Masai tribe. We had given them reserves of a size they would never have dreamed of aspiring to.. Lands now in the occupation of British settlers. were formally only occupied by the lion and the buffalo. He thought that much of the outcry against the British settlers arose from the fact that one of their leaders happened to be a Peer, Lord Delamere, and that if his name had been Brown, Jones or Robinson, there would have been no more heard of him. Still more, if his name had begun with "Mac" there would have been nothing but praise.

On the question of the non-official majority now being put forward, Lord Cranworth said that of late years there had been eleven elected members, some nominated members for the Indians, one nominated for the Arabs, one for the Missionaries, and a majority of officials to over-rule the rest.

In closing, Lord Cranworth said there were people in this country who used what they called the love of their black or yellow brothers as a stalking horse to conceal the hatred of their fellow-countrymen; there was no shorter and easier way to fame. He was not speaking there as a partisan or champion of the white Colonist, but he would say, with every fibre of belief, that when the history of East Africa came to be written, neither by a politician nor by a profiteer, but by a historian, it would prove to be a very bright and clean history, and there would be no cleaner pages than those that told how the white population, whether officials, missionaries, or Colonists, had undertaken their responsibility for the native races in uplifting them to civilisation and undertaking the responsibility which destiny had placed in their hands.

Mr. CHARLES RODEN BUXTON considered that Lord Cranworth, in presenting to them, as he did, a charming and rosy picture, had left in the background certain important facts, and so had given a wrong impression of the tendencies in Kenya as regards labour. He had consulted Lord Cranworth's own works on the subject, and found that in the first edition, published in 1912 and re-published after the war, not a single word had been changed. There were additions, but no alterations. Lord Cranworth used the word "exploitation" in the book. There was nothing very mysterious about exploitation, but it was a process which had to be very carefully watched in the interests of the exploited, and it was not fair to entrust the government of the exploited to the exploiter. Of course the exploiter was no worse than other men, but it was not safe to entrust the government of people employed as wage earners to the exclusive control of their employers; this had always proved dangerous.

It was an intolerable doctrine that people at home should be intimidated and warned off the preserves so to speak, by the charge of not knowing anything about it. Although they might not know a considerable number of details, they could not accept at any price the doctrine that people at home were never to exercise responsibility for the welfare of native races.

The second resolution asked for guarantees against the exercise

of pressure. Lord Cranworth, in his book, said that there were two views, that of the philanthropist at home, and on the other hand that of the settler on the spot, who thought it the duty of the Government to help him to get labour. Lord Cranworth agreed entirely with the second, that is, the settlers' point of view, and this seemed to be the view adopted by the Government in Kenya. The Report of the Governors' Conference laid down that every able-bodied native had to work either at production on his own land, or outside. If he simply wished to be engaged in producing things to maintain himself and his family, that was not work. In October last the Acting Colonial Secretary said that Administrative Officers had been instructed to do their utmost to aid the flow of labour from the reserves and that an attitude of hostility or neutrality hindered that flow. He wanted to have an explanation of that statement, and whether the Government was neutral or not, they were entitled to know.

The Ven. Archdeacon OWEN compared the question of political self-government with that of self-government in the Church; the same kind of problem presented itself in both. Self-government must be the ideal for all communities, including Kenya. Archdeacon Owen said that the support given by the East Africa Commission and the recent Conference of Governors to the doctrine that it is the African's duty to work for the Government or private employers, was discredited by the sanest and wisest ecclesiastical leaders, though still held by some Churchmen. But did those words mean what they said? It was a misuse of our position to use our administrative or other opportunities to teach the African that it is his duty to work for private employers. He appealed for a change of spirit and thought towards the African as a potential worker.

