Page images
PDF
EPUB

The general contention of the article is that the charges brought by the Society are out of date, but the writer does not appear to see that the bulk of the serviçaes now on the islands were brought there under conditions of slavery, and that no amount of improvement recently effected can affect their position. As regards the alleged twisting of official despatches, the Society is perfectly prepared to let the White Book speak for itself; no impartial reader can mistake the meaning of the reports of Mr. Consul Smallbones and others contained in it.

At the close of the article the writer, after stating his objection to the holding of a "Hole and Corner Conference," threw out a suggestion that no people would be better pleased than the Portuguese if an independent inquiry could be made into present-day native labour conditions in the territories mentioned." On this the following letter was addressed to the African World on behalf of the Society and was published in the issue of July 25, which devoted another article to the subject, and claimed Sir Harry Johnston as admitting reform by his letter to The Times of July 20, while contesting some of his statements.

SIR, We have read with no little interest the article in the African World upon Native Labour Conditions in Portuguese West Africa, and also the interview with Senhor Norton de Matos. From this and other information in our possession, there appears to be reason for regarding your assistant editor, Mr. James Finlay, and to some extent the African World, as the unofficial mouthpiece of the Portuguese Government and planters of West Africa. Under these circumstances we beg to ask a question of capital importance arising out of your publication. Mr. Finlay says on page 598:

“I am convinced that no people would be better pleased than the Portuguese if an independent inquiry could be made into present day native labour conditions in the territories mentioned."

We should appreciate your being able to confirm this suggestion on behalf of the Portuguese authorities. We can promise that the proposal would be given the most careful consideration by the committee of this Society, and hope you will be able to publish both this letter and your reply.

Yours faithfully,

TRAVERS BUXTON, Secretary.

JOHN H. HARRIS, Organizing Secretary.

In an editorial note it is stated that the African World cannot confirm the suggestion on behalf of the Portuguese Government or planters, but "can only repeat the statements of the Governor-General, that he welcomes and gives every assistance to the British Consular officials in prosecuting

their inquiries." If such an inquiry be held, the Editor goes on to suggest that neither the Anti-Slavery Society nor Mr. Finlay be "units of the Commission," but that “ each would of course give evidence." We are not clear as to what these words mean, but the writer appears to mistake the character of the investigation proposed.

The African World is especially indignant at being regarded as an unofficial mouthpiece of the Portuguese, which it stigmatizes as an "unworthy insinuation."

Our belief was based on the fact that in February last the African World published a special edition devoted entirely to Portuguese West Africa compiled by Mr. Finlay as their special Commissioner, which contains articles on such subjects as Progress in San Thomé, the Cocoa Industry, Methods of Recruiting, the Ideal Conditions of Labourers on the Cocoa Plantations, "Labour Absolutely Free," etc., with a number of portraits of officials and other illustrations and details of all kinds on the trade, shipping and products of the colony.

The Colonial Office Debate.

IN the debate in the House of Commons on the Colonial Office vote on July 28 two questions were raised which are of special interest to the Society, viz., the Native Labour question in British East Africa and the Native Land Act of the Union of South Africa.

LABOUR IN EAST AFRICA.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY, M.P., referred to the report of the Native Labour Commission in East Africa, and drew attention to the danger arising from the attitude of many of the settlers to the natives' right to their land, and the question of native labour. He said :

"It seems to me quite clear from the evidence of that Commission that a number of settlers have been constantly pressing on the Government to force the natives out of their reserves in order that there may be a more adequate supply of labour for the planters. It is a very natural and economic demand on the part of the settlers, but the position of the native is a very serious one. It has been suggested that the taxation of the natives should be increased, so that they may be forced to spend a larger time in the year labouring for the white settlers. It has been suggested that they should be compelled to wear clothes, in order that they should be forced to buy them. It has been suggested that they should be compelled to do their share of work for the Government, and possibly that they should be farmed

out to the settlers.

I hope the Colonial Secretary will give us an assurance upon all these points.

"But beyond that question of native labour there is the great question of the natives' right to their land, and their right to the existing reserves and to the land which has not yet been definitely assigned to any one, and which forty years ago was, if the property of any one, the property of these black natives, when we ourselves had no intention of going into the country. I think public opinion has not yet realized how serious the position to these natives is.

THE MASAI.

In the eye of the law it has been made quite clear by the action that certain members of the Masai tribe have endeavoured to bring, in order to set aside the transfer of their land by chiefs to the Colonial Office. The question of the justice and expediency of that transfer was questioned by certain members of the tribe who were dissatisfied with it. There is no doubt they tried to question its legality, and the High Court of British East Africa decided that these natives, not being British subjects, had no right to bring the action at all in the British Courts. They were a foreign people whose chiefs had made a treaty with the British Crown, and this solemn treaty pledged the honour of the British Crown that these lands. should be theirs for ever. They were told that they had no power to bring their case before the British Court, though they are brought before the British Courts again and again if their cattle stray out of bounds and cross the border, as they do in times of great drought. They can come before the Courts as defendants, but they are not allowed to come before the Court in any other capacity. Because of this quibble of the status of British East Africa they are not allowed to come before the Court and urge their case against the Government. Surely this is a very substantial injustice. Are we to allow it to continue indefinitely by continuing this anomalous status of a protectorate when we all know we have no intention of abandoning it, and when to all intents and purposes it is part of the dominions of the Crown. We are doing great injustice to a large number of the native population, because they are not getting a chance of maintaining their rights. It may be that this claim may not have been justified in the Courts, but at least those dissatisfied natives had a right to bring it, and we ought to see that that right as given to them should be maintained."

