otherwise he was afraid it might be permanent. It had been imposed on the strength of a report of the Committee on Edible and Oil-Producing Nuts and Seeds, the majority of the members of which advocated it. The only opponent was Mr. Thomas Wiles, who was on that platform. The Committee was appointed on June 15, 1915, and it reported in May, 1916. The members of the Committee could not, and did not know, how complete the defeat of Germany was going to be, and they could have had no conception at that time of what the actual condition of Germany was to-day.

The reason given in the report for the levying of the impost to which they were objecting was that there was an appreciable danger of State aid on a lavish scale being given by Germany in order to retain such an industry as kernel crushing. The duty was recommended to be put on during the war and for five years after the war, in order that the palm-kernel crushing industry in this country should have a fair start. It was not put on during the war he did not know why, he presumed because of local opposition or because France did not like it; it might have been even for the sensible reason that it could not possibly be wanted for the purpose of protection against Germany at that time. The raison d'être of the duty, in the report of the Committee, was protection against Germany; that was the only reason given. But for the purpose of protection against Germany it was not wanted now. During the period of the war our business in palm-kernels had expanded enormously. New mills had been erected, and new machinery put in, and those mills were running profitably. Anybody who had followed the returns of the great crushing concerns of this country knew that, and knew also that the manufacture of margarine in this country-in whlch manufacture palm-kernel oil was used-had certainly enormously increased during the war period. Again he ventured to ask who, in his senses, could suggest that protection against Germany was needed at the present time on the strength of those figures? If it was not wanted during the war, why was this duty imposed on October 20, 1919?

There might be a wish that the imposition of that duty would help in the realization of a scheme for a self-contained British Empire, a scheme which, to his mind, was totally illusory and if it was not illusory, objectionable. Even were such a scheme desirable was it wise to encourage such monopolies as were aimed at, at the expense of Native West Africa? Again, he was told retaliatory measures had been adopted by France. It was quite possible-he did not know-Belgium might follow. He did ask in all seriousness why a duty so unfair as between merchants and manufacturers here, so unfair as between the Natives of West Africa and British exporters of oil, so unfair as between the different parts of the Empire, should be imposed? Protection he understood, and Imperial preference he understood, but this was a hindrance to export trade and an inversion

of real preference, which must be voluntary. This policy was wholly against those traditions which characterized the Colonial Office when he had the honour of being connected with it, and wholly against the policy of a great administrator like Lord Cromer, whose view was that our policy should be directed for the benefit of the Natives of the country which we governed, and never for the financial advantage of the traders of this country. To his mind, it was a policy of ill-omen, not only in regard to the British Empire, but in regard to our relations with foreign countries, which would injure our reputation for justice and fair play. Let them leave Germany out, and take our Allies and neutrals, France, the United States, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, any one of the neutral buyers of oleaginous produce, and consider was there not a real danger in this policy? The only intelligible idea he could imagine, as already stated, was the illusory idea of making the British Empire a self-contained entity. Since 1840 we had built up the British Empire on the lines of equality in trade. If we made a close preserve as against our allies, what effect would such a policy have on the League of Nations and the peace of the world? It would be an invitation to retaliation. We had had the first edition of that from France, and the Indian Government had refused to impose similar restrictions to those which were being imposed on West Africa. We were dependent on America for a great deal of the food we ate, and most of the cotton we used, a good deal of copper, and a great deal of cotton seed. Take cotton alone. The world was faced with something like a cotton famine. There must be a serious shortage of cotton for years. He thought that if that policy of putting on export duties from our Colonies was going to be followed, we should be able to put up a very poor case against America if America suddenly declared her intention of putting on an extra duty in regard to cotton. The policy against which they were protesting was a dangerous policy and a policy of ill-omen, and it was a policy which the Government might have bitter cause to regret.

The Rt. Hon. THOMAS WILES said that the committee on which he served and which was formed by the Coalition Government who were at the time in office, was in his opinion not a proper committee. The Government did not give him much help in his efforts, and he was placed in an unfortunate position because, to his astonishment, he found that he was the only member of Parliament there except the chairman. He had been brought up in the traditions of a proper treatment being given to Native races. He was not concerned here so much with the consumer-he could take care of himself pretty well, but who could help the races out in that part of Africa where that policy was being applied except the Home Government? The position was that if they were going to take away competition in buying palm-kernels, it was going to be a very nice little hole-and-corner business for a few who were trading there and who could put their heads

together and buy kernels at the lowest possible price. When there was competition the Natives would get a fair price. He was glad the subject was going to be raised in the House of Lords, and he thought it would be useful, for there was nothing so likely to affect the present Government as good, strong public opinion.

If a low price was given to the Native he would not bother about how to get the kernel from the trees. Not only that, but the palm-trees must be properly preserved, and, to a certain extent, cultivated, if we did not want a large number of ruined trees. He held that the system of making a low price for the Native was a wrong one, from that point of view, and it was going to do a great deal of damage to the country. What would happen if we said to Canada or Australia that she had got to put £2 a ton export duty on wheat which came into this country? It would be so serious that it would almost lead to another war. Here, because we had a country of Natives ruled by us-and ruled by us better than by any other nation we were adopting a dangerous thing-a German method. We were beginning to adopt the German principles.