His concrete proposal was that the Conference appoint a small Committee to approach the Convention of Associations and other bodies in Kenya and report on the Church's proposals for self-government, with a view to making them the basis of political self-government. There must be no misuse of power over the African. Self-government would only be attained by steps, and the foundations must be very carefully prepared; no superstructure would be lasting, into which the African was not built. The Church had faith in the capacity of the African, and a vision of the African of the future; it had no less faith in its European sons and daughters. They must hammer out on the anvil of high idealism a scheme of self-government which would be to the world a pattern of the application of Christian principles to the task of co-operation with backward races.

Referring to the East Africa Conference Report, the speaker denied that it was the duty of the black man to work for the white. The fact that a man was an English gentleman had not in the past made it impossible for him to own slaves, nor more recently, to force natives out to labour or flog them severely. Communal labour was not all paid for. Archdeacon Owen said he had had to protest tenaciously against alienating the Nandi land to settlers and some of it was returned to them.

Dr. NORMAN LEYS asked if Lord Delamere agreed that it would be just to give the vote to every man of education, irrespective of his colour. That and that alone would prove him a democrat. The real trouble was the ignorance of the British public and false information given to it. Lord Cranworth had again said that the settlers had been slandered and maligned. He had made the same charge against him (Dr. Leys) some months ago, in the Manchester Guardian, and he demanded a withdrawal or substantiation of the charge, but Lord Cranworth had done neither.

The speaker went on to say that the resolution admitted communal labour and demanded the abolition of forced labour, whereas, at present, communal labour was one of the worst evils of Kenya. The trouble began when the natives began to be compelled to work for Europeans. It was the minority alone in the village upon whom the burden of six months labour in the year, without pay, fell. They were often called out in the middle of harvest or when the ground was being broken up.

He protested as heartily as Archdeacon Owen against one abominable lie, that the African is particularly lazy; he had supported himself and his family on his own land until he was driven off it. The official defence of giving native lands to the Europeans was that the natives were too few to cultivate it, but these same natives were to be made to go back to the land they had lost and work there for 12s. to 16s. per month. Dr. Leys also contended that the greater part of the expenditure on new roads and railways is so allocated as chiefly to benefit the European land, and that the native reserves are neglected in this respect, although the greater part of the money raised in taxation came from the natives.

Mr. JOHN H. HARRIS said: We are often attacked in the Dependencies for statements we make, without our critics realising that our Committee always exercises the most scrupulous care in order to see that any statement it makes is backed by information which cannot in any circumstances be challenged. It has been stated that there is no official pressure upon natives to compel them to labour for private profit. That is a very clear and very explicit statement to have made. I am going to reply to this by a quotation from a Government White book.

"The native authorities are therefore to exercise all lawful and proper influence to induce able-bodied male natives to go into the labour field, and it is their duty to advise and encourage all unemployed young men under their jurisdiction to seek work on plantations."

Another statement has been made that compulsory labour is paid the market rate of wages. Again I am only going to quote from a Government document. The following is an extract from a telegram from Colonel Amery to the Governor of Kenya Colony. In the first telegram he asked the Governor of Kenya what he was going to pay the compulsory labourers as compared with the voluntary labourers, and here is the answer from the Governor of the Colony:

"Pay will be the lowest accepted rate in the area of recruitment, most likely 12s. per month, while ordinary rate for voluntary labour is 14s. I consider it essential that the pay of compelled labour be slightly lower than for voluntary labour, otherwise the whole value of the lesson will be lost."

Colonel Amery then sent a telegram in which the following passage

occurs:

I do not see how a lower rate than the ordinary market rate can possibly be defended or how it could be maintained that the loss of 25. a month was not a hardship. What exactly do you mean by phrase ' whole value of the lesson'?''

I think the one idea with regard to labour that we have to get out of the minds of a large section of the community is that the native in Kenya only works when he works for the white man. This idea even found official expression. It was the basis of the defunct 1920 Ordinance by which only labour for white men was recorded on the registration cards of the natives. Thus it came about that recently a Magistrate, sentencing a native for an offence in connection with ivory, remarked: "I see from your card that you have only worked six months in six years." It is appalling that the administration of British justice has fallen to such a low level. We assert first, that the native is not inherently idle, secondly that the native is the best and most economic producer of raw material, and thirdly, that our duty as trustees should be that of encouraging industrious habits amongst the natives, regardless of where and for whom he works.

