§ 2.39 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on the administration of the Bamangwato Reserve. As your Lordships will have seen from the reports in the Press, at their resumed meeting last week the Bamangwato again failed to reach agreement about the designation of a new Chief. The appointment of a new Chief acceptable both to the tribe and to the Government remains the aim of Her Majesty's Government, but they do not intend to impose anyone on the tribe as Chief. For three years now, in accordance with the policy initiated by the previous Government, the tribe has been administered directly by European district officers. This system of administration, which was necessary in all the circumstances, has had certain drawbacks and limitations. There are many matters coming within the purview of the Native Authority which for their effective discharge require the machinery and personnel of the Native Authority to be African.
The Government have now decided that the time has come when the conduct of the tribe's affairs can and should be restored to African hands. Accordingly, I have authorised the High Commissioner to make an order transferring the functions of the Native Authority from the District Commissioner to an African, Rasebolai Kgamane. Under Bechuanaland law the office of Native Authority and the office of Chief are not the same. The Chieftainship is a traditional institution endowed with rights and privileges from the past. The Native Authority is the capacity in which the Chief, or other person authorised by the Government, shoulders the functions and responsibilities of the day-to-day local administration under the general guidance of the High Commissioner and his officers. Ordinarily, the Chief is also the Native Authority, but in the absence of a Chief another person can be appointed to the office and in that capacity exercise chiefly powers.
Rasebolai is the senior member of the tribe available for the office, and I am satisfied that on his war record and on his experience as an administrator he is 455 fully qualified to discharge these duties. He is not being appointed as Chief but his appointment as Native Authority, which is in accordance with the law of the territory, including the Bamangwato Succession Order in Council and Bechuanaland legislation, will enable many activities of native administration contributing to the well-being of the tribe to be revived—for example, the customary daily meetings in kgotla and the native courts. It will also enable development schemes to be pressed forward with that full discussion of local African interests which is so important and conducive to smooth working.
Announcements of the decision of Her Majesty's Government and of the appointment of Rasebolai as Native Authority are to be made to-day at Serowe and at other centres throughout the Bamangwato Reserve. In these announcements it is being made clear that the Chieftainship is left vacant.
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for announcing to the House the decision he has come to. As the decision is one of considerable importance, it is almost certain that some of us will require time to look into this matter, and we may ask for a debate upon it in the near future. In the meantime, I should like to clear up one matter of ambiguity in the statement, a copy of which the noble Viscount was courteous enough to give me. It is this. If the time should come when a Chief is elected and approved, am I to understand that the functions which to-day are entrusted to Rasebolai will revert from him and be entrusted to the new Chief, who would thus be clothed with the full traditional authority not only of Chief but also of Native Authority? If that is so, of course, it follows that this appointment is in some sense only temporary, unless and until a new Chief is elected and approved. That would make some difference, and would give some of my noble friends the assurance they want.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition. I am glad he put that question, because if it is desired to have some further discussion on this matter, I feel sure that it can be 456 arranged through the usual channels. The answer to the question of substance which the noble and learned Earl asked is, Yes. If I may say so, he put the position absolutely correctly. He said: Assuming that a new Chief is designated, and is approved by Her Majesty's Government—both conditions have to be fulfilled—would a new Chief so designated and approved have these functions transferred to him? The answer to that is, Yes. They would not automatically vest in the new Chief, because, as I pointed out, the vesting of the functions of a Native Authority is a matter for the High Commissioner, acting on the directions of the Secretary of State. But certainly if a new Chief so designated and approved were appointed, then the Secretary of State—certainly I should, and I am sure anybody else holding this position would—wouldvest in a new Chief so designated and approved the functions of Native Authority.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, while endorsing the suggestion about a debate, would the noble Viscount tell me this? Is the person to whom the authority of the Native Authorityis now being transferred the same person whose name was discussed in relation to the Chieftainship, and whom the Tribe made it perfectly clear they were not prepared to accept in the office of Chieftain?
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, it is the same man, and the Tribe were not prepared, as a whole, to accept him. In saying that, I should not like to suggest that there was any sort of unanimity at all—there was not. It is a little misleading. I am sure the noble Viscount would wish me to say this. One often hears a great many speeches made, but it does not follow that the number of speeches represents the balance of opinion. To take an analogy, it is rather like certain meetings, with which noble Lords opposite are familiar, where there may be only one speaker, but where that speaker has a large card vote behind him. It would be misleading to suppose that one can judge of the weight of opinion by the number of speeches delivered.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, does the noble Viscount mean to suggest that there is any sort of truth in the idea that the Tribe really have abandoned Seretse? Is it not clear, time and time 457 again, that the fundamental basis of the Government's policy—which is that there is division in the Tribe—is a false basis, and that the Tribe are determined to have this man? Further, I should like to ask this. If it is true that Rasebolai is to have this work, why was the fact not mentioned at the kgotla recently held, where the Tribe markedly showed their disfavour for this Chief?
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, the answer to the noble Viscount's first question is, "Emphatically, no"; it is utterly untrue to say that Seretse has the unanimous support of the Tribe. Two things are necessary to the appointment of a Chief: first, designation by the Tribe and, secondly, approval by Her Majesty's Government. As has been quite plainly stated to Parliament, the present Government, like the last, have made it perfectly clear that, for the reasons they gave, they will not accept Seretse as Chief.
Secondly, I think it would have been a most improper thing to suggest at the kgotla the appointment of Rasebolai as Native Authority. The noble Viscount has other opinions, but he asked me for mine, and I am therefore going to give it to him, if he will forgive me. I think it would have been quite wrong to suggest anything of the sort, because it was most desirable that at the kgotla there should be an absolutely free expression of opinion upon the only matter before the kgotla, which was the designation of a Chief. The appointment of a Native Authority is not a matter for the kgotla at all; it is entirely a matter for Her Majesty's Government.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, is it not the case that the sense of the meeting was expressed by the speeches, and that it was the noble Viscount who held the card vote?
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I do not think anybody held a card vote—Oh, I see. No, not in the least. There were some speeches made by people who were pro-Seretse, and other speeches made by people who were anti-Seretse. What I said was, supposing you get three speeches in succession in favour of a Motion—as sometimes happen when this House is somewhat loquacious—and only one speech made against the Motion, it nay mean that the one speech made against the Motion carries, in the final result, a larger number of votes.