the Territories concerned; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I realise that I am in a very junior position in your Lordships' House to be raising an issue of this great magnitude—indeed, perhaps of the largest possible magnitude in this country at this moment. I want particularly to concentrate on the issue of Central African Federation in terms of the human problem. I think most of us on this side of the House would acknowledge the great economic advantages inherent in such a scheme, and I do not wish to speak very much on the economic issue except to say this: that if federation is so bitterly opposed, as is the case, there is certainly no assurance that federation will produce a more stable unit to attract capital. And that is one of the main arguments advanced in favour of federation.

I should like to turn straight away to this question of partnership in practice. I understand that the spirit of this concept of partnership between theraces is incorporated in the federal scheme in some new way. We are told that this is something positive. Last autumn I spent some time in the Territories concerned, and I hope that none of your Lordships will deny that there is not a single serious-thinking African who regards this concept of partnership, as at present proposed, as meaning anything at all. At the moment, the African has, in fact, got beyond words. What he requires is concrete proof of what this partnership is. Before we can show him what this partnership is, I suggest that we must have some clear ideas of what it means. We know certainly that it does not mean equality between the races straight away. But what is it to mean in the streets of Salisbury or Lusaka in the immediate months ahead? "Partnership" is a very fine word; so, for that matter, is the phrase "Central African Federation."

This matter of partnership is surely at the core of the whole argument, and in discussing the question of federation I am sure that none of us will wish to use the sentence which Shakespeare puts into the mouth of one of his characters: I cannot fight upon this argument; It is too starved a subject for my sword We all hold fervent views upon this subject, and I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of those who think that federation must be pressed, regardless of African opposition. I hope that if anyone thinks that African opposition is something that exists only among a few Africans he will say so most clearly. I will say, straight away, that I regard African opposition to this federal scheme as virtually universal.

This federal scheme has a short but not very inspiring preamble to it. Could it not be that this preamble might be enlarged to give a definition of "partnership"; and would not Her Majesty's Government join with Southern Rhodesia and the other two Governments in issuing a statement on partnership right at the start?' We are now in the dark as to what partnership really means. Does it mean, for instance, that an African can now go into Meikle's hotel in Salisbury, or, rather, that some African who would naturally want to go there could do so? Does it mean that there will no longer he a firm tradition that you cannot shake hands in the streets with some African whom you happen to know or to have met in this country? What does it mean? I do not see that partnership can have very much meaning unless is can be defined. Perhaps noble Lords will say that it is an invisible thirst; and that you cannot either define it or legislate for it. But I say to the Government: let us know what the stages towards its implementation are going to be.

I do not want to raise this issue as a Party issue. Nevertheless it is true that the issue follows, roughly, Party lines. Noble Lords opposite are disinclined to consider or to weigh as of any importance the opinion of the African, and tend to regard him as a cog of a very junior sort in the machine. My own Party, though not united in this matter, stand very firm on this question of imposition. I cannot see what can be gained by imposing federation against the express wish of the Africans. The Labour Party naturally have a strong feeling for the under-dog. So have we all—that is especially a thing in which this country excels. We do, I think, tend to perceive with more sensitivity that the African is on the march, and that the old concepts of the place of the African in the community just will not hold to-day. That is one of my main criticisms of the scheme—that it does not allow for advance. It freezes the position as it is. It says that there shall be six Africans in the Federal Assembly: and so it is; there are six Africans, and there is no means of changing that representation without a two-thirds majority, which would mean a European majority—and that is not likely to come about. What is very obvious in Central Africa, and indeed in any other part of Africa at the moment, is that people are wanting more and more rights—not static rights. That is where this concept of partnership comes in.

What are to be the stages through which Africans are going to have greater and greater rights and not just be fixed within their present limits? In case I am accused of having gone to Central Africa and merely wandered around with Africans and sat in their huts, I would say that in this matter we must be neither on the side of the Africans nor on the side of the Europeans in any partisan sense, but, so far as our perception lies, on the side of the angels. There is no doubt that partnership is the only thing, and if it is really to be carried out it must be partnership between the races, like partnership in the business sense. We say: "He asked his brother to go into partnership with him." That is speaking of the matter in the business sense. What is the sense in which there is going to be a partnership in Africa?

