abolish all such exploitation and to educate the native to fit him for citizenship. Col. Wedgwood spoke in the same sense and referred to the similar demand made in Rhodesia for forced labour in 1911, which was found unworkable. General Seely asked that Col. Amery, in view of an apparent change of policy on the part of the Colonial Office, would give an assurance that the old Government policy still stands, that we govern for the benefit of the population and natives as a whole and that indentured labour should go. On the last point, Col. Amery in his reply began by saying that the Government had not departed from its old principle for the administration of subject territory—we governed in the interest of every section of the population. As regards indentured labour, considerable progress had been made.

"Indentured labour was last year abolished in Fiji, and within the last few weeks in British Guiana, and it only exists now, I think, in one or two of the West Indian Colonies, and there it is due for extinction very shortly, when there will be no indentured labour in any part of the British Empire.”

Referring to the native reserves in Rhodesia, the Under Secretary said he hoped the matter would now be finally settled. All the changes which had taken place with two exceptions had met with general approval, and the natives had acquiesced and were carrying out the changes willingly. The two exceptions were the Chiduga and Sabi Reserves, in which objection had been made to the taking of a 12 mile strip for a railway. The white settlers needed the railway more than the natives, and the High Commissioner would consider how far steps could be taken to mitigate any possible hardship to natives who, living under tribal conditions, were entirely free from "economic slavery."

Col. Amery referred to Lord Buxton's very high testimony to the native administration of Rhodesia and the attitude of the civil population to the natives.

"It is a model," he added, " not only for Africa but for any part of the world," where white settlers live side by side with natives. Unfortunately, there is nothing in this official reply to meet the case put by Mr. Inskip.

Turning to the Ainsworth Circular, Col. Amery contended that there was nothing in its wording that necessarily involved " anything beyond advice or encouragement to work or discouragement to be idle."

Apprehension to avoid anything like compulsion was natural and proper, and he and Lord Milner had felt some anxiety. But Sir Edward Northey had made it clear to them, after long discussion, that compulsion was not his intention but that he wanted to put an end to the demoralization of young idle natives who were doing no work for themselves or anyone else. There would be no pressure on natives who were working in their own reserves for themselves. In any case the native commis

sioners were there to see that the native chiefs did not go beyond "purely lawful persuasion." Col. Amery added that the Governor

"has no objection to sending out a further circular to the native commissioners making these points quite clear, and putting it beyond doubt that the object of his policy is not compulsion to work for white employers, but only the discouragement of idleness. He also made clear to us that his policy in this respect was only part of a general policy of improving labour conditions so as to make work more attractive to the natives.'

"

Inspectors had been appointed under a Master and Servants" Ordinance to see that contracts were observed and provide for the labourer's housing, etc., and the protection of his interests as against the employer. He submitted that the policy of the East African Government was in no way reactionary, but was a progressive policy. Economic inducements alone were not enough to make the native see the advantages of work and raise his standard of living.*

HOUSE OF LORDS.

THE PALM KERNELS DEBATE.

THE Earl of Mayo, whose knowledge of West Africa is intimate, secured a very interesting debate in the House of Lords on May 13th on the differential duty on Palm Kernels. He was supported in his protest against this duty by Lords Emmott and Gainford.

Lord Mayo pointed out that at the inception of this differential duty the declared object was that of preventing the oil products from falling into the hands of enemy Powers, whilst the report recommending this was never signed by either Sir Frederick Lugard or Sir Hugh Clifford. The debate turned very largely upon three main features:(a) The nature of the assurances.

(b) The intentions of the Government as to extending the duty.

(c) Our relationship to the natives of the Dependencies. Lord Mayo said :—

"

Towards the end of his speech he (Lord Crawford) said that a complete statement would be made as to the form which these assurances took. We have heard nothing more about those assurances, however. We do not know where they are, or what they were, or to whom they were given, and I must ask that they should be produced."

Lord Emmott, dealing with the question of the assurances stated to have been given to the manufacturers also referred to the speech made by Earl Crawford in the previous debate of December last :The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stated by some mistake, that the Ordinance passed in October, 1919, had created a new market by December, 1919. That, of course, was entirely untenable, and he altered it by suggesting that manufacturers should put down machinery on the strength of a guarantee or assurance given to them, and the noble Earl made a definite promise that

*The Society's position is made clear in the Memorial printed on another page, which is also published in pamphlet form.

this assurance would be given to the House. I will undertake,' said the noble Earl, that a complete statement shall be made as to the justification of my remark that an assurance has been given. What form that assurance took I will endeavour to find out.' My Lords, I take a somewhat different view of that assurance from that of the noble Earl opposite. I venture to say that in the absence of any kind of evidence of an assurance having been given to the House, no such assurance was given."

Lord Milner in his reply, endeavoured to explain the nature of these assurances and his explanation clearly shows that no definite. assurances were ever given to British manufacturers.

There seems to have been some misunderstanding about assurances. I was not here when my noble friend behind me (Lord Crawford) spoke of the assurances given by the Government. It seems to have been supposed that he referred to some direct assurances given to individual manufacturers that, if they took such and such a course, the Government would take particular action. What I fancy he must have been referring to, and certainly what I rely upon, is not any such individual assurances to manufacturers, but the policy laid down by the Secretary of State when he communicated the Report of the Committee to the several Governments concerned, which became a Parliamentary Paper, which policy does, to my mind, amount to an assurance, not to individuals but urbi et orbi, a declaration of policy of what His Majesty's Government proposed to do."

