WHITE SETTLEMENT IN EAST AFRICA.

HL Deb 01 February 1944 vol 130 cc578-612578

§LORD FARINGDON rose to call attention to the problems of white

settlement in East Africa; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord
said: My Lords, in opening this debate I desire, with your
Lordships' 579permission, to quote from a statement made by the
noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, speaking in your Lordships'
House in September last, when he laid down two general principles
in dealing with assisted migration. He then said that no Government
could be expected to assist unless the migrant had a good
opportunity of maintaining himself successfully, and any policy of
assisted migration required not only the passive acquiescence but
the active participation and co-operation of the oversea country
concerned. I would also quote from a White Paper, which is known
as the Devonshire White Paper, produced by the late Duke, the
father of the noble Duke who will reply for His Majesty's
Government, in which it was stated: Primarily Kenya is an African
territory, and His Majesty's Government think it necessary to record
their considered opinion that the interests of the African population
must be paramount, and that if and when those interests and the
interests of the migrant races conflict the former should prevail.

§I have to say that, judged by these three criteria, the policy that
over so long a term of years we have pursued in Kenya has been a
complete failure.

§It is resented by the mass of the population, it has not been a

success so far as the settlers are concerned, and it has inflicted
grave hardships on the native population. It is time that we
reconsidered our whole policy and it is urgent that we should do so
now, for already the Government of Kenya is pressing for an
extension of the present policy and some preliminary steps have
been taken in this direction. A Land Board has been set up. One of
its functions is to advise the Governor-in-Council as to the suitability
of land settlement and to make recommendations as to the land
which should be acquired by the Crown. Tremendous expectation
and agitation have been caused among the European population. I
shall quote from an article in the East African Standard of November
8 last. The Commissioner of Lands and Settlement made a speech
in Nairobi and the newspaper said he was "discouragingly negative"
and "left the impression that unless a man had substantial capital or
a pension, or was born in Kenya, there was very little opportunity
for him and certainly very few jobs."

§That is, I believe, a perfectly correct impression, but the point I

particularly 580want to make is this. The article, after stating that
the Commissioner was mistaken, goes on: The Commissioner of
Lands could not answer the political question. But it must be
answered. The European community in these territories have to
stand close together. They have a responsibility to see that,
whatever the difficulties and challenges may be, jobs are provided
for the people of our own stock of the right calibre and with the
right spirit who want to come and help to build here, for the greater
glory of the British Empire, a worthy home for the race. That has to
be our policy…. An approach along the lines made by the
Commissioner of Lands, a conception which talks in terms of a few
hundreds instead of thousands, will take us nowhere.

§In a second article on November 12, speaking of the dangers in

Kenya, the newspaper said: The only way those challenges can be
met is by standing solidly together, using every endeavour to
strengthen and enlarge white settlement, and making room for
more of our own people.

§The East African Standard is perfectly correct. This is a political

question which can only be answered by this Government, and the
object of this debate is to obtain a clear answer from His Majesty's
Government. Is it their policy to develop Kenya "as a home for the
race," or is it to carry out the policy of the White Paper making the
claims of the natives paramount? It is wrong to leave this matter in
a state of uncertainty and encourage such hopes among the
Europeans and fears amongst the Africans.

§I said that the Legislative Council of Kenya appears to be

favourable to extended settlement. I trust that no noble Lord will
deduce therefrom that the population of Kenya is in accord with this
policy. Clearly, if Kenya were Canada or Australia, this would be the
case, but what, in fact, is the Government of Kenya? It consists of a
Legislative Council on which sit, first, twenty members who are
there ex officio or nominated officially, eleven elected European
members, five elected Indian members, one elected Arab, one
nominated to represent Arab interests, and two nominated to
represent African interests. There are approximately twenty
thousand Europeans and three million Africans. Eleven persons
represent that twenty thousand, two (and those two not elected)
represent the Africans. It looks to me as if the time were about due
for a redistribution of seats! The voice of Kenya is, I
suggest, 581the voice of a very small group stirred to great activity
owing to the precariousness of their position.

§I should like to quote from a letter from an African, also published

in the East African Standard on October 8 last: The Government has
during this war made us feel that this is a joint struggle of the black
and white people alike. We unreservedly have hurled, and are still
hurling ourselves, our efforts, sweat and blood and tears into the
war. … At heart we feel that we deserve fair play when allotment of
social, economic, and political goodness is made…. Why should
they— that is the African delegates— now be considered unfit in the
Kenya Legislative Council? … Now is the time for the Government to
do real justice and give a chance to Africans.