I hope that the noble Viscount can tell us, in detail, what it means if you say: "Well, to give the African reassurance show him the White Paper. Here is this most intricate and important document. It will give him confidence." But the fact is that it does not give him confidence. It seems to me that the people who are saying, "Show him the White Paper and he will see that his interests are really safeguarded," are the very people who say that the African is not very intelligent. Why should he be prepared to look at the White Paper and really think: "This is all right by me"? In fact, because of its vagueness and complexity it is a sort of atom bomb in his house. There is no saying what it may mean. He is not convinced by it, merely because he is not convinced by the past and by what has happened in the past. There has been no partnership between the races and he wants to know what will be the partnership between the races in the future.

It is often said that federation is a bulwark against the sterile policies of the Union. I should be the first to agree that the policies of the Union of South Africa are sterile. But I think we should certainly cast out the mote from our own eye, because our policies are on the same wave-length. It is all part of this inherent idea that the white man is essentially superior in Africa. He is superior, but if he is really certain of that superiority why cannot he be more humble about it? People then will accept him as master, if they also have justice. I am not one of those hankering for a "One man, one vote" suggestion at the moment. It would be grossly unfair to say that the policy of partnership in Africa may easily approximate to one of apartheid in embryo, but in a sense, of course, it is apartheid in embryo. The situation as it is now is apartheid in embryo. If economic developments and the development of industry are one of the main objects of federation, towns will grow, people will be thrown more and more up against other races, and the result may well be that there will be more and more insistence upon separation. We must either work together or get further and further apart.

Another thing I should like to say on this question of the Union relates to the idea of a build-up of one near-Dominion against another. Would not the ghost of Cecil Rhodes be horrified to think that this Federation, this British bloc in Central Africa, is being built up without a Prime Minister in Cape Town, for the Prime Minister is to be in Salisbury? Why is this thing being built up on a model of its own? It is an extreme thing to say, but it may be reviving some of the emotions of the Boer War. I spent some time in the autumn in the Union. My wife comes from the Union—she is an Africander. I would say that there are actually more liberals in the Union than in the Rhodesias—more in numbers, that is. I admit that the population is larger. The important thing is to get the help of all progressive people in all these British countries. Why could we not have conferred with the Union over this matter? We are out of tune in some sense with the Union Government at the moment, but ideally that is what ought to happen, even with a Nationalist Government in power.

I must say that in the Union I did not find very great interest in federation. The people seemed rather blaséabout it. I talked to a great many people who had strong views on federation and the dangers of its imposition. They are the people we should work with and look towards in our dealings with Central Africa, just as much as the people in Central Africa itself. There is this scheme which contains a great many important details. In itself it is probably a good scheme. Federation in itself is desirable; but the real thing is the human problem. I do not think it needs legislation for things to become better over-night. When passing someone in Kitwe or Salisbury, if one could look at him in a friendly way, then things would become better. Even this scheme could be worked well if it were worked in a different spirit. I should like to say something about the settlers, because I think I am opening myself to criticism for taking the African side and not understanding what it means to be a person trying to carve out a farm or a business in a new country. This is the other side of the partnership question: how the settler in his turn is to be a partner, if the African is willing to be one. I have never been a settler in Africa or anywhere else, but I nearly became one in New Zealand and I know that one finds it difficult to think about questions of statesmanship,like race relations, when one is working on a farm, struggling with a fence or with foot-rot.

It is very easy not to rise to a challenge like this one which faces us in Africa—the challenge of how two races in Africa are to get on together. There is no chance of any happiness or safety in Africa unless the Europeans undergo a real change of heart over this matter of race relationships. Whatever may be said, there is this attitude of not regarding the other person as a human being. Here is an example. Last year I met a leader of the Northern Rhodesian African Mineworkers Union in this country. He came out to my place and I met him in a London hotel. He is an excellent person. Nobody could say that he is not educated or sensitive. Later I met him in Kitwe, where he lives, and had lunch with. After I left, I found I could not say to him, "Come and have dinner with me to-morrow night at the Kitwe Hotel." It was quite impossible. It was also impossible for me to say that I should like him to come down the street and go on talking, because the tensions in the streets of Kitwe would not have allowed us to listen properly to what we were saying to each other. Where does partnership begin when that is the situation? That is why we really should have some clearer declaration from the Government of what this scheme really means in daily life. There is nothing so important as that simple thing.

