CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON)

My Lords, if ever any scheme which has been brought before Parliament has been fully considered, it surely is this federation plan which your Lordships are discussing to-day. Ever since the time of the Bledisloe Commission in 1939, a closer union has been canvassed. We are all delighted to see the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in his place to-day and it gives us added confidence that we are doing right when we know that we have his support. The increasing urgency of the situation led the Labour Government to embark on an intensive attempt to achieve a final solution.

478 Some people paint the whole picture black or white, and some think that all that the white men do is black. I must say that that seems to me to show little appreciation of what white civilisation has brought in peace and justice, health and education, to the Dark Continent. Take Southern Rhodesia, which has been so vehemently attacked. Fifty years ago it had a native population of half a million or less. To-day that population is two millions. It is even suggested that the white men are invaders who have no right to live in their own homes. Lord Noel-Buxton hinted at it a little in his speech, and indeed wrote it in an article which I was interested to read in Contemporary Review, when he said: They"— that is, the Africans— are actually there by superior right, because it is their continent as the indigenous people. That was his impression of Northern Rhodesia. The fact is that the Matabele invaded the indigenous people of Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia with slaughter and slavery only a few years before the first white settlers brought peace and freedom to those lands.

I think that even the most critical accept the economic advantages of federation, though some suggest that we can get the necessary economic cooperation without federation. There are some things that I certainly should not be dogmatic about, but no one who knows the facts can possibly contend that you can get that real co-operation with anything less than federation in these Territories. It has been tried and it has failed. That is the experience of the Territories themselves, and it has been the experience of the international lending agencies which have been ready to come in with finance. It is to the interest of all three Territories that the right thing should lie done in the right place. Not only is that so, but so much that needs to be done is complementary as between all the three Territories, as indeed are their individual economies. Certainly only a well-balanced and co-ordinated economic unit will command the necessary finance.

So many people in these debates say that they accept all the economic benefits, but brush them aside as being something inconsistent with what I will call 479 the social and moral benefits. Do not let us forget how closely the economic and the social are linked; you cannot have one without the other. That was burned into my mind when I went to the Colonial Office as Secretary of State in 1931, towards the end of the slump. I found eight or nine Colonies were "on the dole" and kept alive merely by Treasury grants. Many more would have been in the same position, but they were living on their reserves and rapidly exhausting them. The social services in all these Colonies, education, health, and agriculture, had suffered because the Government had had to economise—not under some wicked Tory Government, but under a Labour Government. Of course they had to. Any Government would have been forced to do that, because the money just was not there. I realised, as would anybody who took office at that time, that the one way of restoring the social advance and the life of these communities was to restore the economies of their Territories. I am sure anyone in my place would have carried forward that policy, and it was carried forward in every kind of direction. It gave to these Territories advantage by preferential agreements and the like, increasing their internal trade, their internal resources, and their exports. That was why it was possible for the economic and social advances to go forward together. Certainly, it is the same here. Take the case of Nyasaland—an uneconomic Territory on its own. I do not suppose anyone can suggest how Nyasaland can be made an economic unit on its own. It is only federation which can give the development which will bring ever-widening opportunities of employment and a higher standard of living.

It is said, with truth, that there are still colour bars in these Territories, and an instance is given of the employment of African labour. These are not easy things to deal with by legislation. If you try to deal with them by legislation, it must be by local legislation. On the whole, from what I have seen of these Territories or from what I saw of them a few years ago, I should be inclined to say that perhaps the bar was more pronounced in Northern Rhodesia than in Southern Rhodesia because of the predominant position of the white unions in 480 the copper mines of the North. But, my Lords, are we in this country altogether innocent of a difficulty and a problem of this kind, of discrimination in the matter of labour? Take the introduction of Italians into the coalmines. That was desired by the late Government, it was advocated by the leaders of the miners' unions, but it failed because in many of the coalfields the miners turned the project down. Do not let us ignore or underrate difficulties in these Territories when we find exactly the same sort of difficulties even in our own country.

I am sure that this problem will get better under federation, but in any case may I point out that, under the plan, trade union legislation is a territorial and not a federal subject. Sofar as the Federal Constitution deals with this matter, it deals with it in employment in the Federal public service and in a special provision about non-discrimination in the public service. But also do not let us forget that differentiating legislation is not always in the interests of the European and against those of the African. Let us, for example, take land. The complete reservation to Africans of vast areas of land in Northern and Southern Rhodesia is certainly very, much in the interests of Africans.

LORD PAKENHAM

Before the noble Viscount continues, can he tell us why he thinks all this will get better under federation? He said he thinks it will, but he has not explained what he means by that.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I shall be coming to that in a moment. I hope I shall not be interrupted too much because I have to make a speech on a subject of the greatest gravity, and I should like to be allowed to have the opportunity of choosing my own words. I am going to develop throughout this speech why I think partnership and co-operation will bring this about. I will certainly tell the noble Lord—because increase in common interest by liberal-minded people will, I believe, most certainly increase the opportunity and the practice. We are all entitled to our faith in our belief. Mine is based on the knowledge of the men with whom I have been working with my noble friend in these Conferences.

Let me go on to this. There have been so many unjustified attacks made 481 on the Southern Rhodesia Government over the treatment of Africans that I think it is only fair to ask the House to consider for a few moments what the record of that Government really is. The Report which was issued under the Labour Government—it is Command Paper No. 8233, of 1951—should have shown to anyone who took the trouble to read it how unfair and how unfounded many of those attacks are. Let me give some of the facts, because facts speak louder than words. Take housing. By legislation, Africans who earn less than £9 4s. a month have to be housed at the employer's expense, and housed at prescribed standards. In addition to that, near towns the Government and the municipalities have erected housing estates few married and single Africans in urban areas, which in their layout and design would certainly satisfy any town planner, and they have drawn the highest praise from international experts who have visited them. Indeed, I heard that someone in my Department had received a letter from a settler in which he said, I am living in a house which is far worse than the houses Huggins is building for the Africans. They have got a water supply and an electricity system, which I have not got on my farm. And it does not end with housing. Take welfare. There are welfare societies with joint African and European membership—I should have thought that was a kind of partnership—and full-lime welfare officers who are largely Africans.

Next take Africans in industry. I leave out mining, but in manufacturing industry alone, in 1951—the numbers must have increased since—more than 56,000 Africans were employed. A recent Report which I was looking at shows the range of this employment—brushware, clothing, furniture, textiles, sheet metal work, coach building, cutlery and plastics, including highly skilled operations like radio-frequency welding, done by Africans. Take agriculture—agricultural training and demonstration under the Director of Native Agriculture. There are 84 Europeans and 541 African demonstrators. Applied training—and I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will bear this out—has enormously improved native agriculture in dry farming. There are six or seven or more irrigation schemes already in operation in the nativeterritories. With regard to education, even 482 hostile critics have admitted that Southern Rhodesia is spending far more than other territories on education. And it is not merely on the two thousand primary schools, but on secondary education and trade schools as well. Then there is health. As we might expect, with a Doctor Prime Minister, health has featured largely, both as regards prevention of illness and its cure. Hygiene and hospitals—not just large urban hospitals, which are very remarkable, as I saw, but local clinics and cottage hospitals have a high place. Those are facts. They are facts quite well known to a great many Africans, and not only to Africans, in Southern Rhodesia to-day. Why is it that every year thousands of Africans come from Nyasaland, which, according to the right reverend Prelate, is such a paradise for Africans, in order to take work in Southern Rhodesia?

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

I hope I shall be forgiven for interrupting, but I must deny saying that. Nyasaland was a paradise.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am glad to hear the right reverend Prelate say that. I understood that the picture which the Lord Bishop painted was his idea—it certainly was my idea—of Paradise. But our ideas of Paradise may differ. He is more of an expert on that subject than I, and I should not claim to compete with him.

I have thought that it was right to digress in order to give a fairer picture of what the Southern Rhodesia Government is doing under a liberal-minded and enlightened Prime Minister. It is necessary to do so also—and here I have the Lord Bishop right because I took his words down; I think he was quoting the Hilton Young Report—in order to answer the question of the right reverend Prelate on the ability of Southern Rhodesia to discharge its task. It is a record of which no Government need be ashamed. It is certainly not the record of a callous or careless Administration.

I turn for a moment if I may—I apologise if I keep the House a little longer than I generally do but the subject is one of great importance; I will try to concentrate what I have to say—to the question of African safeguards. It is my belief that not only security but the future of Africans depends on the development 483 of co-operation, partnership and common interest, which is the essential purpose of the federal plan. That is why some of the most determined opponents of federation are to be found among Europeans who want domination and not partnership, and are, equally, to be found among Africans who, equally intensely, desire African domination. It is extremists on both sides, Africans as well as Europeans, who are the opponents. As Mr. Attlee well said: Between these extremes are the advocates of federation. They are liberal-minded and look ahead, seeing the solution of the problem in a partnership between the two communities. He did not seek to define it. I believe it is impossible to define partnership. We are asked whether it would not be possible to put something more in detail into the preamble on this point. Let me say at once that of course we could not alter these agreements, these White Papers which have been so closely considered and agreed. The principle is there. Suppose we were to try to make some more detailed definition, would it serve any useful purpose? As I see it, partnership is a spiritual concept which issues in action. I should have thought that even the narrowest planner would hardly seek to define it with more precision, or to confine within a formula the ever-increasing opportunities for both races. In a situation of such a kind, may it not well be that our plan is the wise, middle-of-the-road way?

