Colonial Services.

Orders of the Day — Civil Services. – in the House of Commons am ar 25 Chwefror 1924.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,600,504, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for sundry Colonial Services, including a Grant-in-Aid of Railway Expenditure in Kenya and Uganda and certain other Grants-in-Aid.

Photo of Sir Sydney Henn Sir Sydney Henn , Blackburn

I propose a reduction of £100 in this Vote for the purpose of making some observations, a few criticisms perhaps, and for asking some explanation. On my part there is no opposition to the voting of this money. On the contrary, I am very pleased indeed to see that one of the first acts of this Government is to carry on the policy for the development of the Colonies initiated by the late Government. I have some misgiving on the following points. I should like to have the assurance that this money will really be spent on the railways that are indicated in the schedule. I would remind the Committee that only last month a question put by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. A. Somerville) was answered by the spokesman of the Colonial Office giving a programme of the work outlined by the Government for the development of East Africa. I refer to this matter in order to draw a comparison between what was said then and what is now contained in the schedule for this Supplementary Estimate. Four separate items are mentioned as including a whole programme of work to be carried out.

The first item includes certain railways connected with the development of cotton growing in Kenya and Uganda, and undoubtedly these are the railways referred to in the schedule. In addition to these, three branch railways are mentioned in Kenya, the betterment of the existing Uganda railway, and also certain public utility services, which were left, over when the Kenya loan of £5,000,000 was issued, with the intention that they should be met out of the proceeds of a further loan. I bring up this point because when the Kenya loan was issued it was also stated that this loan was raised to meet the cost of railway, harbour and other works for the general development of the colony. It was expressly stipulated that the loan carried no guarantee of the British Government, which I think rather strange considering we are dealing with a Crown Colony. One of the questions I should like to ask is: what would happen if Kenya defaulted on this loan? Certainly the public appears to think it carries the implied guarantee of the British Government, because even to-day that loan is standing at about 110. I should like to point out that, according to the latest printed statement of the Colonial Treasurer in Kenya, the £5,000,000 was appropriated not wholly for the purpose of paying for the railway and harbour works, at Kilindini and the loan which was to be repaid to the Treasury, but also £600,000 in the repayment to revenue of advances from revenue for military expenditure in connection with the war, and for the purchase of reserve stores for railway and steamer services. It does not seem to me that this is anything but a method of saying that a portion of the loan is devoted to paying old debts which were really not included in the original prospectus for the Kenya Loan. What I want to know is, whether we can depend upon this £3,500,000, if it is voted by this Committee, being devoted precisely to the railways that are mentioned in the Schedule?

Another matter to which I should like to call attention is the special responsibility of the Colony of Kenya for this particular loan. The schedule says that the loan is to cover the construction of railways in Kenya and Uganda. My information leads me to believe that the Vote would be sufficient for those purposes, but what I wish to know is this, is it the intention of the Government to saddle Kenya with the responsibility of railways in Uganda? It is a matter of public knowledge that for many years the Uganda Railway budget was included in the general budget of the Colony of Kenya and for many years when there was a surplus in the working of the line that surplus was appropriated by Kenya for its general revenue. That, of course, raised protests from Uganda whenever there was a Surplus. During the last two years, I am very glad to say that a more business-like and sensible arrangement has been adopted, that of keeping completely apart the railway budget from the budget of the Colony. But in any case the question still remains, why is the loan going to be made to the Colony of Kenya and utilised for construction in Uganda?

There is a further question in connection with this matter which is still more important, that is the question of the ownership and control of these railways. Hon. Members will remember, of course, the story of the Ronaldshay Report. It was obtained in consequence of various discussions which took place in this House with regard to the merits of private enterprise. It is quite true that in countries like this for the time being the railroads must be provided by the State, even if they are constructed by private enterprise. Let me point out some of the difficulties. Supposing the Uganda Railway, which is at present under the control of the Kenya Government, was asked to extend into Tanganyika territory. If it was a private railway or a group of railways we all know there is no difficulty whatever in building railways crossing international boundaries and managing them in such a way that the interests of the shareholders do not suffer and that the interests of the people in each separate country do not suffer. Supposing, as seems to be intended in this arrangement, that these railways which now should be rapidly developed, and quite rightly so, in East Africa, are to be left under the control of one single colony—say Kenya for the sake of arguments—will Kenya, under these conditions, take an interest in the railway development of Tanganyika and Uganda? I do not think so. Why should they? Look at it from another point of view. Would it be fair to saddle for any length of time the finances of a colony like Kenya with the cost of construction of unprofitable railways in Tanganyika or other adjoining colonies? Quite clearly, no. Would Tanganyika and Uganda pay the loss if the railway remained under the complete control of Kenya? I do not think that they would. As a matter of fact, I can quote a very illuminating passage from a speech made on 16th November of last year in the Uganda Legislative Council. The Chief Secretary reported a resolution of the Uganda Railway Council against making the payment of interest and sinkng fund on the cost of making the railway a charge on the Uganda revenue unless the branch extended into Uganda. Clearly you cannot expect that Uganda or Tanganyika would be willing to meet the deficits or allow Kenya to spend money on railways which benefited one Colony and did not benefit them. Why should they? This is one of the difficulties which we are up against in this matter? May I remind the Committee of what took place last year with regard to the small branch line, the Voi-Taveta line, connecting the Uganda railway system with the Tanganyika railway system just over the boundary. It will be remembered that on the advice of his officers the Secretary of State proposed to lift that line, and it was only in consequence of the protest made from this House, and in another place, that, eventually, it was decided that the line should remain there. Instead of £350,000 or £450,000 estimated to be the cost of putting the line into working order, I am given to understand that the present railroad manager has put it into working order for £35,000, thus justifying what was said here. The real motives lying behind the Departmental recommendations to the Secretary of State in the matter ware inter-colonial jealousies. Clearly this must be so when you have two completely independent colonial administrations, Tanganyika and Kenya, and what suits one Colony does not suit the other.

