17 AUGUST 1934, Page 4

THE CLAIM OF THE NATIVE

QUESTIONS of the highest moment in regard to the responsibility of this country for the native popu- lations within the British Empire are raised in the important memorandum issued on Wednesday on behalf of the Parliamentary Committee for Studying the Position • of the South African Protectorates. The existence of the committee, which has Lord Selborne, a former High Commissioner for South Africa, as its chairman, and Lord Lothian, Captain Cazalet and Mr. Lunn as its secretaries, is matter for satisfaction in itself, for ever since General Hertzog declared in the Union Parliament on April 25th that he believed the time ripe for the transference of the three native Protectorates, Bechuana- land, Basutoland and Swaziland, to the South African Government, keen and legitimate anxiety about the future has been felt both in the Protectorates themselves and iii all circles in this country where the principle of trustee- ship for native welfare is recognized. In fact it is recog- • nized so universally as to be accepted now as axiomatic. The Duke of Devonshire, when Colonial Secretary, laid it down in striking language in 1928; it has been dis- cussed and expounded at length by Lord Lugard, in his classic volume The British Dual Mandate in Tropical Africa ; while the mandate system of the League of Nations sets a standard of which no British Government could ever dream of falling short.

So far, therefore, as the native populations of Bechuana- land, Basutoland and Swaziland are concerned it is, and must be, a matter of honour with the Government and Parliament of this country to safeguard their interests in every respect, and to consent to no change in the status of the Protectorates (it is convenient to apply the name to all three, though Basutoland is actually a Crown Colony) that would in any way endanger the welfare of, or impose disabilities on, the' inhabitants. It is in the light of that principle that the proposal for the trans- ference of the administration of Protectorates from the British Government to the South African Government must be examined. The situation is complicated juridically, and the first thing necessary is to elucidate it. The South Africa Act of 1909, which brought the Union of South Africa, consisting of the four provinces of the Cape, the Transvaal, the Orange River Colony and Natal, into being, provided explicitly for the ultimate transfer of the Protectorates to the new Union, but laid it down that the final decision regarding the transfer should be taken by "the King, with the advice of the Privy Council "—in other words by the British Cabinet— and a lengthy schedule to the Act embodied a number of conditions which were to govern the administration of the territories if and when the transfer was effected. That was in 1909. But since then the whole position has been completely modified by the passage into law of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and the South African Status Act in 1934.

Precisely what the change involves may be ,a matter for legal argument, but it is clear that the Union Par- liament can now amend as it chooses the original South Africa Act, including the schedule in which the con- ditions for the administration of the Protectorates after transfer are laid down. When, therefore, the transfer does take place there is nothing to prevent the territories in question from being assimilated with the rest of the Union and treated accordingly. That, indeed, would certainly happen, for the provision in the Act that administration of the Protectorates shall be by the Governor-General in Council,' and that they shall not therefore be subject to legislation by the Union Parlia- ment, is of little importance, and in any case it, like any other provision in the Act, can now be repealed by the Union Parliament itself.

The position therefore is that if General Hertzog's desires are realized, and the three Protectorates are trans- ferred to South Africa, there is no guarantee that the natives will not find themselves in many ways consider- ably worse off. To put it at its lowest the record of the Union Government in its dealings with its own native population is not such as to dispel grave misgivings regarding the lot of the Protectorate natives under its tutelage. Fortunately—though there is some conflict as to the legal position here—there is one safeguard remaining. The consent of the British Cabinet to any transfer of the Protectorates is necessary. It is claimed in South Africa that even that provision can be repealed by the Union Parliament, but it is not to be seriously argued that South Africa can at any moment simply reach out its hands for the three territories, put an end to the present administration by the Dominions Office, and take them under its own control. Mr. Thomas was undoubtedly right when he based his statement in the House of Commons on April 80th of this year on the assumption that the transfer would be a bilateral trans- action, which could only be carried out with the assent of the British Government, and further grounds for reassurance were provided by his twofold pledge that no transfer should be assented to till native opinion in the Protectorates had been given an opportunity of expressing itself, and that in any case the approval of Parliament to the transaction would be held necessary.

Such is the situation today. That Basutoland and Swaziland, which are small enclaves in Union territory, must sooner or later come under the Union Govern- ment need not be contested. The case of Bechuanaland, which covers an area a good deal larger than the Trans- vaal, the Orange River Colony mid Natal put together, and lies not within Union territory but on its border, is much more arguable, in spite of the intentions expressed in 1909. However that may be, the point to emphasize is that the transaction of transferring any or all of the territories must be bilateral, that it can only take place by the friendly agreement of the two Governments mainly concerned, that the desire of the native populations themselves must be a prime factor in the decision, and that if transfer does take place it can only be subject to explicit safeguards such as are actually set out in the schedule of the South Africa Act.

The fact that any of the provisions of the schedule can now be altered at will by the Union Parliament makes it essential to embody broadly similar condi- tions in a new agreement freely entered into by the South African Government. Delicate questions must inevitably arise. The Union Government, if it does acquire the territories, can hardly observe two standards in its treatment of natives, one for, those in its existing territories and another for those in the Protectorates. It must, therefore, either bring its own standards up to Protectorate standards, or lower the latter to its own level. But the second alternative is, in fact, excluded, for the British House of Commons would never consent to n transfer at all on those terms. All Dominions arc completely self-governing, and it is not for this country to think for a moment of dictating South Africa's -native policy, though we may be .permitted to regret that in _ many respects—particularly in regard to land and labour _ legislation—it is not more liberal. But for the Protec- torates we have responsibilities a which we cannot divest ourselves. If they are to be handed over at all it can only be when South Africa's treatment of its own native popu- lation is of at least as high a standard as that prevailing in Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland—which itself, partly owing to uncertainty about the future, is by no means all it should be.