I am certain that in a mixed community where Europeans and Africans must live together in partnership, and have a right to live together, a growing community of interest is the only solution and way of life; and as that community of interest grows safeguards will become less important. But it is right, however, that the safeguards should be there—and those safeguards are very complete. Let me take some of them. Land has been mentioned, and rightly mentioned, as a thing about which the African cares most and is most anxious. But land is entirely territorial, and, under this plan, land remains a territorial subject. Secondly, during the first ten years there can be no alterations in the legislative lists unless the Legislature of each Territory has agreed. And there is to be a review of the Constitution before the ten years ex- 484 pires. Of course, the African Affairs Board can require any differentiating Bill to be reserved—or any differentiating instrument (that is an Order) to be submitted to the Secretary of State. In our recent conference we all gave the closest consideration to making the Board a Parliamentary Standing Committee, and all of us, United Kingdom Ministers and representatves of the Territories, were sincerely convinced that it was a much better plan and at least an equally strong safeguard as the outside body—indeed,more effective.

Let me tell the House why. First of all, it is not easy to find an unlimited number of good men, competent men, particularly Africans. How can you find better members than those elected or selected to represent African interests in the Parliament?—and there will be three Europeans and three Africans, which is the same as under the original plan. Then again, Africans will have a voice in selecting African members, for they will be chosen by the members of the Assembly elected or selected to represent African interests.

Here is another reason: the Board will have all the knowledge and influence of Members of Parliament in the discharge of their duties. It has been said inside and outside Parliament that these members are likely to be overridden by their colleagues. That is not our experience, in this Parliament, of minorities. Anybody who sat in another place and remembers James Maxton and his little band would not think it very likely that minority members are so easily overridden. You may get this kind of case. This is the sort of instance, I suppose, where discrimination is most likely to arise—not that it will. A whole Bill is not likely to be discriminatory but you may get one clause in a Bill which is alleged to be discriminatory. Is it not much better that that should be debated in the Federal Assembly—debated by African members who can put their case? I would warrant that in nine cases out of ten that will be settled and accommodated, and agreed in the Assembly, and that the Standing Committee will never have to act in their capacity as African Affairs Board and ask to have the matter referred to the Secretary of State. And surely this Committee is consonant with the normal and proper 485 Parliamentary procedure. It avoids duplication and overlapping, which there certainly would have been, and possible friction with the outside body. I say, frankly, that my view, coming new to this proposal, was that this was enormously better than the original plan of the outside body. I do not think I betray any confidence if I say that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when I said that to him, replied "I entirely agree; and for the life of me I cannot think why none of us thought of it before." Having thought of it and thought so well of it, as we do, we should have been wrong not to put it in.

I turn to one other point. It has been said in the debate to-day that the African representation in the Federal Assembly is too small and stereotyped. It is exactly the same representation as under the Labour Government plan. It has actually a higher proportion of African representation than exists in the Northern Legislatures. But, my Lords, remember this: the specific African representation provided for—three members from each Territory—in this Assembly is not a maximum; it is the minimum number of African members that there must be. And Africans who choose to go on the Common Roll will influence the election of the European members. They can stand themselves. I am told that already in at least two constituencies in Southern Rhodesia the African vote is a very considerable factor. Moreover, as I said, there is nothing to prevent an African from standing for a general seat, and African voters may cast their votes as they please. I agree that the Constitution is stereotyped, in the sense that a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority. But we cannot have it both ways: that two-thirds majority was firmly insisted upon by the representatives of the Territorial Governments in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. And in the interests of the Africans we really cannot have it both ways.

Now I come to the vexed question of African opinion. It is said that all Africans are opposed. If by "all Africans" is meant the African Congress Party, I entirely agree. I think that probably every member of the Congress Party is opposed. There are not a great many of them. A comparatively small number of extremists are opposed. They 486 are opposed to the whole idea of cooperation and partnership, exactly as are the European extremists on the other side. And I must say that these people have been propaganding with the maximum of misrepresentation. We are all used to a little latitude and imagination at Election time, but not to downright lies—at any rate not to downright lies which are so obvious as this, and I am sure in neither the Party of noble Lords opposite or mine would there be any lying of this sort. It is stated by these people: "The African will surely lose his land." My Lords, land is absolutely safeguarded. It is entirely a Territorial subject. So is the Protectorate status of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Not only has there been misrepresentation; there has been intimidation, arid intimidation of chiefs who are known to favour federation—and that applies to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

It is safe to say that the mass of Africans do not understand what it is about. That is why the trustee cannot abdicate his trust, and must decide. If that had not often been done in the past, many reforms in health, education, and native agriculture which have in fact occurred would never have gone forward at all. If I may say so, the African backwoodsman is innately conservative. It is easy to spread rumour and suspicion, but the mass look to us, as I trust they always will, for leadership and decision. I was told by a friend that one chief said to him: "For years you and the Government have told us what is wise and right. If you do not know and cannot tell us what is wise and right, then it must, be pretty bad." That is why—I do not want to be poltlinical—I feel that it was unwise and wrong to stop the district officers—who were the people to whom these Africans have always looked to give them the facts and to give them guidance and leadership—from doing that, and make them take up a negative attitude. Of course it played straight into the hands of the extremists.

I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester believes in federation or not. I know that there are some people who believe in it but who think we should hold back until everyone is agreed. More conferences! A most extraordinary conference was suggested by the right reverend Prelate. We have had years of 487 conferences. To hold back would really get us nowhere. It would not be to hold back, but to step back. This situation is not static. We cannot stand still: we must go forward, or we go back. And it certainly would not be right, in the interests of millions of Africans, that we should go back. In truth, to delay now would have just the results which those supporters of federation who to-day counsel us to delay would least desire. It would play straight into the hands of the extremists on both sides. In effect, it would give to the enemies of partnership the power of veto—and we know what that has done in another sphere. That is why we in this Government unitedly feel it is our bounden duty to decide and act. That is not imposition; it is the discharge of our trust. Delay would make for the worst of all worlds. Socially and economically, delay can do nothing but harm. All these countries must have certainty. In a critical period of the war, the Prime Minister sent me out to Africa. I made my headquarters at Achimota, founded by the genius and foresight of Aggrey, one of the greatest of Africans, with a vision like that of Cecil Rhodes. Aggrey had one theme that ran through everything he taught and everything he did—what he called "the harmony of the black and white keys." He and Guggisberg founded Achimota to make that dream come true. The arms of the College—black and white—symbolise that harmony.

To-day in Central Africa we have the opportunity that comes, if we are lucky, once in a lifetime. We should be faithless to our trust if we did not seize that opportunity. We should stand condemned in history, condemned in our own consciences and condemned in no long time by those for whom we hold the trust. We will not play them false. Let us go forward resolutely and confidently, discharge our trust and establish the partnership, the harmony. And as that partnership becomes effective in action, the strains of that harmony will carry far beyond the borders of the Federation with the vision and the reality of a new way of life.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, for forty-three years I have been in Parliament, and for thirty-five of them as a Member of this House. I can- 488 not remember any debate in either House of a more epoch-making character, so far as the British Commonwealth and Empire is concerned, than that in which we are engaged here to-day. It is no exaggeration to say that the importance of this problem and the decision regarding it is calculated to affect, for better or for worse, the welfare of the dark-skinned subjects of the British Crown throughout the whole of the continent of Africa for all time to come. As Chairman of the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission of 1938–39, I feel that I cannot remain silent on this occasion. But if what I may call senile infirmity detracts from the lucidity or the intelligibility of the case as I am prepared to put it, I am going to venture to ask the House to give me the same indulgence which it is always prepared to give to new entrants to it on making their maiden speeches.

I want frankly to admit that the problem of South Central African Federation is intricate and difficult, and calls for the exercise of an exceptionally high degree of faith, vision and statesmanship. Pardon a retrospect. Fifteen years ago, my Commission were charged with the task of exploring the best means of effecting what was called "closer association." political, constitutional and economic, between these three contiguous Territories, and their complete amalgamation or merger was the proposal then favoured by the majority of the European population, and especially those in Southern Rhodesia. As the right reverend Prelate has stated, we saw insuperable objections to any immediate implementation of this proposal, and failing any practical alternative (I do not think there has been any reference to this, except in the debate last week in another place by one of my then colleagues, Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), we suggested an interim provisional scheme of inter-Territorial co-ordinated public services and economic development, including the establishment of two Boards, one described as the Services Board, to deal with all those services affecting all three Territories that could best be co-ordinated, and the other described as the Development Board, both of them operating under an Inter-Territorial Council.