All this shows clearly that the time has arrived for dealing with these East African railways as a whole. I consider that a case has been made out for establishing the control of a single administration, if necessary with a council of professional railwaymen to help them, and, of course, with local councils in each Colony to look after the interests of agriculture and the general public interest of each of the Colonies. Under such a system there would be no difficulty at all in each Colony retaining the ownership of its own railway, because separate accounts would be kept of the result in each of the different Colonies, and you would then have the two very great advantages that, in the case of a Colony which was paying its way, the Colony would not be sacrificed for the deficiencies that occurred in the working of the railway of its neighbours, while in the case of a Colony that could not meet its working expenses, or provide the necessary capital for the extension of the railroad system in that particular Colony, it would be possible for His Majesty's Government, through the Colonial Office, to help it directly on the merits of each separate case. I hope that these suggestions will be considered carefully, and opportunity given a little later on for the discussion of this and the general question of administration in East Africa.

There is one matter which I wish, before sitting down, to bring particularly to the notice of this Committee. In the early part of last year questions were fired at the head of the late Government from every corner of the House as to the relative merits of private enterprise in the construction of tropical African railways versus construction by the administration. As a direct consequence of that Parliamentary agitation, a Committee, known as the Ronaldshay Committee, was set up. One of the principal objects of that Committee was to see what measures could be taken to encourage private enterprise in developing British dependencies in East and West Tropical Africa, with special reference to projected enterprises of transportation. That was in July. On the 17th October last year the Governor of Kenya in opening at Nairobi the Legislative Assembly said: Hon. Members will be glad to hear that the Colonial Office has approved the principle that branch railways are to be constructed departmentally in future. The Ronaldshay Committee Report was laid on the Table last month, and that Committee, among other things, makes the following representation: We have recommended that in every case where departmental construction is contemplated, unless definite and sufficient reasons against this course are shown by the Colonial Government, tenders for the work should be invited and prepared, and estimates made locally, and that departmental construction shall not be permitted if satisfactory tenders for the construction of the work at a lower cost are received, and that this test shall invariably be applied before departmental construction is sanctioned. I wish to ask the Secretary for State how is it that the Government, at the instance of this House, appointed a Committee in July to consider and report upon this matter, and their representaive in Kenya in October stated that the Colonial Office had already decided in favour of departmental construction, and when the Report of the Committee comes out it turns out that they recommended that departmental construction shall be undertaken in no case without calling for tenders?

Photo of Sir Robert Hamilton Sir Robert Hamilton , Orkney and Shetland

The hon. Member who has just sat down—

Photo of Mr William Ormsby-Gore Mr William Ormsby-Gore , Stafford

I understood that my hon. Friend moved a reduction, and I would like to know how much it was, and whether it is to cover both items or only the first item?

Photo of Mr John Whitley Mr John Whitley , Halifax

I did not understand that the hon. Member had moved a reduction.

Photo of Sir Sydney Henn Sir Sydney Henn , Blackburn

I beg to move "That Item A.6—[Kenya (Grant-in-Aid), £3,500,000]—be reduced by £100."

Photo of Lieut-Colonel Leo Amery Lieut-Colonel Leo Amery , Birmingham Sparkbrook

This is an entirely new Motion, and the right hon. Gentleman should give us a statement of the general policy of the Government with regard to this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Photo of Mr George Balfour Mr George Balfour , Hampstead

Is it not the practice of the Government in Committee, when a new subject is presented, to have a statement made by the responsible Minister, so that the Committee may have some idea of the general effect of what is proposed?

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY:

As I understand it, this question should have been raised before the interesting speech which we have just heard.

Photo of Sir Robert Hamilton Sir Robert Hamilton , Orkney and Shetland

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn) has raised some very interesting points as to the future and cost of construction of rail ways between adjoining Protectorates. I wish to call attention to one or two other points, having in view what has recently happened in Kenya in the building of railways which are now to be increased in length and to have feeder railways added to them. This is part of a scheme for spending £8,000,000, which is to be devoted to the building of railways for the development of Kenya, particularly in connection with cotton-growing. We are asked to vote the money now being considered, on the ground that it would develop cotton-growing in Kenya. I lay special stress on that, because I wish to ask the Minister particularly on what lines this money is to be spent. If we look at the scheme that is before us, we will see that the line which is called the Nakuru-Turbo line is to be prolonged to Uganda, probably to Lusinga, with branch lines in the Kavirondo country, which is typical cotton-growing country. There is also a proposed line to Kitale, which is not in a cotton-growing country, but in what might be called a white area. There is a proposed branch line to Solai, which is in a white area also, and to Nyeri, which is in a white area and not in cotton-growing country. For those three branch lines £1,000,000 is set aside.