It is very difficult to sort out how a change of heart will come about on the part of settlers, because they are in a country where they are in the vast minority and so it is natural for them to be frightened, especially as when we came into these countries in the first place we were not asked to go there. There is a hangover of the mood of an army of occupation. How do we suddenly sink our pride and realise that the people we have conquered or gone to live among are people who have to be regarded as potential equals, and that we have to work towards that equality? May I quote a memorable thing which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly during the American Civil War. It is an account of the entry of Mr. Lincoln into the city of Richmond, Virginia. I think this says a great deal: The walk was long, and the President halted a moment to rest 'May de good Lord bless you, President Linkum!' said an old negro, removing his hat and bowing, with tears of joy rolling down his cheeks. The President removed his own hat, and bowed in silence; but it was a bow which upset the forms, laws, customs, and ceremonies of centuries. It was a death-shock to chivalry and a mortal wound to caste. Recognise a nigger! Fough!' A woman in an adjoining house beheld it, and turned from the scene inunspeakable disgust. We are very far from that extreme situation here in Africa. Nevertheless, I submit that we are on the wave-length of that lady, and, though things are worse in the Union, it is all one picture in British Africa.

I do not want to detain your Lordships for much longer, but there is the question of the move towards Dominion status on the part of this Federation. In the preamble to the White Paper, it is declared that this scheme shall be part of a move towards Dominion status and that, in particular, it will foster partnership and co-operation between all the inhabitants of the Territories and enable the Federation, when the inhabitants of the Territories so desire, to go forward with confidence towards the attainment of full membership of the Commonwealth. That is a noble aspiration on the part of settlers and citizens, but it links up with what I have said about settlers not being statesmen. I do not think we can with confidence let these countries, with their present attitude over race relationships, go their own way entirely and freely. What I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, concerns this move towards Dominion status. Is it the case, as I presume it to be the case, that when this status is reached, the Mother Country will have no power whatsoever over what happens to Africans in the Territories concerned? If so, it is not a really important point in the long run whether the safeguards in the scheme are good or bad. They are temporary—that is the important point—because there is this move planned towards Dominion status.

We must take a long view of this matter. I think the safeguards have been much weakened in the new scheme. In the scheme the Federation cannot move towards Dominion status unless the inhabitants of the Territories concerned wish it. It does not even say "the majority of the inhabitants," nor does it say in so many words whether it means black or white. I am sure it means black and white. But it is as important to reassure the Africans as it is to reassure the Europeans. Why could we not put in "black and white," and emphasise that this is a partnership between the races? I should like to know definitely whether this is the case, and whether federation in its new amalgamation stage will in no sense be controllable from London. I should like to know how soon the Government expect this new stage to be reached. I am sure they are sincere about maintaining the Protectorate status of the two Northern Territories until there shall be a new system of franchise on which it can be ascertained whether the inhabitants want Dominion status or not but I think that with the settlers in their present mood any Government are likely to be rushed over this. After all, this very scheme that is now before us in its innocent looking format is the result of the settlers' initiative. The impetus and strength of it originate on the spot. It is clear that the settlers wish this scheme to lead as soon as possible to Dominion status. Settlers are tending to be "fed up" with London. What guarantee have we, once this Federation conies about, that we shall be able to check a quick tendency to insist on full Dominion status? After all, if the African Affairs Board tries to work well, that in itself could cause tremendous irritation to the less altruistic settlers, who will say, "This is a most unfortunate piece of London control, and we must get rid of it as soon as possible." It is well known that Mr. Welensky and others speak as if London control must be got rid of as quickly as possible. This is a most serious matter.

There are other aspects of the subject with which I could deal. I am especially proud to be associated with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester in this matter, and to be aware that we have Motions on similar lines on the Order Paper. I look forward with the greatest eagerness to what he has to say to your Lordships. Before I conclude, I should like to read from a letter I have received from some African students at the University College of Hull. They are mostly West African students. I have been up there once or twice and talked with them about this whole question of Africa, and the question of partnership, whether in East, West or Central Africa. These students represent forty of the 4,500 Africans studying in this country at the moment, and this letter is written on behalf of these forty students. They are the serious, thoughtful and excellent Africans, whom we must let on to our own wavelength and into every place where we ourselves go in Africa—in the hotels, in the same carriages of trains, and so forth. They say in this letter: The imposition of this Federation, regardless of African objections founded on very reasonable grounds, and in the heat of racial tension, hanging over South Africa and Kenya, is, we dare say, placing undue premium on valour while giving practically no consideration to discretion. We sincerely find it difficult to take a view contrary to that already expressed by the people themselves, that the Federation, if imposed, would only serve to spread the area of discontent and fan to conflagration the present flame of racial antagonism.