I want to pause for a moment to say that we had in mind then what has been so much emphasised in recent discus- 489 sions—the initiation of a process of partnership, both territorial and racial. Within a few months war broke out, and these proposed Boards were never set up. Even the Inter-Territorial Council—what was subsequently the Central African Council—was not formed until 1945. In my judgment, such a system of experimental co-ordination and joint planning would have avoided many of the difficulties and apprehensions with which the present federation scheme is faced. We considered federation, as previously interpreted and actually effected in other parts of the world, and turned it down as inapplicable to Territories so widely apart in development and evolutionary progress as the self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia, on the one hand, and the extremely primitive Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, on the other. The fact that there is no historical or geographical precedent for this new and untried type of federation, embarked upon without any previous process of experimental and transitional co-ordination (and I see grave risks in postponement in present circumstances and in face of spreading native suspicions and fears), emphasises the necessity for establishing adequate safeguards in the interests of native welfare. The adequate and effective protection of native interests is, naturally, a subject of somewhat acute controversy. We shall have to watch with great care the treatment accorded these interests under this scheme during the first few years of its functioning. We must regard these years as an experimental period, at the end of which the scheme can, if necessary, be completely overhauled and improved.

What I do want to emphasise is this—and I say it with regret, although I know it to be true. The ignorance of the Bantu, and his almost pathetic reliance on outside protection, direction and advice, well and prudently provided hitherto by the district commissioners, has resulted in his utter lack of a sense of personal responsibility. We emphasised that most strongly in our unanimous Report. The ultimate objective of British Colonial policy, as we are always being told, is to fit all countries within the British Commonwealth for ultimate self-government. To tie them too closely to the apron strings of White-hall, while supervising the welfare of 490 these ill-educated, child-like natives, does not, to my mind, conduce to the development of this sense of personal responsibility.

The small group of educated Bantus—and I may say, quire frankly, that they did not appear to exist fifteen years ago when my Commission was sitting—who now claim to speak for their fellows, are, I suggest, in no way typical of the bulk of natives of South Central Africa. To anyone who has mired with these primitive people—to one indeed, who, like myself, had some thirty to forty different meetings with their tribal chiefs in situ over the vast region to which this scheme applies, and attempted to elicit their views—the idea of consulting them with a view to taking their advice on any constitutional or economic problem would seem a ludicrous absurdity. While I was Governor-General of New Zealand I interested myself particularly with the welfare of the lovable, quick-witted Maori people. They come of the Polynesian race, a far less primitive type than the African Bantu, Lind have had a hundred years longer contact with European civilization and culture. I found the contrast extremely depressing. But even the Maoris, as a whole, would not be deemed the wisest counsellors regarding their own welfare, and least of all regarding the lines within New Zealand of optimum economic progress or development.

My Commission had similar terms of reference to those of another Royal Commission, which is sometimes forgotten, which included Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika Territory, and sat, I think, about three years previously. But unlike the Report of that other Commission, our Report was unanimous. The members, however, appended Notes emphasising considerations which they deemed of special importance. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to read some short extracts from the particular Note which was appended by my colleague, Sir Patrick Ashley Cooper, and myself, to the Report. One comment relates to the striking progress of Southern Rhodesia, a country which to-day, in connection with this scheme, is, I am sorry to say, regarded with the deepest suspicion, and as unsympathetic to the natives. Indeed, a recent letter to The Times, purporting to come from Rhodesian and Nyasaland chiefs, describes the treatment of them in Southern 491 Rhodesia as absolutely identical with the apartheid Malanism of South Africa, a statement which is wholly unfounded.

I now turn, on that subject, to the Note to which I have referred. It says, in reference to Southern Rhodesia: We think it desirable…to place on record our opinion that the Colony has, since it was entrusted with self-government fourteen years ago, made remarkable and commendable progress, which has been particularly marked during the last five years. I pause to say that I have every reason to believe—in fact, to know—that that progress has been maintained continuously during the fifteen years that have elapsed since this Report was signed. Our Note goes on: This progress has been achieved in face of no small difficulties and discouragements occasioned by temporary economic depression. livestock disease and other adverse factors…but there has been an obvious and increasing recognition of the outstanding duty of the State to improve social conditions, among Natives as well as Europeans as and when its finances rendered this practicable. That very much remains to be done to improve the physical condition, the education and the economic welfare of the Native Race no impartial person, conversant with the facts, can deny, but that this is fully recognised, not only by the Government but also by the bulk of the more responsible elements in the European community. we have no reason to doubt. I should like to refer to two other small paragraphs in this separate Note. It says, further: The urbanisation and industrialisation of the Bantu, although largely inevitable, may have untoward consequences, unless guided and controlled with vision and judgment. The severance of the Native from the soil of his country is fraught with no small peril, alike to his physical, moral and spiritual welfare and to the future stability of the whole body politic. The physically sub-normal condition of the majority of the Natives in South Central Africa is unchallengeably traceable to these factors and to the tendency of the impact of Western civilisation and industrialism to disrupt old-established conditions of domestic economic environment, without their systematic replacement by others of a definitely improved and enduring character. Then we point out, incidentally, the importance of the land, of its maintenance, its enrichment, the retention of moisture, and above all, to the training of the Native from his earliest childhood to utilise it to the best advantage. We go on: Education is a crying need of the African, but its foundation should, in his case, be knowledge of the land and its proper treatment, on the one hand, and of the basic prin- 492 ciples of nutrition and hygiene, on the other. These lessons are even more vital to his true welfare than reading, writing and arithmetic and should take precedence of them. We refer particularly to the medical services and say: Even more essential than education is physical fitness and resultant educability. Adequate medical service and sanitation should therefore receive prior consideration. I venture to say that throughout the whole of Africa to-day there is not to be found a more progressive and competent medical organisation for the natives than is to be found in Southern Rhodesia. Your Lordships may be aware that there are certain diseases which are very prevalent there, including, I am sorry to say, a large amount of venereal disease, malaria, bilharzia and leprosy, and of course, sleeping sickness.

Then the Note continues: The progressive economic development of the Territories is a basic condition of native progress. The native and the European are complementary to one another. The capital and energy which the latter contributes are indispensible to the economic and social welfare of the former. During the present experimental period, and in face of changing conditions, native policy must be flexible, as the Government of Southern Rhodesia appears to realise. Moreover, administrative enterprise should be directed at least as much to the economic, as to the political, development of the Native race. From our personal survey of these Territories, we are inclined to the view that both land and labour are at present wasted, and that with proper utilization, it is doubtful whether there would be a deficiency of either. I have taken the liberty to quote from this Note which I drew up very carefully, in consultation with my colleague Sir Patrick Ashley Cooper, and I may say that I have not varied my views one iota since that Note was drafted.

Your Lordships will notice that we particularly stressed the importance of education. Apparently noble Lords on both sides of both Houses are all agreed on federation. The present criticisms of the White Paper schemes relate, if I may venture to say so with respect, to relative trifles, and surely should not impede the adoption of the scheme. Surely, we should have some faith in the future and in the capacity of level-headed administrators in those three Territories, and also, if I may venture to say so, in the overriding wisdom of our own Government of whatever complexion. In other 493 words, let us apply the motto "Solvitur ambulando." Do not let us assume that alterations in this constitution will necessarily be made upon a racial basis. Apart from the missionaries many Europeans are devoting themselves to native welfare. I would venture to say, in the presence of the right reverend Prelate, that the trouble about missionaries is that one branch of the Christian Church sends out its own particular missionary to a certain area and then there comes along in a few years, if not at once, others belonging to other branches of the Christian Church to compete with them in the good work. But over an immense area—the greater part of Northern Rhodesia for instance and a good part of Southern Rhodesia, as well as Nyasaland—there is none of this salutary missionary effort upon which depends the promotion of practically all the social services. In Southern Rhodesia, which is a responsible self-governing Colony, the responsibility for social services, including particularly health and education, rests upon the Government for the time being of the Colony.

I want particularly to emphasise, in this connection, that a very large proportion of the white men in all three Territories, including Northern Rhodesia, were giving up the whole of their lives to the advancement of native welfare—and I must, in justice, refer particularly to Sir Stewart Gore-Brown—long before the Colonial Office did anything very emphatic in this direction. On his estate, dominated by what we have always called his "baronial castle," on the boundaries of Tanganyika Territory. Sir Stewart Gore-Brown constituted himself some sixteen years ago what we should call "the protector of the aborigines"; and throughout that part of Northern Rhodesia that one man did infinitely more, during a long period, for the benefit of the natives than anything that we have done through our Colonial Office. No one can deny that.

There are great natural resources awaiting development in both Rhodesias—I will not say in Nyasaland, as there is no mineral wealth to be found there. There are two land industries which are carried on in the most progressive manner. One, of course, is cotton growing, under the Empire Cotton Growing Association, and the other is the tea plantations in the Southern part of the Protectorate, all of which are admirably conducted. The native population which is greatest in 494 this area seek their employment largely, and necessarily, even as far south as the Rand area of the Union of South Africa and, to a larger extent, in the copper belt of Northern Rhodesia, as well as in the gold mines, and particularly in the great Wankie Colliery of Southern Rhodesia. These great natural resources cannot be fully exploited except on inter-Territorial lines. At present tie coal in Southern Rhodesia, the copper in Northern Rhodesia and the skilled manual labour of Nyasaland are complementary one to another.