Lord Emmott pressed the Government for a declaration as to the future, and in doing so put three specific questions:

"I want to ask, in regard to this part of the matter, three specific questions. First of all, does he mean to drop this tax when the five years have expired? That is a very important matter. Is this to be a permanent tax or is it not? In the second place, as prices are falling, does he intend to retain this tax and so lower the prices that merchants can afford to pay for the produce? Or, on the other hand, does he mean to follow the recommendation that the Committee made as to certain contingencies? Does he mean to make it a movable tax? Does he mean to increase it?"

Lord Milner's reply to these questions was certainly encouraging, for he came as near as possible to giving a definite promise :

"The noble Lord (Lord Emmott) who spoke last asked me with regard to the future. He asked whether I intended to carry on this preferential export duty after the expiration of five years. It is very unlikely that this will be a matter for me to decide. But as things now stand the Ordinances are so drafted that the preferential duty ceases at the end of five years, if nothing more is done. As I have always understood the case, the object of the duty was a temporary one. Unless I misconceive the position, a preferential duty was imposed in order to give a start to a particular industry in this country, and it was never intended to maintain it longer than was requisite to achieve that object. I think it is always very dangerous to give promises about the future as one can never foresee all the circumstances that may arise, and I am not prepared to give a promise in this case; but certainly I should hope that at the end of the period for which the duty is now imposed it might not be found necessary to continue it."

Our relationship to the native races of the Dependencies elicited two valuable contributions. Lord Emmott said:

"It has been one of the greatest glories of this country that we have governed coloured people more humanely and more successfully in a financial way than any other country in the world. The moral effect has been such that when some territory was to be absorbed by one of the great white races, it was preferred that Great Britain should take it rather than any other nation, because of our retaining the policy of the open door. To our great honour the natives also preferred us, because of the humane treatment which, on the whole, we have given to them."

Lord Milner very fully accepted the policy of "Trusteeship," and in doing so, said:

"I may say, however, that I accept-I have repeatedly stated it myself... the principle of trusteeship with regard to our position as a nation in all these dependent Crown Colonies and Protectorates. I consider that wherever we are obliged, owing to the backwardness of the population of these countries, to keep the ultimate authority in our own hands, we have to exercise that authority in the interests of the people of those countries and not for our own advantage."

The Committee of the Society now proposes to secure an early abandonment of the duty, and arrangements are already being made for pressing this policy next autumn.

Labour in Portuguese West Africa.

HAVING heard at the end of last year that the long promised Census of labourers in the Islands of S. Thomé and Principe had at last been carried out by the Portuguese Government, the Society wrote to the Foreign Office to enquire as to labour conditions, of which nothing had been heard for two years. We asked especially about the repatriation of the serviçaes, the method of recontracting them, the death rate on the plantations, etc.

The Foreign Office forwarded a copy of the Portuguese document for perusal. The figures for the coloured labour population of S. Thomé were given as Adults, 39,605; under 18, 3,541; and for Principe: Adults 4,331; under 18, 395.

This is an average of about 131 to the square mile.

No. of labourers from Angola, 10,940 men and 3,415 women. Total, 14,355.

Number of labourers from Mozambique, 20,853 men and 1,539 women. Total, 22,392.

The Committee then wrote asking that the Foreign Office would issue a further Consular Report, especially in regard to repatriations, re-contracting and the death-rate, no Report having been issued since 1917. The Society reminded the Government of the exceptional importance attaching to such Consular Reports in consequence of the arrangement made in 1913 between the British and Portuguese Governments, when the former appointed a Consul-General for Portuguese West Africa to superintend the Consular posts on the mainland and the Islands, in order to furnish full information on the labour question. It was recognised that the Portuguese Government had done much to improve the labour system, but according to the statistics lately published, there still appeared to be nearly 17,000 labourers from Angola on the two Islands; these figures appear to show a considerable pro

portion of diminution in the number of repatriations. Other questions were raised and it was submitted that a death-rate of 65 per 1,000 of natives in the prime of life is appalling. (The latest returns of mortality in the Transvaal Gold Mines show a total death rate of under 14 per thousand). In answer to this letter the Society has received a reply from the Foreign Office, stating that "owing to the exceedingly heavy calls upon H.M. Consular Service," Lord Curzon could not now undertake to send an Officer to San Thomé and Principe, but "the question will not be lost sight of."

The Committee has sent a memorial to the Foreign Office protesting against this decision, and recalling at length the arrangement entered into by Viscount Grey when he was Secretary of State.

Abuses in North Borneo.

THE Society was informed by the Colonial Office in April, that the evidence adduced on this subject was not considered such as to justify the Secretary of State in interfering in the administration by the British North Borneo Company, to whom the internal affairs of the State are assigned by the Agreement between H.M. Government and the Company.

The Society, in replying, stated that their witnesses were responsible men who held themselves at the disposal of his Majesty's Government and were (at the time the matter was first brought to the notice of Lord Milner) prepared to submit their complaints to the fullest investigation both by the Government and the Company. No response was made to this offer, and two of the gentlemen had since gone abroad.

So far, the assertion that reforms have been instituted comes only from the Company itself and the evidence adduced is mainly of a negative character. Questions as to the treatment of labourers still remain unanswered, including that relating to the system of advances by which labourers are involved in debt, which the Committee holds to be fundamental, as it invariably leads to abuses; the employment of legalised tokens only available at Estate shops, which appears to be practically equivalent to the Truck system; whether, in view of the uncertainty of the memorandum of the Protector of Labour upon the point, Estate Brothels have been entirely done away with; whether the Coolies have full opportunities of making complaints to the Protector, apart from the Officials of the Estates; and the question of the encouragement of opium smoking by weekly rations to the labourers.

The Committee again expressed its surprise and regret that his Majesty's Government has made no proposal for any inquiry into the grave