The Committee ought to know clearly whether the sum we are asked to vote to-night, or any part of it, is to go to those three branch lines, because we are being asked to devote a sum of money to the development of cotton growing in the Empire. I welcome railway development because I think that there is no more desirable way of opening up our undeveloped colonies than by the railway. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain very rightly said once, "The railway is the key to Africa." At the same time we are voting money, and we want to know on what objects that money is to be spent and that it is spent in the most economical way to give us the best returns.

I wish next to call attention to the alignment of the railways and to ask by what authority the alignments of railways I are settled. Hon. Members may know that the geography of that part of Africa is somewhat peculiar. The main line known as the Uganda railway runs gradually up from Nairobi to the Kikuyu I escarpment. The line runs along the great Rift Valley, and then climbs over the escarpment of Mau to a height of 8,200 feet, and drops on the other side to the great lake. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the remarkable alignment of the Nakuru Turbo line. The idea of that line was to open up the plateau lying to the north of the Uganda railway. The line could have been taken from the Uganda railway at the summit perfectly easily. In fact the line was taken off about 50 miles further back at Nakuru, on the floor of the Rift Valley, and a new line was built parallel with the old line at a distance of only something like 10 miles from the old line. It ran along for 55 miles parallel to the old line to a point near the Mau escarpment, which perfectly easily could have been reached from the old line at much less expense.

I am told that an estimate was made by the Public Works Department in Kenya for a line from Mau to the point of which I speak. That estimate was £80,000. The line from Nakuru to that point cost, in fact, £780,000. I think that we are entitled to ask why the line was settled in that way, by whom it was settled, and why there has never been any explanation given or any inquiry allowed, though it has been asked for by responsible people in Kenya. We have only to look at the area through which that line has been taken to ask ourselves the question, what was the reason, if any reason there was, why that line should have been dealt with in that way? The public in Kenya have demanded that an inquiry should be held. No inquiry has been held. There the line is. Now we are asked to vote this large sum of money for extending that line. Before the Committee votes the money I think we should have an assurance that the alignment of that railway will be the most suitable for the purpose for which we are asked to spend the money, namely, the development of cotton-growing.

The hon. Member for Blackburn referred also to the Ronaldshay Committee's findings. The cost of the line of which I have been speaking was, I believe, something like £14,000 a mile. The Ronaldshay Committee said that tenders should be called for locally and then compared with local estimates. With regard to that line, I wish to ask how the contract was entered into, what tender was called for and if it was compared with any local estimate. There is another point in connection with the extension of railways in Kenya to which I wish to refer. It was a standing disgrace to the old Uganda railway that very small attention was paid to the native traffic. It always struck me as being rather a curious thing, because the native traffic was the best paying traffic. Natives were allowed to come from great distances to a station and there they had to stay sometimes for twelve hours, or perhaps twenty-four hours, in the open without shelter, without means of getting fire or water. When the train came in it was full and could not take them. If they got into a train they were packed like herrings in a barrel and had no conveniences or accommodation for very long journeys, and they were at times locked into the carriages and could not get out at the stations.

On State-built railways such as this it should be one of the first objects before the State to see that all the passengers, of whatever race or colour, have sufficient accommodations and conveniences. I put in a word particularly for the native traffic, because the native is inarticulate, and unless someone speaks for him he is apt to sit down and put up with whatever is offered to him. The final point to which I would draw attention is that the interest which will have to be found for these railways, which may not all prove to be paying propositions or certainly may not pay for some years, will have to be found out of the taxation of the Colony. It should be borne in mind that the people who benefit; particularly by the railways should pay the cost. By that I mean, that in any future arrangement of the taxation of the inhabitants of that Colony great care should be taken to see that the charges for railways which mainly benefit European settlements should not be placed on the shoulders of the natives.

Photo of Mr Edmund Morel Mr Edmund Morel , Dundee

The few remarks which I propose to address to the Committee will be a substantial endorsement of the eloquent speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. This scheme is described as one which is principally for the development of cotton growing, and like the hon. Member, I should like to see that it was actually such a scheme. A scheme for the development of cotton-growing will not meet with opposition from any part of the Committee, but one would like to be assured as to whether, in fact, all the various branches of this railway scheme are going to be put to that use. My hon. Friend has just described, with perfect accuracy, the three branch railways which it is proposed to build, and he said, quite rightly, that of these three branch railways none fully taps the cotton-growing country. The extension of the main railway does go through one of the big native reserves, the Kavirondo reserve, which is a cotton-growing area, and so far as that part of the scheme is concerned it is absolutely sound from that point of view.

10.0 P.M.

These branch railways, I submit, require very careful consideration before we pass the scheme. In so far as they profess to be branch railways for the development of cotton growing they profess to be what they are not, and it would be perfectly possible to build two or three branch railways in other parts of the Colony, which would serve the purpose for which this Vote suggests the present proposals are meant. I also endorse what my hon. Friend said about the necessity for examining this scheme with very great caution. I am sure I need not assume for one moment that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has not already made that discovery, and has found for himself that there is need for very great caution in examining any scheme for railways in Kenya, in view of the experience derived from the history of the first part of the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), in referring to the Uasin Gishu Railway, used language which was extremely mild. I will be plainer and describe it as an absolute scandal, and everybody connected with the Kenya Colony knows it was a scandal, and the colonists themselves last October invited a Commission of Inquiry, with the widest possible powers, to investigate the history of the railway. The last point on which I wish to touch is this. I hope we may have an assurance from my right hon. Friend, of a most explicit and thoroughgoing character, that the point of view kept in mind in building these railways will be the point of view embodied in the White Paper issued by the late Government, namely, that the first interest must be the interest of the native population. These railways may be used to serve the interests of the native population, and they may be used to serve the interests of the white population as against the native population. I do not think those interests are necessarily antagonistic, but one must confess that in Kenya they have often worked out in an antagonistic way, whereas, in our great Dependencies in West Africa, where this country has shown an example to all European nations who are protecting States; where the best system of administration yet adopted in any part of Africa is flourishing, the whole theory and practice of government has been based on the principle that the major interest of the protecting State is the interest of the native population. The result has been to build up great native industries, to the benefit both of the natives and of the protecting State. I hope regard will be paid to the happy experience which we have had in West Africa and Uganda, and that an attempt will be made to foster cotton growing for the native population in the interests, not only of the native population, but of the Colony as a whole.

