for giving effect to his undertaking that local opinion in East Africa will be consulted before any final commitments are entered into.

Mr. AMERY: I propose to ask Sir Samuel Wilson, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Colonial Office, to proceed to East Africa as soon as possible in order to discuss the recommendations of the Hilton Young Commission for the closer union of Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda, and such possible modifications of these proposals for effecting the object in view as may appear desirable, with the Governments concerned and also with any bodies or individuals representing the various interests and communities affected, with a view to seeing how far it may be possible to find a basis of general agreement. It will be his task to ascertain on what lines a scheme for closer union would be administratively workable and otherwise acceptable, and to report the outcome of his consultations. His report obviously will not be available until after the General Election, but any proposals for action arising out of it will, in so far as the present Government are concerned, be submitted to Parliament before any final decision is taken.

Mr. THOMAS: Do I gather that that answer means clearly that Sir Samuel Wilson will not have power to commit the Government in any way and that the one object of his mission is merely to ascertain local facts; and, further, is it clearly understood that the proposed residence of the High Commissioners is not to be a subject of his inquiry?

Mr. AMERY: Sir Samuel Wilson will not commit the Government or Parliament in any way. His object is merely to ascertain, as I have already stated, on what terms closer union could be made workable and could be made acceptable. No particular question like that of the whereabouts of the capital is excluded from his consideration.

Mr. THOMAS: The position then is clear, that, when the new Parliament reassembles, nothing arising out of Sir Samuel Wilson's mission will prejudice in any way the action of any Government called upon to deal with it, and that, before even the Government deals with it, Parliament will have an opportunity of considering it?

Mr. AMERY: The liberty of action of any Government is quite unfettered.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I ask whether the present investigations will also cover the question of the franchise; as to whether it should be a common franchise or a communal franchise?

Mr. AMERY: That question may be brought to the notice of Sir Samuel Wilson, but the hon. Member is aware of the policy of His Majesty's Government on that matter.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Do I understand that if representations are made to Sir Samuel Wilson, he will also cover in his investigation local feeling with regard to the franchise?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, local feeling in every community concerned, but a change of policy can only result from general agreement.

KENYA (ILLTREATMENT CHARGE).

Mr. GILLETT asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a charge of illtreating a Kenya native, which was brought against a settler in Kenya Colony, and a charge against his native headman and a European police constable of aiding and abetting, have now, owing to the suicide of the settler, been withdrawn in the case of the native headman and the police constable; whether he can state the reason of the withdrawal; and whether he has received a full report of the case ?

Mr. AMERY: I have no information beyond the statements which have appeared in the Press, but I expect to receive in due course a full report on the case from the Officer Administrating the Government of Kenya.

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

THE debate on the Commission Report was opened in the Upper House by Lord LUGARD on the 13th March in a weighty speech which was listened to with the attention due to a former administrator of exceptional experience and authority. The issues dealt with in the Report were, Lord Lugard said, of Imperial magnitude. In the present century, interest was in some measure passing from the Dominions to the Crown Colonies, where the relations of the whites to the vast black populations presented a problem perhaps second in importance to no other of the century. He submitted that the proposals of the Government should be referred to a joint Committee of all parties in both Houses, who would hear and consider the views of every section of opinion in Africa.

The questions raised by the Commission were how to adopt the system of Government in such a way as while maintaining trusteeship for the natives, to use the political experience and capacity of European immigrants and to train the natives towards self government progressively with their advance in civilisation and education. Lord Lugard was of opinion that our people had in the past shown less wisdom and judgment in the administration of the subject races when they were emerging into maturity than in their earlier state of tutelage. Speaking as a Member of the Mandates Commission, he thought that the main effect of the proposals of the Commission was to extend the principles of the Mandate System to East Africa. He wished that the Report had more definitely emphasised the danger of pushing economic developments too fast. The speech ended with a tribute to the character and fine work of the British settlers in Kenya; Lord Lugard hoped that they would not factiously oppose the disinterested recommendations of the Report, but would even at the sacrifice of cherished theories, be willing to co-operate with them for the sake of the larger interests of the Empire.

Lord OLIVIER endorsed what had been said as to the immense importance of the subjects treated in the Report of the Commission. He referred to the relations of the white and black races in the Union of

South Africa and in Rhodesia as well as in Kenya and dwelt on the problems of land, taxation and forced labour. It was not, he said, the primary duty of the Government to develop to the utmost the productive powers of its possessions, but to maintain justice in its institutions.

Lord CRANWORTH hoped that the House would reject the motion on several grounds. The Report, in two aspects, seemed to him to be opposed to a continuity of Imperial policy in Kenya. In 1923 a communal system of franchise had been recommended, but the present Report recommended reconsideration of that question, and rejected the proposal of responsible government for white colonists, in spite of what Mr. Churchill had said in 1922 as to Kenya" looking forward in the full fruition of time to responsible self-government." Further, we should pause before we adopted a policy so largely opposed to those which were being carried out in South Africa. Lord Cranworth said there had been great differences of opinion on the Report, and very little general full agreement. Though he was in agreement with nine-tenths of it, he must dissent from the idea that when the natives were trained for political power, the British Government and people were to leave the country to them.