Mr. P. A. MOLTENO said that the duty of £2 a ton on palm-kernels was not to rest if it were found to be ineffective in creating a monopoly. Power had been given to raise it to any figure in order to make the monopoly complete. The loss of the American Colonies had taught us the danger of interfering with the trade of the Colonies. We had abandoned that interference, and left the Colonies perfectly free to trade with whom they pleased. That policy had led to contentment and prosperity. It had been our proud boast that we administered the territories of the Empire in the first place in the interests of the inhabitants. Our Colonial Governors had all realized the danger of monopoly in bringing about an unfortunate state of relations with the Colonies. That the price of the produce would go up and that the Natives would suffer was not a theoretical question. The policy had not been engineered from West Africa, but was imposed on it by the Colonial Office here. Immediately we put on that duty the French put on a prohibitive duty on Colonial produce, especially oleaginous seeds, and had translated into French the White Book giving the report of the British committee which had suggested the changes. If we led the way in this exclusive policy, and France followed, was it not clear that Belgium would want to follow also? She controlled the great free trade territory of the Congo, in which a great amount of British capital had been sunk. According to the Covenant of the League of Nations, we were to treat African territories as trustees for the Natives, and to secure for them the freedom in the trade of all nations. There was no Colony which would accept dictation from us. In the late war the people had stood by us to a man. It had been one of the proudest and most thrilling moments in

**

his life when he heard in the House of Commons of the immense offers made by all those various territories of support of every kind to us in the hour of our greatest need. That was the magnificent reward of our disinterested management in those great territories. Were we going to abandon that now? Great empires had been ruined in the past by attempting such a policy. The success which had attended British freedom had been phenomenal. Was it not folly that, at the instance of a few persons individually interested, who desired a monopoly, we should abandon that magnificent policy which had done so much to consolidate our great Empire, and had kept it contented, happy and prosperous? (Cheers.)

Mr. BEN SPOOR, M.P., said the policy would have a boomerang effect. The fact that the French Government had decided upon reprisals so quickly seemed to suggest that the time was not far distant when other Governments would take a similar line. The policy revealed a singular lack of appreciation of the delicacy of the European situation. If ever there was a moment when good-will and right feeling needed to be encouraged and developed, it was the present moment. If ever there was a time when it was unwise for any Government to come forward with differential treatment or preferential tariffs, it was the present. If ever there was a moment when it was extremely unwise to attempt to erect any trade barrier, it was certainly the present moment. We wanted to secure the best possible understanding. In hitting the Natives of West Africa, in forgetting that Britain had always stood as a trustee of Native peoples, they were going on a pathway which might lead this country to irretrievable disaster. He wondered sometimes if the mentality of our rulers had been so affected by the war that they did not see in correct perspective the ultimate result of some of their policies. This denial of the most elementary of human rights, this policy and that with which it was associated, in so far as it took away the freedom of the Natives, was nothing more or less than the imposition of slavery. The whole of history was strewn with the ruins. of empires and civilizations which failed, not merely because they adopted a certain form of taxation, or methods in relation to the colonies of their time, but because they were based on slavery.

The resolution was carried unanimously.

The Basuto Chiefs.

THE Committee endeavoured to obtain an interview with the Paramount Chief, Griffiths, and the other Chiefs of Basutoland, who have recently been on a visit to this country, but this did not prove possible during their stay. The Paramount Chief wrote, on the eve of his departure, regretting that he had not been able to arrange the meeting proposed with "representatives of the famous Aborigines Protection Society which has done so much for

the amelioration of the conditions of the African and other subject races of the British Empire throughout the world."

The Colonial Office has forwarded to the Society, at its request, a copy of the terms of the petition presented to the King by the deputation and His Majesty's reply.

"A. That Your Majesty will represent, at such time and season as to Your Majesty's Ministers shall seem fit, to the Government of the Union of South Africa that the consent of Your Majesty to the incorporation of Basutoland into the Union of South Africa, when duly requested as in the Act of Union laid down will not be given save and except, with the free consent of the Basuto Nation.

"B. That Your Majesty will consult the said petitioners and the Basuto Nation should any alteration of existing system be suggested, contemplated or initiated, and that Your Majesty will keep the Basuto Nation informed upon these matters in order that any possible unrest throughout the length and breadth of our land, Basutoland, may continue to be allayed by a cheerful and abiding confidence in Your Majesty's Ministers.

"C. That in Your Majesty's own good time, Your Majesty will extend still further steps in the direction of self-government to the Chiefs, Headmen and people of the Basuto Nation, in terms of the expressed wish of the late Chief Moshesh, when he sought the protection of the Government of Great Britain."

REPLY.

DOWNING STREET,

November 12, 1919.

PARAMOUNT CHIEF AND Chiefs,—

I greet you.

As you are aware, the petition of the Basutoland Council which you laid before the King at the Audience which His Majesty was graciously pleased to grant you on November 7, was handed by his Majesty to me, His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the Command that I should give you His Majesty's reply before you left this country.

You have already been informed by His Majesty how highly he appreciates the loyalty and devotion with which the Basuto Nation regard His Majesty's Throne and Person, and you will doubtless convey His Majesty's kind and gracious words to the Basutoland Council on your return.

I will now deal with the three prayers contained in the petition. As regards the first two prayers I have to say that His Majesty's Govern ment have not before them at present any proposal for the incorporation of Basutoland in the Union of South Africa nor, so far as they are aware,