Mr. F. C. LINFIELD was rather sorry that more time had not been devoted to the question of self-government. He had travelled over the whole of Kenya, and talked with the settlers, and he had found that the man who treated his natives well very rarely had difficulty in getting labour. The principle of self-government was sound; it had made the greatest Empire of the world, and in all parts of the Empire we had endeavoured to train the people and get them to understand that eventually they must govern their own territories, but there must be proper safeguards for natives and Indians. If you said to the Kenya settlers: "You can have selfgovernment, but the Indians must have the franchise and the natives must be represented" they would have nothing more to say. If their friends in Kenya wanted self-government, let them be prepared to act generously and with courage, and not think everyone was against them. They would never get self-government for about 2,000 white settlers.

Mr. ROBERTS said that he would put the resolution in two parts, and ask the meeting to vote first on that part which opposed a grant of selfgovernment. This was put, and carried by seventeen votes to ten. The rest of the resolution was carried nem con.

Lord CRANWORTH, in reply to Dr. Leys, said he was content to leave it to the people in Kenya to say whether Dr. Leys had been slandered and maligned.

The Chairman, having thanked Lord Cranworth, Archdeacon Owen and the other speakers who had given them their views, said that he thought the Society had gained greatly by the discussion, and that the interchange of ideas had been of great use to them. The meeting then terminated.

Slave Raids in Portuguese Africa.

A MEMORANDUM has been sent in to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations upon the slave-raiding practices carried on by the Portuguese in Angola.

This was written by Professor Schwarz, of Rhodes University College, Grahamstown, and was forwarded by Mr. Will. H. Stuart, M.L.A., a nephew of the late W. P. Schreiner and Senator Theo Schreiner, who cites Prof. Schwarz as being "the authority on the drought, waters and head waters of the Kalahari, Cunene River and Zambesi River."

The memorandum, which we quote almost in full, pleads that the boundary between Portuguese Angola and the South-West African territory (mandated area under the Union of South Africa) should be rectified, in order that the Ovambo nation be all included in Union territory instead of being cut in two as at present.

"The Ovambo Nation consists of the following eight tribes: Although each has its own customs and dialect, the tribes are fairly homogeneous, making a compact nation of some 150,000 individuals.

"The present memorandum is concerned with the disastrous consequences that will arise, should the present boundary between Ovamboland and Angola be made permanent, and a plea is formulated, asking that the present time be utilised to rectify the boundary in accordance with the human factor, seeing that the question is before the Government.

"The boundary-line berween Angola and South-West Africa was originally agreed upon by treaty between the Germans and Portuguese, as running from the Cataracts' on the Cunene, eastwards, till it met the Okavango River. The discovery by the Germans that there were cataracts above the main Rua Cana ones, led them to claim territory north of the original line. A commission of enquiry was sent to the area in question, and now, according to the press, the southern, or original boundary, is to be proclaimed. The line thus demarcated-and the other one, for that matter-cuts the Ovakuanvama tribe in two, thus allotting territory occupied by an integral portion of the Ovambo nation to the Portuguese. One half of the Ukuanyama tribe will be subject to Portugal, and the other will come under British rule; in other words, those dwelling north of the line will be liable to be seized for 'indentured labour' in the cocoa plantations of San Thomé and Principe-where they mostly die within the year-while those living south of the line are exempt under the Pax Britannica. A constant state of friction is thus created; the natives on the British side view with horror the slave-raiding expeditions of the Portuguese, while the luckless individuals who live north of the line, if they flee to the security of their families in the south, render those who are left liable to acts of ferocious retribution.

"It may be diplomatic to shut one's eye to the slave-raids of the Portuguese, but the fact remains that the worst horrors of the slave