The most interesting thing about talking with these people is to realise their awareness of Africa as a whole. They think that Central Africa is their responsibility they regard themselves as only superior in opportunity—not as better people. As soon as they have got their own affairs sorted out, Central Africa is to them as if it were a house in the next road. In another part of the letter they say: We are of the opinion that the energy of the Government should for the moment be directed towards developing the political institutions of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to allow for African participation in the running of his own affairs in local and central administrations. The Government should also endeavour to succeed in improving the race relations, particularly in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, and also to encourage the growth of trade unions in Southern Rhodesia as well as an informed body of African opinion.…We wish, also, to emphasise the wisdom in respecting the views of educated Africans, for the alternative to their leadership is one which does not argue or protest, but resorts to violence to achieve political ends.

In the course of our debate we shall have many important views expressed. I hope that by to-morrow we shall all have come to some clearer idea of what is next to be done. It is rather tragic when one has to be against something that is intended to be done when the subject is crying out for things to be done. But I take the view that these Africans, these Nigerians and these Gold Coast people, express in their letter, that imposition of federation will be a fatal thing. If it is to be imposed—and that seems to be the likelihood—can we not, at least, have a sensibly longer preamble to the scheme, in which some well chosen words will express what partnership actually is, so that the Africans will not turn away and say to themselves that this is just another fraud? I beg to move for Papers.

3.46 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

had given notice of a Motion to call attention to the Federal Scheme for Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Cmd. 8754), and to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to secure the good will of Africans in the three Territories; and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lori who has just sat down, I am sure that I am expressing the sentiments of the. Whole House when I say this. All your Lordships are glad that the son of a flan whose life was dedicated to great causes of inter-racial and international concord and conciliation in every sphere should, by taking up the interests of partnership between the races in Africa, follow thus in his father's steps.

I should like to make it plain, at the start, that, like the noble Lord, my own hesitations in regard to federation are not on the economic aspects as such but are concerned simply and solely with the attitude of the Africans in the three Territories, and with the reasons behind that attitude. That is why I ask what steps Her Majesty' Government are taking to secure the good will of the Africans in the three Territories concerned. I join my voice in this momentous debate, not as a former resident in any of the Territories, or even as a visitor thereto, but as one who, through my international Church work, is in close touch with men of many races, especially in the East, who attach great importance to the lead which Britain gives with regard to policy concerning native populations, and who are watching Britain's actions now with deep concern. The Colonial Secretary, introducing the debate it another place, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 513 (No. 80), col. 659) that the policy at which federation aims is to foster a partnership of races upon which a great and prosperous State will grow. But I agree with what has just been said, that it is the character of the partnership, and the real effectiveness of the rôle accorded to the African people, that is the issue.

The question of a closer union between the three Territories has been constantly canvassed for twenty-six years or more, and on every occasion the interests of the Africans have been regarded by Her Majesty's Government as of primary importance. Many White Papers, Memoranda and Reports have made this plain. Thus, the Report of the Hilton Young Commission in 1929, emphasising the importance of the dual policy—that is, complementary development of native and non-native communities—which was accepted by the Government, said that it is an essential principle of the dual policy that native interests must be regarded as an end in themselves, i.e., the natives cannot be treated as a mere accessory to the immigrant communities. In rejecting amalgamation, and also federation, the Report of 1929 said: The control of a large black population by the small white community in Southern Rhodesia is still in an experimental stage, and it would be unwise to add to its burdens until its ability to discharge its present task has been tested for a longer period. Similarly, the Royal Commission, over which my noble friend Lord Bledisloe presided—and we are very glad to know that he is to speak—in 1939 rejected amalgamation as immediately practicable and gave as their primary reason the divergence in native policy. It is well known that during and since the war the settlers have continued to press for amalgamation or closer union, but although the economic development of these vast areas can be brought about only by the united efforts of the whole population, of which the natives constitute the overwhelming majority, and although progress of the natives in every direction is necessary to the prosperity of these areas, little effort has in fact been made to secure the natives' willing and intelligent co-operation. Thus, at the very start of the present proceedings, Sir Godfrey Huggins and Mr. Welensky held a private conference at Victoria Falls in February, 1949, but it was all white, in camera; and, of course, no natives were there. At a second conference at Victoria Falls in September, 1951, no Africans from Southern Rhodesia were present, and the reason given by Sir Godfrey Huggins was that they were not necessary, and that he did not want sectional representation. Indeed, on November 19, 1951, Sir Godfrey Huggins said in the Legislative Assembly that the Africans who had attended from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland had left the Victoria Falls Conference with the most "frightfully swollen heads." The Conference, he said, had degenerated into a native benefit society meeting led by the former Colonial Secretary, Mr. Griffiths.