The past record of British colonisation is nothing to be ashamed of; indeed, it should be a source of pride. No nation has shown more sympathetic consideration for the natives in areas under its control than we have. I am old enough to remember the justifiable outcry and shouts of denunciation throughout the whole of this country at the Belgian Congo atrocities. Now, thank goodness! the Belgian Congo atrocities have ceased. In fact, do not think there is any area in Africa to-day that is better administered than the Belgian Congo. But it was largely due to the emphatic exhortations and protests that came from this country, and in light of its own more enlightened Colonial policy, that those improvements have taken place in the Congo area.

My noble friend Lord Swinton referred to the improvement of native agriculture in Southern Rhodesia. Judging by my experience of a certain competition that I initiated in New Zealand amongst the Maoris, I came to the conclusion that if only we could institute a competition there which would result in the black man hanging some glittering bauble upon his chest as an indication of his skill and direction in the matter of improving agriculture on modern lines, it would have a salutary effect. In New Zealand I instituted the "Son of the Soil" competition, with the provision of a large silver medal to be hung round the chief's neck. I inaugurated twelve years' ago a similar competition in Southern Rhodesia. Only three weeks ago I had a perfectly delightful letter from the Governor of Southern Rhodesia telling me that the scheme had had a very salutory effect there. The medal was bestowed about a month ago upon a chief in Southern Rhodesia who 495 had set a brilliant example to his tribesmen, as well as those of neighbouring tribes. By that and other means, and particularly by the wise direction of the native commissioners—not the European commissioners—native agriculture in Southern Rhodesia has improved enormously during the last few years. I mention that only as indicating one very important social service—if I may so call it—in Southern Rhodesia, and one which points in the right direction. There are risks, and I admit them. There are risks in embarking upon this new form of federation in a region of extremely primitive native people. But in face of the safeguards so wisely, as I think, and ingeniously framed for their due protection, in my judgment there are infinitely greater risks in not doing so, and not doing so promptly.

LORD REA

My Lords, I had not intended to address your Lordships' House on this occasion, and I shall do so for only three or four minutes. Just before I came to the House I heard that my noble leader, Lord Samuel, was, to his great regret, unable to address your Lordships to-morrow as he had hoped, and, therefore, if your Lordships will give me your indulgence for a minute or two I think it will be just as well at this stage that your Lordships should know where the Liberal Party stands. I cannot claim, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the indulgence for a "maiden" speech, but in view of the short time I have had in which to prepare my remarks perhaps I might claim a certain respect for comparative virginity, if that is not a contradiction in terms.

The Liberal Party is well aware of the great troubles which are going on and are likely to go on until something is done. They, like other Parties, have the advantage of expert advice. It has sometimes been said that speeches should not be made upon this subject unless the speaker has actually been in the Territory concerned. That, I suggest, is rather a dangerous principle, for I should regret it very much if one of the qualifications of the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack should be that he had spent a spell at Broadmoor.

I feel, nevertheless, that we have come very much to the same conclusion as noble Lords on the Government side of 496 the House, and that is that federation is the only solution. It is a good solution, and the work which has been done in respect of federation in trying to get this scheme out is good work. We should also like to pay tribute to those who have spent so much time and trouble in dealing with this matter. If I may be deliberately invidious, I should like to mention the noble Leader of your Lordships' House, who is known throughout all Parties and to the people of Africa as being always accessible, always fair-minded, and, if he will not take it as an insult, always liberal-minded. In paying tribute to the politicians in both Houses, I should like to add also one to the Government officials, especially those in the Territory who have done work in particularly difficult circumstances, and the white settlers, the vast majority of whom have built up, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has said, a very fine tradition of British development in the Territory which we are now discussing.

The only thing about which we are sorry is that the Government should think it necessary to put this scheme into operation immediately. I would suggest to your Lordships that we are at a very interesting state in the progress of the world—that is to say, in the advancement of science and knowledge generally. It took about one million years to develop from the man with a chunk of stone in his hand up to the bow and arrow man; only a few hundred years from the bow and arrow man to the gun-powder and cannon man, and relatively only a few decades from that to the atomic and supersonic developments of to-day. It seems to me that in a very few years we may well be as far ahead of to-day as to-day is ahead of 1066. It is a matter of opinion whether that is a pleasing outlook or not; but it seems to me that a point may well come when the human frame and mind will be unable to stand this geometrical rate of progress. I mention this because the argument against delaying this scheme is that it will take too long to develop what it is necessary to develop—that is, to give more responsibility to the African people: to educate them further so that they are in a position to take up the position which. I think, noble Lords on both sides of the House wish they should assume.

I believe that the real division between noble Lords on my left and noble Lords 497 opposite is only one of timing. Noble Lords on my left think that something good can be done before something bad overtakes it, and noble Lords opposite seem to be convinced that bad will overtake any policy of delay. I submit that when you do not do a thing it is still there, available to be done. If you do it, it is often irrevocable. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, mentioned that discretion was the better part of valour. I would add that indiscretion is the greater part of squalor, and we should be immensely careful not to act precipitately. I therefore suggest that it is not too late to delay. Something constructive can still be done; and although we on these Benches are in favour of federation ultimately, we hope that Her Majesty's Government will wisely reconsider and listen; and that, if possible, they will postpone the measures they now propose to put into operation. If it be of any interest, I may say that I have heard from my noble Leader, Lord Samuel, that if this matter were pressed to a fruitless Division he would abstain from voting; and I should take the same course.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, has left the Chamber, because I wanted to say a word about something that he said. But I will leave it to the latter part of my speech in case he does return.

LORD PAKENHAM

If the noble Lord would like me to fetch him, I will go and seek him out.

LORD TEVIOT

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. First I would say that I think my noble friend Lord Swinton has, if anything, accentuated the importance of complete confidence in the scheme which has been put forward by the Government. He dealt with every aspect that I had read about which forms the opposition to this scheme; and I do not propose, therefore, to repeat what has been said. Thus I shall be able to take rather less time over what I was going to say and so help other noble Lords to speak in the time at our disposal. In regard to what Lord Swinton said about misrepresentation, even intimidation and lies, I must tell your Lordships that when I came into the House this afternoon I was handed a registered envelope containing a letter, and this is how the letter began: 498 The fool-hardy advocates of the imposition of Central Africa Federation against the solid unanimous opposition of the African people…. My Lords, there is Lot a word of truth in that. It is a long letter, and I have not read more than the beginning of it; but observe that it is signed by a gentleman named Semakula Mulumba, who signs himself as "Representative of the Bataka The Elders of the People of Uganda." That sort of thing is being circulated up and down the country. It is a dreadful thing to think that people should say these things when they are completely untrue.

My excuse for intervening in this debate is that I spent many years of my life, very often alone, m the Territories which it is proposed to federate, and I came to know quite a good deal about the psychology of the natives. I have been at pains to study the present situation and have had discussions with my friends, all of them prominent men in the area. I will mention one of them who, to me, is probably one of the greatest leaders we have to-day, and that is Mr. Welensky. I am sure that anyone who has met Mr. Welensky must appreciate enormously his power of exposition of any case he might put forward, and also his great personality. I have come to the conclusion, as a result of this study and of meeting such men as Mr. Welensky and others who have intimate knowledge of present day conditions, that this scheme of federation is absolutely necessary, and necessary now, for the welfare of those Europeans and Africans who live in these three Territories.

The right reverend Prelate in his admirable speech—with which I am bound to say I did not agree—did not say anything by which I could gather whether he knows that there are a great many different types of Africans. There is what we used to call the "Cape boy," who is a mixture of black and white. Then you have the pure-bred Negro. The right reverend Prelate is no doubt aware of the fact—which I am most anxious to emphasise—that the ossification of the head of the pure-bred Negro finishes at the age of sixteen years. Therefore, you have a fully grown man who has the intelligence of a boy of sixteen. These Negroes are admirable people. I have, as I say, lived amongst them and I have 499 had them working for me for years. Once they know you are going to play the game by them there is no one who would be more faithful and more quick to help in time of difficulty, and no one I should rather have with me to help if I had my back against the wall.

I am much influenced also by the unanimous opinion set out by the members of the Conference whose Report is contained in the White Paper (Cmd. 8753) published in February of this year. I will quote one passage which occurs at the end of paragraph 1.It runs as follows: These"— that is, the conferences, visits, commissions and Reports— have now culminated in the Conference of the Governments of the United Kingdom, Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland which has been meeting in London since the 1st January and which has reached agreement on the whole matter. Let us see who signed that. First, there was my noble friend, Lord Swinton, and then the right honourable Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, the noble Marquess who leads this House, Sir Godfrey Huggins, Mr. Rennie and Mr. Colby. Now, my Lords, can we ignore the unanimous opinion of such men as these? I will not read anything of the Reports, because Lord Swinton has already dealt with the sentences which I had in mind. In my view, any individual or Party—and I feel very strongly about this—who opposes those who have come to these conclusions takes on a very heavy responsibility. The spirit inherent in this scheme is embodied in that word "partnership" to which Lord Noel-Buxton referred. Of course, there must be at the beginning senior partners and junior partners, but there is no reason why there should be any difficulty as regards that. We have in our own country some similar situation in many organisations.