NATIVES' LAND.

Mr. Harvey said that the evidence given before the Labour Commission showed that the trade settlers had sworn that the reserves ought to be cut down, and asked that the land reserved should be taken away, and that the natives should be compelled to come out and work. Have we a

"

right to say that the natives should work for us? We have every right to induce them, by education, by economic conditions, and otherwise, to give more of their time to manual labour. I am entirely in favour of that, but have we a right to compel them by taking away this land, which is morally theirs? I hope the Colonial Secretary will see that it is made quite clear that the British Government will uphold the unwritten rights of the natives, and will maintain them at whatever cost. I feel there is reason for pressing this now because there is before the Government a draft Ordinance, and that Ordinance declares that all the land already secured should be Crown land. And it could be made perfectly easy by administrative act for this land to be taken away from the actual occupiers without compensation. I see a real danger-I do not say under the present administration, but we must look ahead of measures taken now being made an excuse in years to come for a great act of injustice being done to these natives. I hope that the Colonial Secretary, when he speaks upon this point, will make it quite clear that in future, if reserves are delimited, regard will be had not merely to the actual population, but to the natural growth of the population, and that room will be left for them, and that he will trust to other measures, such as education, and a gradual pressure of economic causes when you have a high state of civilization, rather than forced measures suggested by some of the settlers to get the natives to come in and give their labour, as so many of the settlers in British East Africa desire them to do. I think we have very great reason to see that we take away this reproach now being made against our rule, and that while we talk very much about shouldering the white man's burden, we will take great care not to secure for ourselves the black man's land.”

Mr. HARCOURT in his reply said that he hoped the mistake would not be made of confusing the evidence with the Report of the Commission, because the latter did not at all reflect a good deal of the evidence which had been given. It was quite true that some of the witnesses expressed the opinion that the present native reserves were too large. He did not share that view (hear, hear) and he did not intend to attempt to increase the amount of available labour by starving the labourer of the land on which he lived. Native labour interests were carefully safeguarded by the Ordinance of 1910, which laid down very strict rules as to the recruitment of labour. The recommendations of the Commission were now under the consideration of the Government and he was not prepared to give any final decision in the matter to-day. The Committee might trust him to move cautiously in the matter, with due regard to all the interests concerned. Improved arrangements were being made for the internal transport of labour. A revision of native and general taxation might quite possibly be necessary in the future, but if so, the matter would be considered independently of the labour supply, and it would not be used as an indirect means

of increasing it. Turning to East Africa, the Masai had abandoned their appeal to the Privy Council, not because they had no right of appeal, but acting on advice, and he was glad to say that they were now abundantly satisfied with their new reservations.

NATIVE LAND ACT OF SOUTH AFRICA.

This subject, in connexion with the visit of the Native Deputation recently in this country, was raised in the debate by Sir Albert Spicer and Mr. Percy Alden.

Mr. ALDEN, after referring to a discussion which took place on a resolution moved by him, which had been passed unanimously by the House previous to the Act of Union, when the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. laid it down as a duty of the Imperial Parliament to protect the interests of natives in their land and their rights and liberties in every possible way, said :

In reference to the Native Land Act of 1913, I want to put two or three points before the right hon. gentleman. In the Union of South Africa, blacks own about 4,500,000 morgen of land, and the whites own fourteen times as much land as the blacks, though, of course, they are very much smaller in number. The inequality is very noticeable in the Transvaal, where there are 300,000 whites holding 31,000,000 morgen of land, as against a total of 32,000,000 morgen, and the 1,000,000 natives only have 500,000 morgen of land which they can call their own.

[blocks in formation]

It has been said over and over again in South Africa that Sub-section (a) of the first clause applies equally to Europeans and Whites as well as to the natives. There is, they say, no injustice. The European is estopped from this purchase of land, just as the native is estopped. All I can say in answer to that is that the fallacy is shown the moment you begin to ask what land the natives have to sell. The native areas are already overcrowded, and they positively have no land which they could sell. When once a native leaves his farm or is evicted, or has to quit for any reason whatever, the Act does not allow him to purchase, hire, or to lease anywhere else for farming purposes except from natives, who have not the land to lease or to sell. He therefore must become a servant of the farm. There is absolutely nothing else for him to do. This Act has already produced very great hardships. It has produced hardships to the people who were under notice to quit at the time the Act was passed, to the people who have actually since then been evicted from their farms, to the natives who were in search of land and who are wandering about with their families and stock and have nowhere to settle, and to the natives who have had to leave their crops unreaped. There are many hundreds of such cases of

« PreviousContinue »