When I saw personally the Nyasaland chiefs last February, and asked them, in the course of a fairly lengthy conversation, why they opposed federation, one of their reasons was put in this simple way: "Southern Rhodesia is a bad family. We do not want our good family to be mixed up with the bad and impolite family of Southern Rhodesia." The point the chiefs made in this simple way was put in more official language in the Comparative Survey of Native Policy prepared by the three Secretaries of Native Affairs and the Secretary of the Central African Council, which was issued in June, 1951. They said that there is a fundamental difference between conditions in Southern Rhodesia and conditions in the Northern Territories—I will quote their words. Policy in the Northern Territories holds that in order to fit the African to take his place in the community as a full partner with citizens of a more ancient civilization he must be induced to play a full part in the politics and administration of his own area, and must play a direct part in the politics and administration of the whole Territory. This is in the belief that without such political education there can be no assurance that the African will be able to play his full part in material and economic development. Policy in Southern Rhodesia holds that in order to fit the African to take his place in the community as a full partner with a more ancient civilisation it is first necessary to make him equal to his future partner in health, material well-being, and education. This is in the belief that without such advancement there can be no assurance that he will be fit to play a full part in the politics and administration even of his own area, let alone the politics and administration of the whole Territory. The authors of the Survey agree that practices and methods in the three Territories have drawn nearer to each other during recent years, but they add: While British tradition stands firm in Central Africa, the maintenance of important differences of native policy cannot be in the best interests of the three Territories. There is no employment colour bar in Nyasaland. It is severe in Southern Rhodesia. Pass laws are more exacting in Southern Rhodesia; trade unions are not recognised in Southern Rhodesia. No African is allowed to own or build houses in urban areas in Southern Rhodesia, and the differences in land policy are very striking. A Nyasaland chief said to me, "The land is our treasure." In Nyasaland—and I take these figures from the Comparative Survey—only 5 per cent. of the land is held in freehold, almost exclusively by Europeans. The rest is for the natives. In Northern Rhodesia, only 6 per cent. is set aside as Crown land intended for Europeans. The rest is for the natives. In Southern Rhodesia, 50 percent. of the available land is set aside for the exclusive use of the Europeans, and all the big towns are within the European area, while 33 per cent. is set aside for the exclusive use of the Africans. The rest is unassigned, undetermined and forest area. The Survey adds: The greater proportion of land reserved for European occupation in Southern Rhodesia should be considered in the light of the declared aim of the Colony to develop European settlement in the years to come in an extent far beyond the present. It is not surprising that Africans feel some alarm when they recall that while in 1926 there were 39,000 Europeans, in 1950 there were 128,000; and, according to the Survey, by the end of the century the European population is expected to rise to between half a million to a million. Where is there room for that immense population? How is the African population, now 1,726,000, and estimated to double every twenty-five years to find space to develop and maintain a family life? The Survey remarks that intensive farming of European territory, and the movement of a large number of Africans to a permanent urbanised existence, will be inevitable.

It is said that the Africans opposing federation are extremists, and that a great majority of the Africans have no great idea what federation means. I do not dispute the fact that the great bulk of the African population is at present primitive, but the information which I have received about African opinion points a rather different road. First, the Nyasaland chiefs themselves, coming from the smallest territory but with the largest African population of 2,500,000, who came over here in January and made so remarkable an impression in the country, are very far from being extremists. They told me that it was an unprecedented step to appeal to the United Kingdom over the heads of the Government officials. They said that federation has been discussed in village councils, district councils, provincial councils, and the Protectorate Council; and that all reject it.