Archbishop Lord DAVIDSON thought that the Report was full of interest, and threw new light upon a great many questions, but he was anxious to know what practical policy the Government itself would follow.

Lord PLYMOUTH, in replying for the Government, said that the matters dealt with in the Report were still under close consideration. The Government was closely examining how the communities in East Africa. could best be consulted. The result could not be known in the life of the present Parliament, and it would be premature to decide upon setting up a joint Select Committee at present, but this and other suggestions would be taken into consideration when the time came.

Lord BUXTON, in a short speech, spoke of the Report as a very great and statesman-like document. He appreciated the position of the Government, but regretted that Lord Plymouth could not give more indication of the line which they proposed to take.

Australian Aborigines.

LETTER TO THE FEDERAL PRIME MINISTER.

THE Report of Mr. J. W. Bleakley, who enquired on behalf of the Australian Federal Government into the condition of the natives in Central and Northern Australia, has been published, but only brief and rather confusing accounts have as yet been received here of its purport. But the serious trouble referred to in our last issue among the aboriginals in Central Australia led to the appointment of a Board of Enquiry by the Federal Government into the shootings of thirty-one aborigines by the police, consequent upon the murder of a white stockman. It will be

remembered that the Times correspondent stated that the action of the blacks "must be accepted as a reprisal rather than as having criminal motives," but it now appears that the Board, after an investigation lasting twenty days, found that the police acted in self-defence, and has completely exonerated them from blame. Our Committee is awaiting the receipt of these Reports, but has meanwhile addressed a letter to Mr. Bruce, the Federal Prime Minister, again urging that the whole question be made a Federal responsibility. The text of the letter is as follows:

To:

THE RT. HON. S. M. BRUCE,

13th February, 1929.

Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.

SIR,-In July, 1927, we wrote to you on behalf of the Committee of this Society, regarding the report of the Commission appointed by the Government of Western Australia, to enquire into the shooting and burning of a large number of aborigines in North-West Australia by a punitive expedition of Police and civilians. You were good enough then to inform us that, while it was not found possible to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate and report upon the status and conditions of the aboriginals in all parts of Australia, it had been decided to endeavour to secure the services of an Officer of the Queensland Government to investigate aboriginal conditions in the Federal territories of Northern and Central Australia. We subsequently heard that a Commissioner had been appointed, but have not yet heard whether his report, which we await with interest, has been published.

Our Committee has read with painful surprise the recent reports which have been published of the shootings of a large number of aboriginals, including women and children, in Central Australia, near Alice Springs, in the police hunt for the murderers of a white stockman. We note that these shootings were carried out by white police, in pursuance, it is said, of official instructions, and that the shooting of at least thirty-one natives was deliberate and also indiscriminate, there being nothing to indicate that those who suffered had anything to do with the crime. We also note that the police are alleged to have urged as an excuse in some cases, that they had called upon these wild natives to stand in the name of the King! The Committee cannot help feeling this occurrence to be all the more deplorable as coming so soon after the somewhat similar outrages committed by the Police and civilian party in North-West Australia about two years ago. We are aware that a recent telegram from Canberra reports that the Board of Enquiry which was appointed by the Federal Government has exonerated the police and other whites concerned in the shootings, but this would seem, on the face of it, to point to the fact that the police simply act in such cases under official instructions, and carry out orders. This, we respectfully submit, makes the evils of the present system more

evident, and emphasises the necessity of a change of policy. If the police are accustomed to treat the aborigines in this way, the treatment meted out, at times under very slight provocation, by the less responsible elements of the community, unrestrained by any force of law or public opinion, may be worse.

But this Society is more concerned with future policy and the prevention of the occurrence of such deplorable happenings than with the details of the past. We are glad to learn of awakened public opinion in Australia, and we have good reason to know that you personally and your Government are entirely sympathetic with the cause which our Society has at heart. This fact is our great ground of encouragement at the present time. We beg, on behalf of our Committee, to express the hope that effectual steps may be taken by yourself and your Government to lift the question of the condition and treatment of the aboriginals to the higher level of a real trusteeship. We hesitate to suggest measures of local reform, but, so far as we are able to judge at this distance, the most urgent and promising reform would be that of making the whole problem of the aborigines throughout the Continent of Australia the undivided responsibility of the Commonwealth.

We, have, etc.,

TRAVERS BUXTON,

Honorary Secretary.

JOHN H. HARRIS,

Parliamentary Secretary.

News has been received from the Australian Association for the Protection of Native Races, that a deputation representing the Association recently waited upon Mr. Abbott, the Minister for Home Affairs, and was sympathetically received. Mr. Abbott said that he would again take up with the State Governments the question of a single control; he personally thought that the problem was one for the Commonwealth to settle.

The Association definitely advocates the policy of Nationalisation, and also urges that in each State with an aboriginal population, adequate Reserves should be set apart for the natives, to be protected from alienation and from all trespass of unauthorised persons. It makes further recommendations for the education of aboriginal children, and that until nationalisation is obtained, "efforts should be made to bring up the standard of practice to that of the State having the highest standard."

An admirable article was published on the general question in the Contemporary Review for February, by the Rev. C. E. C. Lefroy, a member of our Committee, formerly Archdeacon of Perth, W.A. The article has been reprinted by the Society as a pamphlet, and copies can be obtained from the Society's Office.