Mr. THOMAS:

This is an occasion on which a Minister could read an elaborate speech prepared by his Department, and the person outside would say, "What a wonderful knowledge of the subject he possesses," but I know perfectly well that, if I attempted to do so, it would not deceive anybody in this Committee, and I do not propose to attempt it. I am going to say, quite frankly, that dealing with a subject like this on taking charge of a Department like the Colonial Office, a Minister's first duty is to try to ascertain the facts, to make up his mind on them, and to endeavour to apply common sense to the problems presented to him. The question of Kenya was one of the first problems with which I had to deal. Apart entirely from the particular questions raised to-night and briefly touched upon by my hon. Friend who spoke, last and whose knowledge of the subject everyone appreciates, all I have to say on the broad general question is that without going into the merits of Europeans on Indians, I am convinced, from all I have read on the subject—and if the Committee will believe me, I have tried to make myself acquainted with it, and I have given it careful consideration—I have definitely come to the conclusion, and, indeed, I may say it is the policy of the Government, that apart from everything else, our first obligation in Kenya is our trust for the natives. That is the policy set out in the White Paper, and that is the policy we intend to pursue and carry out. But equally I wish to say that carries with it something more than is really stated in the Paper. That carries with it not an obligation to talk about the franchise question or the immigration question. There is something far more fundamental than that, and it is that the trust for the native is first to insure that he is fairly treated, that he is protected, and, above all, that he is educated. In other words, I believe that, instead of following the past practice, I would like quite frankly to develop the ground of making him a peasant. It is impossible, as I say, to elaborate on this question, but in answer to my hon. Friend I would say that that is particularly the line I am going on.

Let me come to the object of the Vote. In the last Government my predecessor in office, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very carefully went into this scheme, the object of which was two-fold. First, all the evidence tends to show that cotton can be grown far more extensively than it has been in the past. It is a cotton that is peculiarly suitable to the Lancashire trade, grown by the natives. Keep that clearly in mind. No one can complain of a policy which says we are going to make the Empire as independent as we can. No one can blame our policy which says that, as Lancashire is dependent upon cotton and as we can grow the cotton within the Empire, it is our obvious advantage to do what we can in that way. That is the first broad general principle; but there was another factor. The problem of unemployment at home is very serious, and I have always felt that it is much easier to find work for the unskilled than for the skilled men. Those of us who have studied the problem of our unemployed at home are alarmed and distressed at the difficulties of finding work for the skilled men. Therefore, we have this principle, first of developing cotton, increasing the supply, making us independent, and speeding up the work by immediately ordering materials at home and so finding work we otherwise could not have. The result is that this money that we are asking the Committee to vote to-night is, first, for the development of cotton growing and, secondly, because the building of these railways means immediate orders at home. Let it be quite clear that the conditions are that the materials are to be ordered in this country. I do not say anything about the scandals of the original railways, but I do know there is jealousy between contractors. I have read enough documents to convince me of that, and I cannot make up my mind which is right and which is wrong, because each one seems to state a decent case against the other. The most I can hope for is that, whatever may have been the difficulties in the past, it is my duty, as far as one can do it, to see that this money is wisely and judiciously spent in the future. With regard to the particular railways which were mentioned in those unpronounceable names by my hon. Friend (Sir R. Hamilton) in describing them to the Committee, I can only bring a practical mind to bear. I can tell where a junction is necessary by looking at a map. I can easily tell where there is a bottle-neck. [Laughter.] I mean outside the precincts of this House. Looking carefully at the map, and trying to follow where transport is necessary for the development of the transport of the cotton, one comes to the conclusion immediately that the routes chosen were, after all, the best. Taking the map as presented, and showing exactly the divergent traffic, I could see that from my railway experience, and I came to the conclusion that no criticism could be made on that score. What I am doing is applying the common-sense view to the problem. I ask the Committee to vote for this sum on the particular general principles I have laid down. I can assure my hon. Friend that the native question will never be lost sight of by me, and I can assure the Committee that, so far as the spending of the money economically and efficiently is concerned, I will do my best to see that that is done.

Photo of Sir Robert Hamilton Sir Robert Hamilton , Orkney and Shetland

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state specifically on what railway this money is to be expended?

Mr. THOMAS:

I cannot say what is the exact railway.