The Bishop of Nyasaland, who knows the Territory very well, and with whom I have had much conversation and correspondence, writes in East and West for January, 1953: Personally, I have never known Africans so strong upon a subject as on this, and that at all levels. I have discussed with 'intelligentsia,' clergy, village chiefs, headmen and ordinary villagers—and I have met no-one who is in favour, though I would not of course say that there is none such. The Church of Scotland Mission Council, in the Nyasaland Times of October 9, 1952, said: The Council is concerned that the Minister of State on his visit to Nyasaland expressed the opinion that the African opposition to federation is not as soid as this Council has represented in statements that reached him from Edinburgh. Since his visit members of Council have verified the facts and see no reason to modify in any way their former statements. It is a complete misapprehension to suppose that the opposition is confined to a politically minded minority. As missionaries we are surprised at the knowledge of the issues involved in federation shown by ordinary Africans. Their opposition is not to details of the scheme, but to the whole principle, and it is for this reason that they refuse to discuss details. I mentioned missionaries. Missionaries ought to know, because here again the Survey of Native Policy states that in all three Territories over 90 per cent. of the educational facilities are provided by missionaries with Government financial assistance. The Christian Council of Northern Rhodesia passed a resolution to a similar effect.

As to Southern Rhodesia, your Lordships will have seen the various reports in the Press of the last few days. But here is a significant point. Mr. Joshua Nkomo was present it the London Conference in April and May, 1952, at the invitation of Sir Godfrey Huggins, and in its Report the Conference paid a tribute to the contributions which he and the other African, Mr. Savanko, made. This January, Mr. Nkomo returned to London, an opponent of federation but a champion of partnership. He is now President of the 7,000-strong African National Congress. While he was here he said that the Congress would like to see partnership of the white settlers and the Africans in Southern Rhodesia, but that the "prerequisites of partnership" were: recognition of African trade unions to help raise the standard of living for African workers; the repeal of the Apprentices Act, which debars Africans from skilled trades; the right of voting to intelligent Africans. Africans now have to earn £240 a year to qualify for the vote, and this debars many intelligent Africans, for the highest paid teacher gets only £16 a month, which is short of the requisite £20. I think, therefore, that there is ample evidence of the general opposition to federation.

In another place, the Colonial Secretary also said that he doubted whether, when federation is established, the African in the fields, the villages or the bush will be aware of any change for some time. He will see the same district commissioner and the same agricultural officer. The Colonial Secretary said nothing about the towns, but leaving that on one side, I dare say that he is right and accurate about the physical situation. But far more important is the psychological factor. If federation were to be forced through unchanged, the shadow of a great fear would hang over the whole land. That is what Her Majesty's Government and the Governments in the three Territories have to counter; and unless it is countered, not only in those three Territories but all over Africa, alarm and mistrust will spread.

What are the grounds for this fear, in addition to what I have already said? There are points in the federal scheme itself—and I wish to be precise. First, there is a crucial omission—the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, has referred to the preamble. The crucial omission is of any statement of any native policy, wherever that statement may be placed. There is no indication of what the Federal Assembly intends, or is expected to intend for the advancement of the natives. The attitude of the Federal Assembly to the essential native interests—the franchise, education, labour, administration, economic development and Government services—is undisclosed. Secondly, the scheme places power in the body of European elected members who have a majority of more than two-thirds over the representatives of African interests, and, so far as these interests are concerned, can permanently prevent any amendment of the Constitution which they dislike. The provision that there can be no amendment of the Constitution without a two-thirds majority is a fatal flaw.

Thirdly, the scheme purports to leave all the matters which touch the daily life of the African within the legislation of the Territorial Governments, and much has been made of this. But the Exclusive List in the Federal Legislative List includes immigration into and emigration from Federation; citizenship of Federation; higher education of Africans; defence; railways; aerodromes; posts, telegraphs, wireless, and telephones; and post office savings banks. And the concurrent list of matters on which both Federal and Territorial Legislatures have powers to make laws, but where the Federal is to prevail in case of inconsistency, includes migration between Territories; development of industries; roads; and identification records—that is to say, pass laws. All these matters seem to me in greater or lesser degree to touch African daily life. Fourthly, whilst it is true that the native reserve lands and trust lands are specifically protected, there is a footnote on page 7 of the scheme which says: It would not, however, be reasonable to refuse the Federal Government permission to acquire land, or interests in or rights over land for public purposes which would be in the general interest of the community as a whole unless African interests would be adversely affected to a disproportionate extent, and the Secretary of State, who would have the final decision on this matter, would not normally do so. Thus, it depends upon the Secretary of State of the time; if he were to give way once, he might give way often.