I am glad to see Lord Noel-Buxton has returned, because I wanted to draw his attention to one point. He made reference to the social side of things. I should like to put this thought in his mind: that there are two sides to that matter. The African is just as proud of the social side as the white man is. We had a strong indication of that in the objection which was raised to the 500 marriage of Seretse Khama to a white woman. We have got to take into consideration the strong pride which the African has in his own race—a pride as strong as our own in our race. It is all very well for us to talk about protecting the "poor African"; of course we have got to do that, and it will be done, as I see it, under this scheme. I thought I should like to refer to that matter and remind Lord Noel-Buxton that there are, as I have said, two sides to this question of pride of race. That is all I have to say on that point.

I do not suppose for one moment that we shall divide on this matter, but that it had to go to a Division in another place is really terrible. If ever there was a strong case for unity, it is now on this all-important question involving the welfare of so many of Her Majesty's subjects. There is no doubt in my mind, from information I have, that there are certain people who deliberately—and my noble friend has referred to it—are trying to misrepresent this scheme of Federation and frighten the Africans into opposing it. There is no doubt that the vast proportion of Africans understand nothing of federation, and in many cases know nothing about it. The African is concerned principally about his land, about his cattle, and about his wives. He does not realise that his situation will be much more secure under this scheme. I am certain that Africans will in due course thank federation for the better conditions it will bring to them.

Let us for a moment think what the white man has done—I am talking now to those who discuss the rights of Africans in the matter of self-government. The Africans had full rights for hundreds, indeed thousands, of years. During that time they never built a railway, they never built a hospital, they never built a road or even a house. There were only mud huts, as noble Lords who have been there well know. It was not until the white man came along that the country became developed. The black population were immensely benefited by the coming of the white man. They really had not even what we should possibly describe as a Government at all.

I should like to turn for a moment to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I am surprised at his speech. It 501 would appear that, since the debate in another place the Liberal Party have altered their views, because I notice that, when the Division took place in the other place, they voted against this scheme of Federation. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord says that, if there were a Division here, he would not vote against it but would abstain. That shows that the Liberal Party are now perhaps—I hope it is true—veering round to the idea that this scheme of Federation is not so bad after all.

LORD REA

I think there is a slight difference between the two questions. One is whether the scheme is a good scheme, and the Liberal Party do support that. But, if it comes to a decision as to whether it should be implemented immediately, the Liberal Party reluctantly do not support that.

LORD TEVIOT

I take note of what the noble Lord says. I should like to go back a little into history to refresh the mind of the Liberal Benches. In 1909, when a Liberal Government was in office, the federation of what is now called the Union of South Africa—that is, Natal, Cape Colony, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State—was brought into operation. The franchise then was only white. It has gradually been extended over the years but it is still not complete. As I see it, the principle and basis of federation suggested is a progressive augmentation in the light of experience of the 1909 Act. It is interesting to look back at the 1909 Act, opposed in those day by the Conservatives, but sponsored by the Liberal Government of that time.

LORD REA

I entirely support the noble Lord. We still maintain that position, and it is quite obvious that the Liberal Party in this House is at the moment single-minded.

LORD TEVIOT

Now we have the Conservatives sponsoring an improved Act which they opposed forty-four years ago, while Liberals—I am referring only to the voting on it now—are taking the position that the Conservatives were in. As a Liberal, I am convinced that we National Liberals are right in supporting this scheme. I regret more than I can say that my erstwhile colleagues are opposing it, or did oppose it in another 502 place. The noble Lord cannot get away with it; they did vote against it in another place. I am delighted to hear that they would not have done so in this House. This is the kind of Liberal Conservative relationship in which no hyphen can be found.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, your Lordships will forgive me if I do not enter into domestic disputes between the various segments of the Liberal Party. I am glad, however, that the true Liberal Party are not only single-minded but single-handed. I want to congratulate my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton on moving the Motion, and also on the excellent speech he made to your Lordships. I am sure that your Lordships all feel that in this House it is no easy task for a young man to make an important speech on a great occasion such as this. Whether or not we agree with what he says, we appreciate that he has accomplished his task very well indeed.

I should also like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester who I thought made an extraordinary powerful speech, one which I am sure must make the Government think whether they cannot of reconsider their plans, even at this late stage. I do not expect them to change their plans for us, but they might do so for the right reverend Prelate, who is both powerful and persuasive. We on this side feel strongly in this matter and we are officially behind the Motion of my noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton; but whatever our decision might have been had the circumstances been different, we feel that we could not get a representative House tomorrow, in view of the Easter Recess, and therefore we shall not divide the House on this question.

I myself feel that this is a matter of political judgment. I think that there are many arguments for and against and everyone, both in this House and outside, must make up his or her mind on the balance of the arguments. I am bound to say that we on this side were disappointed in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. He rightly said that this was a momentous occasion, but we thought that much of his speech was 503 irrelevant and that he did not reply to the many cogent arguments addressed to the House by the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate whose names appeared above the two Motions on the Order Paper. Perhaps that deficiency will be remedied when the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, comes to reply. Until then, we must feel—I say this in all seriousness—that most of the arguments put up by those two speakers have not been answered, because the crux of this question is the principle of imposition. That is the whole crux of the matter, and, as we see it, that has not really been answered at all.

The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, put up and knocked down a number of old "Aunt Sallies" of his own. No one had suggested many of the things that he said had been suggested. The noble Viscount said that the Africans do not understand what this is all about. He gave us absolutely no proof at all of that very serious statement, which was directly contrary to the speech of the right reverend Prelate, who brought in aid of his testimony an article written by the Bishop of Nyasaland. After all, because of his position and his personality, the Bishop of Nyasaland is a witness whose testimony we should accept with the greatest confidence. I would not in any way care to put any opinion I had against an authority such as the Bishop of Nyasaland. I did not take a note at the time, but I think I remember correctly that the Bishop of Nyasaland wrote that he had never known such a widespread understanding of any matter as there was among Africans with reference to this matter. Probably I have not got the words right, but I believe that that was the gist of what the Bishop said—I see that the right reverend Prelate agrees with that.

The noble Viscount said that only extremists, and not Africans of moderate opinion, are against this plan. Again, those are not the exact words, but that is the gist of what the noble Viscount said. There is no proof at all of this wild statement. I think there is no doubt that the overwhelming mass of African opinion, so far as it has been expressed, is against this federal Scheme—I am not saying wisely against it, but certainly it is against it.

LORD TEVIOT

May I ask the noble Lord if he can give us definite evidence of that statement. He has made a distinct statement. We make a distinct statement in the other direction. Can he give us any concrete evidence substantiating his statement?

LORD OGMORE

Yes; I would instance the article that has been read by the right reverend Prelate, containing the opinion of the Bishop of Nyasaland on this point. The noble Lord will see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and I think he will see that it bears out what I have said. But, in addition, there are the already expressed opinions of the chiefs, and also the opinion of the African Congress. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said that the franchise in South Africa was not yet wholly complete. I would regard that as the finest example on record of an understatement. I leave it at that.

LORD TEVIOT

Does the noble Lord say that the franchise in the Union of South Africa at the moment is complete?

LORD OGMORE

No, of course I do not. I say it is about the most incomplete thing there is. It is in fact merely a franchise of the white population. And even the coloured people who have had it for, I suppose, a century, are now, if the Union of South Africa Government are successful, to have their franchise removed from them. I am sure the noble Lord will, on reflection, agree with me that his definition of the position in South Africa is an under-statement of a remarkable kind.

My Lords, I feel that we on this side must accept some responsibility for this scheme. We started it and the present Government found it "on their plate" when they came down to breakfast on the morning after the Election. We cannot at this stage deny all responsibility for it nor do we wish to do so. But I believe that had we been returned to power in 1951, we might have carried the plan through. That is only a belief, but everyone is entitled to his belief. Possibly through no fault of the existing Government—or perhaps a little fault—the hiatus created by the change of Government, with the introduction of the new personalities, the different outlook that the Conservative Government were thought to have on these subjects, and 505 the speeches of supporters of the Government at home and abroad, all made a difference. I mention this particularly because, when this plan was first mooted—I knew of it very early on because at the time I was in the Commonwealth Relations Office—it was rather thought that the chief objection to the scheme would come from the white settlers; and it was felt that great pains would have to be taken to persuade them that it was a good thing for them. They allowed or wished the Central African Council to languish; it was a pale shadow of what it was intended to be. It was thought perhaps that they might do the same thing to the Federation.

I think it was a mistake that the Africans did not join in the talks over here. But that fact is evidence of how opposition in Africa was hardening against federation. I also believe (I am giving all the trumps to the Government at this moment) that in certain circumstances it may be necessary for a Government to impose its will upon people for whom it has a trust, even though they are against it. I can conceive of cases such as that; but they are exceptional. We ourselves did not undertake to force this plan through. We submitted it as worthy of study and consideration, and I am quite certain that if we had been returned to power, and if African opinion had hardened against the scheme, we should never have attempted to force it through against the expressed opinions of the Africans. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was, I think, quite wrong in attributing any different opinion to my right honourable leader, Mr. Attlee. I am sure that I am right in saying that Mr. Attlee is against the imposition of this scheme in the face of African opinion.