Photo of Mr William Ormsby-Gore Mr William Ormsby-Gore , Stafford

I am particularly interested in this subject, as for six months last year I was working on this particular scheme which the present Government has taken over from the late Government. May I, at the outset, say how glad I was to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the general policy which he intends to pursue with regard, at any rate, to Africa, particularly East Africa, and his determination to pursue an African policy? He will have a great deal of pressure from outside attempting to force upon him an Indianising policy, and I am glad he has nailed his colours to the mast in favour of an African policy. I agree that the one thing that is wanted in Kenya is less talk and less news about India, and more about the growing of cotton and maize by African natives on their own land and the development of the native resources and the general development of the country on African lines. Early last year, at the Colonial Office, we had certain definite commitments which had been entered into some time past with the Government of Kenya. There was a commitment with regard to Kilindini Harbour, the reconstruction and relaying of part of the Mid-Uganda Railway, and the construction of the Voi-Taveta branch. The only non-railway scheme in any way connected with this Vote was a sum, I think, of £60,000 which Kenya had to raise to lend to the Nairobi Municipality for improvements.

The idea was that Kenya would, early this year, raise, without coming to this House, on its own credit and its own responsibility, £3,000,000 for that work. On the top of that came this proposal, put up in the main by the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, and partly put up by the Unemployment Committee of the late Cabinet, for the purpose of securing orders for railway materials for shops in this country, and so to relieve unemployment, that something more should be done in East Africa for the opening up of the country by means of railway development. Consequently, we were faced with a considerable capital expenditure by Kenya in Kenya, and then we had to put, on top of it, demands for very considerable further expenditure, not only in Kenya, but also in Uganda, about £2,000,000 actually more in Uganda, and consequentially more money to be spent by Kenya. I say consequentially for this reason, that if you increase, as we hope to increase, by the expenditure of this Vote, the annual production of Uganda from 100,000 to 500,000 bales of cotton, you will have a bottle-neck in Kenya, on the main Uganda Railway from Nairobi down to the coast, and also a further bottle-neck at Kilindini, which will necessitate considerably increased expenditure on the harbour works at Kilindini. So the moment I had to examine the question of a further extension of the railway up in Uganda, with a view to getting considerably increased production in Uganda, that meant consequentially increased expenditure in Kenya.

The late Secretary of State told his colleagues in the Cabinet that to place the whole six, seven or eight millions of the expenditure on Kenya and Uganda, already fairly highly taxed, expenditure which could not be remunerative for five years, without any assistance from the British Exchequer for the first five years, would be impossible and not justifiable. He persuaded the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if Kenya would raise the balance, and Kenya and Uganda jointly would after five years begin to repay, with interest, £3,500,000 advanced now by the Imperial Exchequer, Imperial assistance should be given to this very important railway development in Africa. I only hope, may I say, that this is a precedent, and a useful precedent, which the right hon. Gentleman, while he is at the Colonial Office, will be able to apply in other Colonies and Protectorates; and let me particularly commend to his attention Nyasaland. There to-day is an enormous scope for further railway development, but you cannot put the enormous initial expenditure, by way of; interest and sinking fund, on to poor? Colonies which are only just paying their way or, in some cases, are not paying their way, until those railways become remunerative.

It is an extremely good form of loan in the interests of the British taxpayer in the long run, and in the interests of British trade and of employment in this country, now to advance sufficient sums of money to enable the adequate development of these African territories to take place Transportation is the secret of it. Every year we are losing in the adjoining colony of Tanganyika. The railway does not pay now. We are making up by grants-in-aid deficits which we shall never see back. If the right hon. Gentleman could only bring forward a Vote like this for 3½ or, say, 5 millions for Tanganyika, I believe that annual deficit would soon be wiped out, and you would get a development which would enable that colony to pay its way. With regard to the particular railways to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), who knows the country well, referred, let me take first the Thika-Nyeri Railway. He says that is a white settlers' railway. It is in part of the territories that that railway is of enormous value in developing the Great Kikuya reserve. It goes through portions of that reserve, and will enable the native productions there to be brought straight on to the Uganda Railway very much cheaper than is the case to-day.

Photo of Sir Robert Hamilton Sir Robert Hamilton , Orkney and Shetland

I did not wish to say it did not go through the native area, because it does.

Photo of Mr William Ormsby-Gore Mr William Ormsby-Gore , Stafford

I want to point out that the whole of these branch lines have been carefully considered, not merely, as I think the hon. Member rather implied in his speech, from the point of the view of the white settler, but also from the point of view of the economic development of the native growing his own produce on his own soil, because I do believe that there has been a tremendous change of public opinion in Kenya, in the last few years, on that particular point, and I know how sensitive public opinion is, if it is suggested in any way in this House that there is not a very strong movement on the part of many of the white settlers themselves in favour, and in support, of a policy of joint production. I would point, as an example, to the way in which the specially cheap rates on this railway for native produced maize have been welcomed, and what a tremendous advantage it has been to the trade of Kenya and Uganda. I think it is most desirable that we should encourage every sign we see in Kenya of welcoming the native as a primary producer, and not merely as a wage-earner. I agree that the most important part of this Vote is the expenditure on the new line actually in Uganda. Hitherto the so-called Uganda Railway has hardly been in Uganda at all. It has just gone to the Lake, and it has had, as part of the system, an extremely efficient marine transport service on that Lake, which has collected the produce of Uganda, but this line will go for the first time through the eastern provinces of Uganda, a very important first link in potentially the richest part of Uganda for cotton-growing. That leads to the construction of the further extensions to this particular line in a northerly direction from, and parallel with, the line which goes northward out from Uganda. Personally, I believe that the expenditure before this House to-night, coupled with a corollary of the loan which Kenya has to raise for the rest of the line, marks a tremendous step in advance in the development of the place. It is really a big advance this time. By it we may change the whole political and economic character of East Africa, and give such a support and such an impetus to progress of all kinds that will mean a very important new market open to this country and a new and very important area of production.

