[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sia,—In the course of an article entitled "Kenya" in your issue of October 4th you say :
" We are nevertheless forced to dissent from the view expressed by the elected members of the Northern Rhodesian Legislature that 'the development of alien races is contrary to natural law.' "
The passage reads :
" To subordinate the interests of civilized Britons to the develop- ment of alien races, whose capability of substantial further advance- ment has not been demonstrated, appears to be contrary to natural law."
I wonder whether, during the twenty years or more that I have been subscribing to the Spectator, I have been absorbing views and forming opinions based on similar misrepresenta- tions ?—I am, Sir, &c.,
L. F. MOORE,
Member of the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia.
Livingstone, Northern Rhodesia.
[Our contributor writes :—" I regret that I had not access to the full report at the time of writing, but only to an abstract which appeared in the Press. Nevertheless, the context makes it clear that Mr. Moore and his associates (1) do not consider - time natives capable of further development, and therefore (2) desire to subordinate native interests to the economic advancement of the whites. This is a new inter- pretation of natural law. Perhaps your correspondent has not read the criticism which the Rhodesian memorandum received in the House of Commons, when the Member for Horsham was so ill-advised as to raise the question. That criticism fully supports my interpretation of the memorandum." —En. Spectator.]