As I say, I do not see how we can safely override the overwhelming weight of African opinion as expressed because, as I understand it, this federation scheme depends upon their co-operation. That is the crux of the matter, and that is the important point with which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, did not deal. I am sure all noble Lords are anxious about this matter: they want to be quite certain that we are taking the right step. Here we are left without any guidance from the Government on that very important and crucial point. We do not know what the Government view is of 506 that. How do you work this scheme which depends on African operation? However excellent it may be on paper, however desirable it may be in fact, how do you get it to work if the Africans are against it, and if they will not work it? That is what we should like to hear from the Government, and that is what we have not heard yet.

Frankly, I admit that many of the arguments used in relation to the old "Aunt Sallies" that Lord Swinton put up and knocked down with great gusto are quite right. I fully agree with him that economically and socially there would be more advantages from federation. But that is irrelevant. The point is that, in spite of the advantages, the Africans do not want it. What do you do then? The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, shakes his Lead, but that is in effect what the Africans have said. No doubt the noble Viscount will make his own speech on that point. As I see it, the issue now goes deeper than federation. This century has been called, not the century of the common man but the century of the coloured man. The relationship between Asia and Africa, on the one hand, and the West, on the other, will, I feel, determine not only their future but ours as well. One of the great contributions of the Labour Government throughout its term of office was, if I may be allowed to say so, a realisation of the new spirit in Asia and Africa, and I shall, perhaps, be excused if I dig down, very shortly, to some of the fundamentals.

Since the war, as your Lordships know, right through Asia and Africa there have spread nationalism and reformism, reformism particularly with regard to land tenure. Chiang Kai-shek lost to the Communists because although he was nationalist he was not reformist, and his chief followers were usually greedy and grasping, and, very often, nothing but crooks. In Burma, the Communists lost to the nationalists because, although reformist, they were rot nationalist; they took their orders from the international Communist directorate. Africans in East and Central Africa becoming more and more nationalists and reformists, too, as in Asia and in other parts of Africa. What is nationalism? What is reformism? This is the sort of questions we ought to ask ourselves, because they lie behind 507 this trouble and other troubles in Africa. Unfortunately, in this country, as your Lordships are aware, with rare exceptions—some very valuable exceptions, and I am glad to see some of them in this House to-day—the public are not really interested in Colonial matters; and that is reflected in Parliament. The small attendances on Colonial days have long been in the Colonies the subject of what is, in my view, quite proper criticism. The result is that these fundamental questions are never postulated in Parliament, because of the lack of interest, except by the very valuable few who are interested in them.

I should say that nationalism is basically the same, whether it be Indian, Burman, African, Boer, Welsh, Irish or Scottish or any other that we can think of. It is a nostalgia for the past; a desire to be separate, to hug and cherish the things that distinguish the people from other peoples, even if the things are almost obsolete, like the Irish language, or harmful, like female circumcision among the Kikuyu. It is the past seen through rose-tinted spectacles. It is a spiritual revolt against a dominant and pervasive alien influence. We can see the beginning of it even in this country in the resentment in certain places of United States power and practices. What is reformism? It has tended in primitive countries, in the East and in Africa, to concentrate on land tenure, as this is by far the most important element in the life of simple peoples. Your Lordships will remember that the right reverend Prelate spoke of a Nyasalander who had told him, "Land is our treasure." A very touching phrase that, and a very true one. Here, I think, blame must be somewhat diffuse, for the fact is that we have not understood the real basis of the feelings of these peoples.

I will tell your Lordships why we have not understood it. For many years, in this country, the educational authorities, the great universities, the Inns of Court, the Law Society and, particularly, the historians have tended to devote their attention to English history from the time of William I. They have tended to devote their attention to the feudalism he brought in as modified in the last century or so by laissez faire. That may seem rather far-fetched, but I am certain, from my own observation, that there is 508 truth in it. These educational institutions have never devoted their attention to the very interesting tribal system of the Saxons, which was not feudal; they have never devoted any attention to the Irish system—and in this connection it is interesting to note that in the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, we have a representative of one of the great Irish tribal families—the O'Neills—or the Scottish tribal system, or the Welsh tribal system. They have not devoted any attention to these. Your Lordships can look at any book in the schools, and you will find that very little attention is paid to any of those matters. So not only have the people who have had to deal with primitive races had no experience of tribal custom and tribal ways—which they could have had, had they been taught something of them in this country—but they have also tended to feel a contempt for them, believing that there was only one system—namely, the system in which they themselves were brought up.

Like many others of your Lordships, I have had some experience of the tribal system in Borneo, in Malaya, on the frontiers of China and in East and West Africa, and I have read about the tribal system in Scotland, Ireland and Wales—it is all much the same. Under the tribal system, land is held by the community or by the tribe or large family group. The community is small and scattered; there is plenty of land; the people are pastoral or, where agricultural, there is a shifting cultivation; the cattle, other stock and produce may be owned by the family and, occasionally, by an individual on behalf of a family or group. Law and custom is settled and changeless. The elders declare law and custom. There is no real distinction between breach of contract, tort, criminal offences and breach of good manners. Finally, and perhaps as important as any, a man's prestige grows with his years. He is an ever-growing fish in a small pond whose boundaries are defined and do not change.

We can imagine the impact upon tribal society, wherever it may be, in the East or in Africa, of Westerners, ignorant and possibly contemptuous of the tribal system. Your Lordships will know that one of the allegations (I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, true or false) made by the Kikuyu is that their tribal 509 lands were not regarded as tribal lands, owing to the fact that at the time of the first white settlement they had an outbreak of smallpox which had decimated the tribe. They say that their lands were regarded as vacant lands, when in fact they were tribal grazing lands. I do not wish to make any comment upon it, but that is the allegation. Very often, in primitive countries, the tribal system was ignored; taboos were upset; ancient law and custom were derided, and the alien law and administration was imposed—with the best of intentions but often, in my own experience, with farcical results. Tribal lands were parcelled out to individuals and owned by them. And a thousand years of Western change were telescoped into one African decade. Is it any wonder that there is bewilderment in Africa? Is it any wonder that the Africans dread change, any change, and fear the new proposals when so many in the past have been detrimental to them?

Africa as a whole is watching the centre of Africa. The Continent is rousing itself after a long slumber. I remember the late Field-Marshal Smuts telling me, just before he died, "Africa at last is corning into its own. It is a great Continent and we are on the threshold of new things." We are playing this drama, I feel, on a stage brilliantly lit and before millions of eager, watchful African eyes. We cannot afford to make a mistake. Your Lordships may say, "That is all very well, but what action should be taken?" I would say, first, that the Government should not press on with this scheme at the moment. Much as I realise that it is economically advantageous, I feel that the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages that would be obtained. The Government must take such action as they can to obtain African confidence and support.

They may ask, "What action?" I refer your Lordships to an interesting letter published in The Times of March 4, signed by the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council. These distinguished men said this: There seems to be an urgent need, before federation is inaugurated, for imaginative action, promoted by trust and understanding, 510 to demonstrate to Africans that the intention behind the federal scheme is to provide the necessary political and economic framework within which all races can progress in effective co-operation. Nothing could so effectively demonstrate this intention as the removal of some discriminatory legislation and of some day-to-day practice; which destroy racial harmony. The widespread fears of Africans will not be removed by constitutional safeguards alone but rather by good will made effective by action. The last phrase is the most important one: "good will made effective by action."

I ventured to suggest this last time to your Lordships, and at the risk of boring your Lordships I will repeat it again, what happened when the representatives of Central Africa came over here to meet the Government to discuss the federal scheme. When they got to the airport they were not allowed into the refreshment room. Now what is the use of telling a man who comes to this country, enters any hotel and has lunch in your Lordships' House, that he should sever the bonds—or, I should say, loosen the bonds—between this country and his own and should lighten the bonds between his country and Southern Rhodesia, which does not allow him to use a restaurant?

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

Perhaps I might be allowed to say this. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that that was a great mistake. But I think it is also a mistake to make that point in a speech as an important point against federation or in favour of further gestures of good will. I lunched in the airport two or three months ago, and there were some Nigerian chiefs lunching in the restaurant with me. They were going home and they were dressed in their national costume. Therefore I do not believe it is a general rule. I think it was an unfortunate incident and I do not think that it should be taken by the House or the country as the general trend of policy here.

LORD OGMORE

If the noble Marquess, whom we respect so much, gives me that assurance, I am delighted to hear it, because when the men came over it was the general rule. When he assures us that Africans in Livingstone and Salisbury are allowed into the airport refreshment room I am delighted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I was with them at Heath Row. I thought the noble Lord was referring to an incident here. It must be borne in mind that we are all in favour, broadly speaking, of gestures of that kind; but there is more in it than that.

LORD OGMORE

I am glad that we are not confusing Heath Row with Livingstone and Salisbury. We are now straight: they could have lunched in the restaurant of London Airport but not in Salisbury. If it is now the practice to have Africans in the airports and hotels then we shall be delighted to hear it. No doubt we shall hear something about it to-morrow.