I believe that the construction that we now are asked to authorise will put Uganda and Kenya in absolutely a solvent position, provided the Treasury does not make what I call absurd calls on Kenya and Uganda to pay for the cost of the Great War, which they have been endeavouring to do, and which has done more to throttle development, more harm and discouragement to enterprise of all kinds than anything else. If that can be guarded against, I believe we are doing a great thing for Africa and a great thing for the British Colonies which have been the subject of most regrettable controversy in the past. The less said in this regard in the future the better. These have been decided by the Governor and his extremely efficient railway staff and railway manager, by the Colonial Office, and by the Empire Cotton Growing Association whose recommendations in regard to the alignment has been taken. This decision has been taken without consideration of private interests whatsoever, without any consideration of whose property is going to be developed or whose is not going to be developed. The less we talk about the past the better, and the sooner we get to the extremely important matter of future Imperial development the better.

In regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about construction, well, I really do not think it matters very much from what I have seen whether these things are constructive departmentally or by contract. It is merely a question as to the staff you have got, and what contractor you can get. If you have a contractor you have to impose special conditions in regard to labour and all that sort of thing which makes it more difficult for him. Similarly, if you have departmental construction, you have greater difficulties in estimating, and so on. My own view is that by a judicious mixture of the two you get what is the best thing. I am extremely glad that the Vasin-Gishu railway has been successfully completed to Eldoret, and I believe that a substantial saving will be effected, which is very creditable to the contractor. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that this work might be done, some of if by contract and some by departmental construction. We have yet a great deal to learn by experiment even, much more evidence is required before final judgment can be given. May I in conclusion say how very glad I am that the present Government have seen their way to continue this Supplementary Estimate—one of the last things in a long piece of work, the last item, that I and my Noble Friend, the then Secretary of State, had got through before we left office. I am very glad to know that my right hon. Friend and his party have co-operated in this splendid work of developing the British Tropical Empire.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY:

I have listened with great interest to the speech which has just been delivered by the late Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and I appreciate particularly the spirit of his opening remarks. I feel sure also that the Members of the Committee will join in expressing their appreciation of the pronouncement on this subject which has been made by the Colonial Secretary. This is not a party matter. The late Government put forward a White Paper in the summer of last year, and that denotes the high water mark of expression of the duty of this country towards the natives in our Crown Colonies. For this reason I am very glad that the present Colonial Secretary makes it his first consideration to see that the interests of the native population are duly considered.

We have had this evening a very impressive speech from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), and the facts which he brought forward are sufficient to make us wish to press the right hon. Gentleman to go further into the very serious difficulties that are certainly felt to exist with regard to the railways. I am sure we have been quite convinced of the desirability of the general plan, and I do not for a moment suspect that anyone in the Colonial Office is not convinced that it is the best thing. I am quite sure there is a good deal of doubt, not only in this country, but in Kenya itself, and it is highly desirable that that doubt should be allayed. We want to have no suspicion that a line is being made, not for cotton growing, but in order to pass through great estates owned by the most influential people in the Colony. It should not be suspected that that is the motive, and an authoritative inquiry would be the best way of setting aside any harmful suspicion of that kind.

I want to ask the Colonial Secretary for an assurance, with regard to the native labour employed in the making of these railways. We are voting a loan to the Kenya Colony which will have to be repaid by that Colony, and that means that most of it will be paid by the natives in the long run. Therefore it is enormously important that these railways should be run primarily in the interests of the natives though also in the interests of the settlers. In their construction regard should be had to maintaining the highest British standard with regard to the treatment of natives.

I regret to have to mention to the Committee a fact that is very well known to many hon. Members, that we have had in the Kenya Colony in the past a deplorable falling away from the honourable British standard which has been maintained, as a whole, throughout the Empire. Thirteen years ago I had to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to the question of the homicide of a native by a well-known settler. I had to bring it up again and again, and eventually that gentleman was deported from the Colony. We have had a very painful case in the last year where a native, for the trifling offence of riding a mare in foal, was whipped to death, the white settler commencing the whipping, then three successive native servants carrying on the whipping, and the man then being revived—

Mr. THOMAS:

I am, of course, well aware of the case to which the hon. Member is referring. May I assure him that no good purpose would be served by relating the horrible story? I have already dealt with the case, although it occurred before I came into office, and I would ask the hon. Member not to labour it here, because more harm than good would be done. I give him the assurance that I know all about it, unfortunately, and have dealt with it.

Mr. HARVEY:

I am very glad indeed to know that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the case, and I do not wish to press the sad details upon the Committee, or to suggest for a moment that it is typical of what goes on. These incidents, however, have happened, and I want to mention the fact that the learned Judge, in dealing with the case, referred to the fact that enough notice had not, apparently, been taken of previous judgments in similar cases. Therefore, I beg that, in connection with this railway, which is carried out with British money for the benefit, as we all believe, of the natives of this Colony, the utmost care will be taken that a right standard is maintained as regards labour conditions and as regards punishment. In Nigeria, Sir Frederick Lugard has made a report in which he has definitely set aside the idea of compulsory labour, even for the railways. I know that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors have limited the provisions as to compulsory labour in Kenya, and that it can only take place with the consent of the Secretary of State. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will maintain the standard in Kenya Colony which has been already arrived at in Nigeria, and that we shall not have compulsory labour, even for what is a public good, in the case of this railway. I am sure I am appealing to one who sympathises with the object of my appeal.