My Lords, I have been at pains to set out the grounds for this fear which is felt by Africans about federation as envisaged under the present scheme. Whatever the economic advantages—which are great—no immediate economic advantage can possibly compensate for the destruction of the confidence of the natives in British administration. What we are learning more and more is that the moral basis of government is more important than the economic basis, indispensable as the latter is. Those who know Sir Godfrey Huggins are convinced that he cares very much for the welfare of the natives. But they say that he has some difficult white settlers to handle. I do not dispute Sir Godfrey Huggins' concern for the welfare of the natives; I know from various friends how keen his interest is in the natives' health, and in the lifting of the Bantu out of his primitive conditions. But when he goes, who will take his place? In any case, it does not help to secure the confidence of the African for him to say, as he said at Salisbury on February 27, to the Rhodesian Native Affairs Association, that if Southern Rhodesia got the agreement of the elected members of the Legislative Council of Southern Rhodesia there is nothing the United Kingdom could do to stop us, Nowadays Britain is not even in a position to employ economic sanctions against us. It is fair to say that he added: But of course, it is up to us to prove we are good citizens of the Commonwealth. I have said that Africans are afraid. But perhaps the Fear affects Europeans also. What we have to do is to reestablish confidence all round. At this critical hour, Her Majesty's Government are confronted by a great test of statesmanship. It is said by some—for example, by Sir Godfrey Huggins on January 30—that if federation did not go through there would be chaos. It is said by others that if federation did not go through Southern Rhodesia would turn to the Union of South Africa. But surely it is far more likely that, if federation were forced now, trouble would result on the African side—and we have enough trouble on our hands in different parts of Africa. As to the possibility of Rhodesia turning to the Union of South Africa, may I remind your Lordships of a speech made by Sir Godfrey Huggins on December 3, 1949, in which he said that if Southern Rhodesia could not get federation, with the changes in the world and in Africa it might be necessary to press for Dominion status, although he admitted that the Territory was not yet ready to assume all the obligations entailed. He concluded that the third possibility, of union with the Union of South Africa, was decided at the referendum, and he considered that opinion had hardened since then against the proposal. We are all agreed that Southern Rhodesia as a Territory, though very much richer at the moment than Nyasaland—and than Northern Rhodesia, in spite of the copper boom—is not viable. Perhaps she will look again at the terms on which a healthy federation with the two Northern Territories could be achieved.

Therefore, in spite of all the arguments advanced against delay, I believe that postponement for a short while, to make room as a matter urgency for genuine consultation between representative Africans and Europeans, especially qualified, representative settlers, Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition, would pay all along the line. But the consultation would have to be on the basis of an agreement that a real partnership is desired. It is not enough to offer a review of the federal constitution seven or nine years from the date of its coming into force. I believe that a positive provision for the advancement of the natives is far more important than the furnishing of safeguards; and I should like to urge that the sincerity of the European desire for partnership should be proved in the following ways. Here again, I take the recommendations of the Church of Scotland Mission Council, reported in the Nyasaland Times of October 9. They urge that

1. "(a) In order to prove that there will be no barriers to Africans who have reached a high cultural level, an early statement be made by the Government of Southern Rhodesia that the proposed Central African University shall be inter-racial socially and academically.
2. (b) That the pass-laws in Southern Rhodesia and the copper belt to modified to exempt many more Africans.
3. (c) That a statement be made with regard to the stages by which the franchise will be extended to more Africans.
4. (d) That industrial legislation in Southern Rhodesia and trade union colour bar rules in the copper belt restricting the acquisition of skill be withdrawn.
5. (e)That African membership in the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland be increased to equal that of the European unofficial members.
6. (f) That a scheme of training be inaugurated to prepare Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to occupy official posts now held by Europeans."

A few months' delay, even a year's delay, to secure the co-operation of the Africans and the settlers, and to secure their confidence, would not be a loss of time. This is not a Party matter. Both sides of this House have been involved in the drawing up of this scheme both are in various ways parties to it. This is a matter which concerns the whole Commonwealth, the whole international society. Therefore, as a final appeal, I would beg the Government, before Central African Federation is established, to call a round-table conference in which all interests are represented, including the Africans, in consultation with the main political Parties, and thus make a supreme effort, which may be of decisive international and African importance, to secure a wider understanding and agreement, both in this country and in Africa, so that federation may in fact ensure the peaceful advancement of the African peoples in these Territories towards that real partnership with the white man for which the best and finest traditions of our country stand.