In 1947 I was Chairman of the Frontier Commission in Burma—I was the only European on it—which had the task of trying to associate the frontier areas of Burma with Burma proper. I was told by the Burmans then that the thing they chiefly objected to in our rule was not so much the exploitation which might have occurred—which they did not regard as very important, except perhaps from a platform point of view—but the fact that they were not allowed to meet on equal terms with Europeans. Hotels were barred to them. It is an insufferable thing that a man—I do not care what is his colour or religion—cannot go into a hotel in his own country. I think that is insufferable, and how people in Southern Rhodesia can really expect, and talk about, partnership I do not know. I have a partner and if I said to him, "You are a good fellow in working hours, provided that we do not work together too closely, but we cannot meet outside; and you cannot come into my house; I cannot take you to a hotel," he would soon tell me, "I do not regard this as a partnership." And I am sure all noble Lords will feel the same.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said, you cannot have a partnership without action. He said "Partnership is a spiritual concept which issues in action." Then he quoted Dr. Aggrey—the noble Viscount is always quoting Dr. Aggrey. Dr. Aggrey, the great man who founded Achimota Training College, talked about "the harmony of the black and white keys," but he meant real harmony; and we can see what happened to Dr. Aggrey's policy in West Africa. There is harmony, but it is not what the noble 512 Viscount, Lord Swinton, wants. He does not want a state of affairs in Central Africa such as that which exists in West Africa. Therefore I cannot see how he can call in aid poor Dr. Aggrey, who would have objected, I am sure, to being called in aid in such a case. It is deeds, not words that we want. The colour bar has to be lifted, and the white people of East and Central Africa, however much they dislike it, must realise that fact. The colour bar of the modern age must go; there is no place for it. While it is very desirable to talk about partnership you cannot have partnership with a man whom you cannot take into a hotel to have a drink—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, would rather I said, "to have a meal with." But you cannot have a partnership like that.

We ought to try to make the Central African Council a reality. I do not believe, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said, that it is impossible. We have to put teeth into it. We have to make it as much like the East Africa High Commission as we can. I believe that it is possible to do so. I believe that it is possible to have an economic Council which has many of the facets of federation without the political implications of the federal scheme. Quite frankly I do not think that that is as good. I believe that if Africans would come into a federal scheme it would be better; but in the circumstances I would say that it is the second best for which they should go. In conclusion, I beg the Government to pause while there is yet time, and not to blunder on with this plan, irrespective of African wishes. And I say to the Government: "Pause until you can take Africans with you. If you cannot do that, drop the plan." It would involve no loss of prestige—indeed, the Government would gain prestige. To go the other way means disaster: disaster for the Africans and disaster for us.

LORD HAILEY

My Lords, I hope I may be pardoned if I do not follow noble Lords in the more controversial aspects raised here and elsewhere on this subject, partly because I believe the position is much too serious for any display of pure dialectics and also because I have in my mind a vivid recollection of some of the consequences of the discussions which led up to the great India Act of 513 1935. I have been told that there has been no subject relating to the constitutional development of the Dependencies which has caused an interest equal to that produced by the scheme of Central African Federation except the discussions which led up to the 1935 Act. I think the analogy which is suggested between the two is an exaggeration, but there is no doubt that incidents occurred and consequences followed from the discussions that took place in the years preceding 1935 which had a most unfortunate effect on the possibility of the working of that Act.

Your Lordships will recall that no one had any serious doubt as to the advisability of some form of federation in India, but acute controversy arose regarding the extent of the powers to be given to the Governor-General and to the Governors for the maintenance of law and order and the like. The controversy which took place on those points and the frequent resort to Divisions in Parliament made many advanced Indians believe that there was a Party in Great Britain which was determined to refuse to concede any real advance towards self-government in India. The consequence was a great hardening of heart of most of the advanced Indians against the scheme. But Party divisions had equally unfortunate effects in another direction. Advocates of the scheme found themselves in a false position. In order to meet Party objections in this country, they had to emphasise the force of the safeguards embodied in the scheme, while they were obliged, with their eyes on India, to explain that in the natural order of things these safeguards must fall into abeyance. No doubt there were other reasons why this Act never came into operation, though we all believed that if it had come into operation we should have avoided the partition of India and many of the incidents which followed our own transfer of power there.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the main reason why the vital part of the 1935 Act was not used was because of the opposition of the Princely States in India and not on account of Party controversies in this country.

LORD HAILEY

I agree with the noble Earl, but my recollection is that 514 the attitude taken in opposition to some of the proposals regarding safeguards strengthened the feelings of those Princes who were opposed to federation and made them decline to give their adherence to the scheme of federation which was necessary to carry it into effect. I have, however, merely wished to draw the conclusion that the scheme of Indian federation was bedevilled by discussions in this country before it had a chance of even coining into being. Is the scheme for Central African Federation to be bedevilled in the same way? Everyone in this country agrees about the advisability of some form of federation. Everyone has agreed here and in another place that federation is the one way of achieving the economic advantages of union. Yet there are other unfortunate incidents attached to the controversy which has arisen.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

My Lords, to go back a little time before 1935, when I was Secretary of State for India, did we ever propose any scheme for the Government of India that did not involve repeated, reiterated consultation with the Indians—the Simon Commission, the Shrankan Nair Commission, the first Round Table Conference and the second Round Table Conference? I am amazed to hear the noble Lord say that the difficulty was that we did not go ahead on what we had decided. The difficulty always was to secure the assent of thinking people in India.

LORD HAILEY

The noble Viscount has his own recollection of the matter; my recollection is in some ways different. We never obtained the consent of Congress. Nevertheless, we passed the Act. We went ahead with it. Why it did not eventually come into being was because of the hardening of the opposition of Congress and the encouragement given to the Princes to oppose it.

I have tried to draw the lesson that some of the controversy that has arisen in this country regarding the scheme for Central African Federation might have the same untoward effect. I notice that it has had very much the same consequences on some of those who have had to discuss the scheme. Prominent protagonists of Central African Federation have asserted while in this country that the machinery for which the scheme pro- 515 vides will fully safeguard the position of Africans, but after their return to Rhodesia assured the Europeans there that these safeguards could not stand against a determined European front. That is one of the types of mischief that arise from overstressing Party discussions on a question like this. These untoward incidents have not been confined, of course, to the supporters of the scheme.

There have been equally questionable arguments from the other side. I am going to quote one in particular which I know has had its effect in this country. It is claimed by some opponents of the scheme that Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, because they are Protectorates, stand in a special relationship to the Crown which forbids us to complete the federal organisation now proposed. I think there can be no ground for this. I think it is based on a false interpretation of the meaning of a Protectorate. The original institution of a Protectorate was due historically to the need for providing a form of declaration which would make certain that the Territories over which we desired to maintain our authority or control were placed well beyond the grasp of other Powers. The declaration of a Protectorate carried no other necessary implications in itself. Is it seriously contended that we have moral obligations to the Africans in a Protectorate which we do not owe to our subjects in the Colonies? Is there, for instance, any legal basis, or any other basis, for saying that we owe to the Africans in the Protectorate portion of Kenya (for there is a Protectorate portion of Kenya) a consideration we are not prepared to give the Africans in the Colonial area? In all the numerous declarations I have seen of the purposes and objectives of our Colonial policy or of our obligations to the Colonial peoples. I have never seen one which differentiated between Colonies and Protectorates. The fact is that though there is some distinction for purely juridical purposes, there is in all other respects, in respect, for example, of administration and jurisdiction, no difference at all.

EARL JOWITT

Would the noble Lord tell us who advances this strange argument?

LORD HAILEY

It was advanced on behalf of certain chiefs in Nyasaland in 516 a letter to The Times, which perhaps noble Lords will remember and has been repeated elsewhere. Now, the only special obligation that could be quoted in such a case is one that might arise from a definite agreement made at some stage by our Government with the people, or a section of the people, of the area concerned, as, for example, the Uganda Agreement of 1900 or the Agreement made with Barotseland in 1898. But I have never seen one of the various Agreements we have entered into which would present any obstacle to applying to these two Protectorates the constitutional development which is proposed in the present scheme of federation. It is fantastic to suggest, as was suggested in the other place, that what we are now proposing involves the transfer of sovereignty. Really, it is nothing of the kind; and it can be nothing of the kind so long as the Colonial Office retain their control over the two Protectorates.

In all this welter of argument and counter-argument we must, I think, turn to some basic principle for guidance in making a final decision. The principle that I should apply is sufficiently obvious. One of the outstanding problems of Africa to-day, as has been so often pointed out, is to prevent the spread elsewhere of that mentality which is now driving the Europeans and Africans of the Union of South Africa into two different and opposing camps. The test I should apply to the scheme of Central African Federation is whether it seems likely in the long run to serve this purpose. If we can feel that it is likely to do so, then we can overlook some of the points of detail which we might otherwise find difficulty in accepting; and we could also afford to pay somewhat less regard to expressions of African opposition to the scheme.