I want to ask one further thing. This great standard has been laid down by the late Government, and it is going to be maintained by the present Government, I am sure; but there has been a widespread sense that in the past, repeatedly, things have gone on in Kenya Colony which have been contrary to that I standard. It is not a small thing; it is not a matter of just inquiring into one particular injustice or wrong; the whole interest, the whole well-being of the commonwealth of the Empire, ultimately depends upon our maintaining the standard of justice, and on our having a higher standard than any other nation has —and I believe we have it—in dealing with native races. Therefore, I press the right hon. Gentleman to grant an inquiry into the way in which the principle laid down in this White Paper of the late Government is being carried out, and what improvements can be made in conditions there in order that the standard may be carried out even better than it is at present. I feel sure that it will give the utmost satisfaction, not only to members of this party or of his own party, but to Members in all parts of the House, if he can see his way to do that.

Photo of Mr Arthur Steel-Maitland Mr Arthur Steel-Maitland , Birmingham Erdington

There is only one respect in which I would advise caution to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that is that he should beware when all people speak well of him, since there has been an almost unanimous chorus of praise of his attitude in the course of this Debate. I hope he will also be cautious with me, because I should just like to add one word to the general chorus. I welcome, as I think everyone in the House welcomes, the fact that he has publicly announced his intention of abiding by the declaration of policy of last July. I do not think there is a dissentient voice in the Committee belonging to any party that we now stand in Africa, as a country, for trusteeship for the natives. No one now denies it. But I think it was, at any rate, a remarkable step to take to make that principle perfectly explicit instead of having been more or less implicit, as it was beforehand. The hon. Member who has just spoken has referred to difficulties which have been felt with regard to the railways and the particular lines they have taken. I inquired into some of those points myself, and I was satisfied that the reasons for the particular routes taken by the branch lines were adequate and right. I believe myself that there is every justification, though my data and knowledge are not full, for the particular routes those branches of the railway are to take.

But I think there is this good in the Debate that has occurred to-night, and may continue next day when the Vote is taken, that if we have made this declaration of policy with regard to trusteeship for the natives, it is now absolutely necessary that we have it quite scrupulously observed in every single detail. Attention has been directed to it not only in this country and in British dependencies, but also in foreign countries, and we therefore stand as a cynosure. For that very reason we look to the Secretary for the Colonies to give us quite full information, both now and later, with regard to the administration of the African dependencies, and of Kenya in particular. This matter will be important when it comes to such questions as to how the money is to be raised for paying the interest on this loan when it comes to be payable, and whether the incidence will then be fair as between the different parts of the population in the Colonies. If what I have said is true generally, it is true particularly with regard to India. I hope they will accept the settlement reached last July, but one thing that is again quite clear is that they will be the more likely to accept it permanently if they can realise that we have been absolutely sincere, not merely in our declarations but in the action we have taken subsequently, to carry that declaration into effect. The hon. Member who has just spoken has proposed that in order to see that things are put on right lines, or kept on right lines, there should be a Commission of inquiry.

Mr. HARVEY:

I did not wish to insist on a Commission. I am quite satisfied with an authoritative inquiry. It might be a single Commissioner.

Photo of Mr Arthur Steel-Maitland Mr Arthur Steel-Maitland , Birmingham Erdington

I am glad the hon. Member has made that correction, because I always think when one of our great public offices has work to do, it really ought to be looked to, first of all, to see that it carries out that work of administration efficiently. From my own experience of several years of the Colonial Office I think the staff there are probably human like other mortals. They are liable to mistakes, like the rest of us, but there is one charge which could never be brought properly and truthfully against them, and that was that they were lacking in zeal in protecting the African native population. I am never much enamoured of Committees of Inquiry. I think, perhaps, there is more reason for inquiring in this case than there is in most, but not necessarily by a Committee. I think one might leave that to the judgment of the Colonial Secretary. It is impossible to master the whole of the details of an enormous Department like this within a few weeks, however early he may arrive or however late he goes away. It is also true that this is one of those cases where no one really understands the whole bearing of the case unless they have seen it on the spot. That is an advantage which has been enjoyed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). I know that is so from my own experience in other matters. As an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, I used to read reports and statistics, but I never could understand them until I had been and seen the work in operation. If the Secretary of State for the Colonies cannot himself go, I suggest that he might follow the useful precedent of sending the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, with other officials from the Colonial Office, on a visit to the Colony in order to see that as we have laid down a particular policy it is being carried out in detail, according to the principles that we have laid down.

I would make one further suggestion for his consideration. I cannot help feeling that there is one inference to be drawn from the interesting speeches that hav been made to-night by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir E. Hamilton), who was Chief Justice of the Colony, and possesses a great deal of local knowledge, and by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn). Those speeches led to a conclusion, which some time or other the Colonial Office will have to face and this Committee will have to face, and that is whether, if we are going to spend money properly on the best objects, we should not have out there a Governor-General, to see that there is useful co-ordination and the best expenditure of the money which we vote There is a certain amount of apprehension in some quarters on this subject. The Chancellor of the Duchy would view a proposal like that with apprehension. Perfectly frankly, they are afraid that other territories, like Tanganyika, may be "Kenyaised." That is an extreme view. I do not take it in the least.