I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that we have had on occasion to disregard opposition to schemes which we have had in view and which we have seriously believed to be in the interests of Africans. We have constantly had to do that, and not always with the worst results. We have been told, I know, that if we proceed with this scheme we shall only be intensifying the feeling of tension that has arisen between the native and non-native communities in South Africa. That is a point of view I myself do not accept. We have during the last half 517 century found only one method of dealing with situations in which the interests of an official Government and the public of a Dependency appear to be in conflict, or where there is an appearance of conflict between the interests of a European community and the indigenous population. The way we have dealt with that position is to bring the interests face to face in a Legislature where they have been forced to explain and justify their opposing points of view. That is the process in which we have always placed our faith, and, if it has not always produced its solutions, it has, at all events, produced the atmosphere to make solutions possible. That is, in essence, the course proposed in the federal scheme. That has an additional advantage which I think has sometimes been overlooked—namely, that it does hold out to the Africans of Southern Rhodesia a type of representation in the Legislature which, quite frankly, they would have had little chance of achieving if the scheme of Central African Federation had not come into being.

There are those who fear that the cause of the African will suffer because his representatives have not the same debating power as Europeans, and because his representation in the Legislature, as provided in the scheme, is comparatively small. But how often have we not seen a minority in a Legislature, when it has the backing of a large majority of the population, make its presence felt and compel its opponents to recognise its influence? How often have we not seen a constitutional provision which appeared to restrict the representation of a particular interest modified again and again as that interest succeeded in impressing itself upon the majority? It is for that reason that I myself attach less importance than others have done to these provisions of the scheme of Federation, which, at first sight, seemed to stand in the way of increasing the representation of Africans.

LORD WINSTER

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. He spoke of a minority in a Legislature being able to effect its wishes in the teeth of a large majority. Has the noble Lord seen that happen in a mixed Legislature of two different races which are at very different stages of advancement and culture?

LORD HAILEY

The only personal experience I have of that is the early days of the Legislature in India, where the Indian representatives were in a minority, in face of a large majority of Europeans. There is no doubt whatever that they did make their presence felt.

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

But they had the whole assistance of the British Parliament. They were always protected by the British Parliament from the time of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms right on. They were never cut off and pushed away to struggle for themselves.

LORD HAILEY

I was referring, really, to the effect that they could produce on a Legislature, and certainly on the population it represented. I have no doubt that the mere fact that, at the outset, the representation of Africans in the Legislature is small will stand in their way; but I think, in the natural order of things, as they Increase in debating power and as they increase in the power of organisation, they will make their presence felt strongly in the Legislature, and through the Legislature they will be able to affect the European community. If I find a difficulty in the existing provisions of the scheme, I think it halts at one point when dealing with the possibilities of the revision of the composition of the Legislature. It contemplates that after a stated period a Conference shall review its provisions. I think it would be far better if it gave that Conference the position of a constituent body which would have power to alter the Constitution.

Much has been said regarding the moral aspects involved in this scheme. But do not let us forget its dynamics. If the Federation comes into being it will unite something like 6,000,000 Africans, and will give them, at all events, the beginnings of representation in a central Legislature. Their leaders will no doubt come to recognise that, apart from their numbers, they provide the labour without which European industry and farming must come to a standstill. Africans occupy in these Territories an area of native land which makes them far less dependent on earning wages in European enterprises than are the natives of the Union with their very much restricted area. This fact gives the natives in these Territories an additional power of manœuvre and of making their pressure 519 felt. These considerations may not be palatable in some quarters, but they must be stated if we are to weigh all the long-term advantages and disadvantages of the scheme. I had at one time some misgivings about it, partly because in its original form it did not seem to me to give sufficient guarantees for the maintenance of the interests which appeal most to Africans—I refer to the tenure of their land and the organisation of the native administration. But I have now come to feel that, taken as a whole, the scheme will have advantages for the Africans which far outweigh its disadvantages.

If I may refer to one part of the scheme in particular, it is that of the African Board. I have never had any doubt myself of the weakness of an institution of this nature standing outside the Legislature. I have never had any doubt whatever that it would occupy a far better position if it were in the Legislature itself. The Scheme of Federation has often been represented as a challenge to Europeans in the Rhodesias—a challenge which calls on them to manifest their spirit of partnership. Well, whatever partnership may mean—and it seems to have quite a variety of meanings—it is true that it does make a challenge to them to take their part with Africans in the working of a Constitution, and I hope that Europeans will realise on their part that their future in the Rhodesias will depend on the spirit in which they meet it. Looking at the forces at work, both in Africa and elsewhere, it will be difficult for Europeans to maintain their position unless they are prepared to share the responsibilities of government with Africans, and that, I think, is the dynamic fact which is going to count. But do not let us forget the other side of the picture. Federation will offer the Africans a range of opportunity which will equally be a challenge to them, and it is there, if anywhere, that we shall find the answer to the vexed problem of their capacity for government.

Many of the pleas I have heard to-day were not directed against federation and not entirely directed against its details, but were pleas for delay, and I wonder in my own mind how far delay will really profit us when what we have at stake is the possibility of putting Africans to this 520 test of their capacity. For myself, I believe that delay—I shall not say it will be dangerous as some of my friends have said, and I shall not say it will be entirely detrimental—would be inadvisable and in the long run would do us no good.

LORD PAKENHAM

May I put to the noble Lord a passage in a speech which he made last year? If he thinks that it is unfair for me to raise it now I will allude to it when I speak to-morrow. Last year the noble Lord in his speech said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 177, col. 797): I myself should dislike to think that we were imposing it on Africans against their firm refusal to accept. I would plead only that it should be put now to the three Legislatures and to African opinion and that we should get, if possible, as fair a view as we can and consider again in this country the impact of African opinion on it. Would the noble Lord care to comment on that?

LORD HAILEY

We have had the impact of African opinion on it, and I am quite prepared to agree with those who say that such African opinion, as is in any way vocal and can be credited with understanding the situation, is against it. That I am perfectly prepared to agree. But, in spite of that, I have come to the conclusion that it would be wiser to go forward. You are justified in urging that I said before that it would be wrong to impose this on Africans. I have, however, come to the conclusion that the advantages it offers to Africans are so great that, although they have opposed it, it should still be put into force, for I do not think myself that they have fully seen the advantages of it.

LORD PAKENHAM

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

LORD HAILEY

I shall be perfectly frank about it. I hesitated much before I came to the conclusion that it would be wise to go on.

LORD AMMON

My Lords, almost everything has been said, both in the House, in the Press and elsewhere, on this subject. My noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton, in his opening speech—and may I congratulate him on his speech and say that the mantle of his father has fallen upon him?—said that he was concerned not so much with the economic side of this question, but with what he would 521 call the human side. I think that if we pay attention to what has happened we shall admit that first of all it is a long while since a question like this has interested so wide a circle of people as this has done. They have been mainly concerned with what I would call the moral and spiritual implications of it and not so much with the economic aspect, although it would be foolish to ignore it. That which has exercised the minds of the ordinary people is the position of this country and its reputation with regard to other races, and also its agitation for freedom of expression. I, for one, deplore that this question has been dragged into Party matters. It ought to be one on which we should be able to find some measure of agreement.

I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, as indeed I have listened to that of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I could agree with almost everything the noble Viscount said with regard to federation, but the trouble is that this is not federation; this is something which is altogether one-sided and not likely to produce the fruits of federation. The analogy put forward by the noble Lord who has just sat down—and I would not cross swords with him with regard to his experience—between India and Africa, will not hold water for a moment. There is a long history of and a long association with India and there is also the fact that the various consultations which have taken place have always had a voice in this House, and all were entirely different from anything proposed in the scheme now before us. I think that he rather gave it away a little when he said that if the scheme goes through it will give Africans a chance that they would not have had in a lifetime. That does not speak very much for the association or help which they will get from the white people out there. He also said that it will unite 6,000,000 Africans. I am afraid that it will: it will unite them under their leaders probably against the white settlers, and give us a great amount of trouble.

If we try to look at it from the African point of view, what is the position as we see it to-day. The African looks to Southern Rhodesia and sees nothing to inspire him with hope. As far as my Parliamentary experience goes—and it is 522 a long one—I have always heard questions and complaints in Parliament as to the treatment of the natives, from the point of view both of humiliation and of other matters in which they have been made to feel their inferiority in Southern Rhodesia. There we have at once something which indicates the unrest that disturbs the African. We hear the views of the African chiefs and, after all, they express the view of their people; but in spite of that, the Government seem determined to railroad this scheme through. We are not pleading that the African is fit to enter into full government or anything of that sort. We are pleading that he shall be given a fair chance to develop, as people have in other countries, in order that he may manage his own affairs.

This will not do it. Under the scheme he is assured of his personal position, but there is no road for progress and no road by which he may go on to something further and achieve even greater possibilities. It is a question largely of political psychology. So much depends upon the mental approach of the British people towards it. We are coming to the old objections we have had in times gone by, that the African leaders do not represent the mass of the people behind them. Suppose they do not? How long is that going to last? The men who rise above the general mass find themselves thwarted and frustrated because there are no means whereby they can develop and express themselves. They become centres of trouble and disaffection. There should be the possibility for us to train native officials to carry on the work and so lead