I do not think there will be a saving in such a proposal. If anything, it will cost more. The idea that we should have a saving under such a system is really based on an entire misapprehension of what the costs are likely to be. But the Governor-General would be able to get away from the influence of any one particular place. He would be able to take a conspectus of the needs of the whole territory. Take what has been said about the railways. There will need to be management of the railways under one authority, and that will be more necessary when the railways in Tanganyika are linked up with Kenya and they in turn with Uganda and towards the north. In the same way there have been different views advanced in regard to cotton-growing and the methods of cotton-growing, whether by native cultivation or otherwise. Then there is the question whether the coffee crop should be grown or should not be grown. So in the matter of other natural products. These matters could be dealt with far best under a united administration. Then there are the habits of the people, those that can be transplanted from one place and those that cannot.

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever he might delegate for that purpose, should have an eye and see whether the time is not now ripe—it has been mooted for several years—when the administration of these different territories should be co-ordinated in the way I have suggested. This must appeal to anyone who has imagination and who looks forward. Here you have British territory, stretching from 15 degrees south of the equator to five degrees north of it, 1,200 miles in length, before you get to the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and with an average breadth of 700 miles. If you take in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, you have a further 15 degrees to the north of that. It is quite an amazing territory with amazing possibilities. If it were developed in the way it can be developed, with a really strong and centralised administration coupled with the true carrying out of the statement of policy of Africa for the benefit primarily of the Africans that we had last July, a noble page will have been turned over in the history of colonial administration.

Photo of Mr William Royce Mr William Royce , Holland with Boston

Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words on the subject of railways in Africa, and especially with regard to the proposed extensions now under consideration. I have a distinct remembrance of being associated with the inception of the Uganda Railway some 30 odd years ago. I thought a very great mistake was made when it was handed over to the Indian Government for construction and, subsequently, events proved that anticipation unfortunately correct. A good deal of trouble has ensued in consequence of that. The influx of the East Indian people has brought troubles, not only in East Africa, but in India itself, where the Indian question has been used, and rights have been claimed which have reacted again in India to their very great disadvantage and detriment. It is not with regard to ancient history I wish to speak. Some suggestion was made with regard to the alignment of the railway. I have always noticed that when an engineer has made his survey, he is perfectly satisfied that it cannot be improved upon. When he expresses that satisfaction to me I know it can be improved upon, because if he makes up his mind as to the best route I know he may be wrong.

I suggest a Commission should be established in connection with the expenditure of so much money, not necessarily to take precedence of that skilful and competent staff, about which the late Colonial Secretary has spoken, but to supervise and generally to take control and be something which the Government itself can refer to for advice and help in connection with the expenditure of so large a sum, and with the great interest involved in that direction in connection with alignment, construction and with all the details that pertain to-day. The late Colonial Secretary made a suggestion, and it is not altogether an unprofitable one, that the two systems of contract and departmental work should be attempted in relation to one or other sections of the railway. I presume he meant that each particular line should be subjected to a certain form of construction. There is something to be said for that, but do not attempt to mix them on the same lines. I might suggest for the information of the Colonial Secretary that it has been my lot to construct a railway under contract and work it for two years, and hand it over to the State to which it belonged; a State railway constructed by a contractor and worked for two years. It worked very admirably, I believe, because it afforded the State an opportunity of ascertaining not only a fixed sum for the construction but the opportunity of semi-private management for two years. The State certainly received some benefit by it, because they had the opportunity of knowing how a private individual could work it. I should like to say, for the information of those who favour nationalisation, that when the State did take it over they worked it to greater advantage than the contractors had done. That would be a measure that could very easily be worked.

I would like to say a word or two with regard to the question of native consideration. I agree absolutely that native consideration should be the first object in our African administration, because the native is to a great extent under our care, and cannot look after himself. For that reason and to that extent I am a negrophile. There may be one or two solitary instances where irregularities and, perhaps, great brutality have been exercised in the case of natives, but it I should not be considered that these are characteristic of white settlers in these countries. While I do regard the standpoint of natives as being the first consideration for a country that takes over the administration of native countries and territories, still if it had not been for the white settlers you would not have wanted these railways at all, and when you bring white men into contact with natives, you must, to a certain extent, exercise your rule with such judgment as to enable those people to live side by side.

That is a thing that I would bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman—that he must not be altogether misled by sentimental issues dealing with only one side of the question. It is very difficult for a white person to live surrounded by natives who have not yet been brought under the rules and discipline that animate white people in this country. You do find sometimes cases of irregularity and brutality, and I have no doubt, if you look for them, you could find just about as many here in peaceful England as you would find in the Colonies of the Empire. So I would say that this question should be dealt with with very great care, and that nothing should be done or said to hurt the feelings of those white men who go out to these countries and extend the bounds of our Empire, or that would tend to hamper in any way their devotion to this country, and that they should not feel that in this Parliament, the chief Assembly of our Empire, we have feelings other than those of the profoundest consideration and regard for these people, while we look after the interests of the natives who are entirely dependent upon our care. There is one other subject to which I would refer, but as I understand that it is desired to get the Vote, I shall not continue my remarks.

Photo of Mr John Simpson Mr John Simpson , Taunton

[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I have a right to discuss this matter when we are asked to give £3,500,000 to a country that has already cost us £3,000,000 and in the administration of that £3,000,000 I see matter for very grave complaint. In view of that fact and the fact that I cannot obtain from the Colonial Secretary replies to questions that I have asked, I am entitled to ask these questions in this Committee, and the fact that the Vote cannot be obtained to-night does not move me in the least.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.