§I said I considered the position of the settlers precarious. What is

the position of the settlers after a long period during which white
settlement has been encouraged? Very great efforts were made
after the last war to encourage European settlement. The Highland
areas were reserved for Europeans. That is an area of 16,700
square miles. Of this about 11,000 square miles—about 6,500,000
acres—have been alienated. Of these just over 5,000,000 acres are
occupied, about 1,500,000 unoccupied. The occupied area is not by
any means fully cultivated by Europeans. Lord Hailey in his book,
which is after all the classical work of reference on Africa, says that
eleven per cent. is cultivated, forty per cent. used for stock, twenty
per cent. is cultivated by native squatters, and twenty-seven per
cent. is unoccupied. There are, therefore, three kinds of land—that
reserved for Europeans, but not alienated, alienated but not allotted
land, land allotted but not used. The number of European farmers
was in 1938 rather less than 2,000. As I have said, this little group
hold about 5,500,000 acres and they actually only cultivate about
eleven per cent. of their land.

§That seems to me an astonishing figure and not one which draws a

picture of a truly thriving community of farmers. Indeed the whole
history of the settler is one long cry for help. The Government,
feeling and rightly feeling that they were more or less responsible
for the plight in which these men found themselves, were liberal
with help. I have asked the noble Duke the precise figures up to the
present time. Sir Alan Pim's estimate in 1936 582shows that they
had then received in various shapes of subsidies a sum of
£474,000. About half of this was in direct cash advances which I
understand are not to be repaid. The rest is due to various rebates
and refunds—refund of railway rates, of fees on maize, of duty on
wheat, rebate on paraffin, assistance to maintain the price of maize.
Since the war, according to an answer given by the Secretary of
State in another place, there have been subsidies amounting to
about £117,000. Between the wars we have the impression of a
group of people just merely making good with a considerable
amount of help from the Government.

§I shall quote again from Lord Hailey as to the general position: The
accumulating weight of evidence seems to inspire doubts as to
whether European agriculture will do more even in good times than
make possible a very modest living as a return for hard work and
the incurring of grave risks of loss of invested capital, and whether
in bad times it must not prove a recurrent charge on the revenues
of Governments. Even in more normal times the support given to
farmers constitutes a burden directly or indirectly upon the incomes
of those concerned in mining or other enterprises.

§And consequently, I would add, on the development of the Colony.

What Lord Hailey says is confirmed by our own personal
impressions. I wonder if any noble Lord has met persons who have
done really well out of farming in Kenya. We know of many who
have given up. We may have met very hard-working men who have
achieved a modest living, but the prosperous farmer, the man who
could cultivate more than a small fraction of his land, is rare,
indeed, even if he exists. If the country were empty of all other
inhabitants we should have reason to doubt whether it were just or
fair after this war to tempt demobilized officers to sink their little all
in Kenya. But the country is far from being empty. The alienation of
the best land in Kenya has brought very serious hardships indeed to
that section of the population whose interests, according to the
White Paper, should be paramount.

§I have the highest authority for saying this for I have just received
a letter from Lord Lugard who would, I understand, himself have
been present here to take part in the debate to-day so strongly
does he feel on this subject, were it not for his 87 years. Lord
Lugard, I need hardly 583remind your Lordships, is the highest
authority on Colonial affairs. Lord Lugard writes as follows: It has
been argued that the immigrant Europeans were justified in
appropriating land since it was void of any inhabitants. Sir Morris
Carter states in his report that in the areas actually alienated in
Kikuyu the density was seventy-three to the square mile (which is
dense for an African agricultural people and their live stock) and
the East African Standard referred in 1935 to the large number of
natives on the alienated land who remained as squatters. They were
prevented by Government from expanding in the way natural to
them and were compelled to squat as labour tenants and render
compulsory service to the landlords and liable to eviction at any
time. They numbered 110,700 in 1931. The density of the Kikuyu
Reserve is put at 253 but this includes waterless, uncultivable
areas. The Parliamentary Commission of 1925 reported the
incredible density of 1,100 per square mile in one district. Mr.
Maher, official soil conservator, reported an area with 1,800 per
square mile in 1938. There were 2,000 white farmers. Such density
results in over-grazing with consequent erosion and decreasing
fertility, insufficient food crops and inability to grow cash crops for
export and hence loss of purchasing power for imported goods. In
the not infrequent case of a visitation of locusts or of drought these
conditions meant famine and starvation. Already there is famine.
With ploughs and oxen the native can treble his output if he has the
necessary land, and can grow foodstuffs now so urgently needed for
the liberated countries in Europe and by so doing afford a market
for consumer goods. The only way to fulfil our repeated pledges for
native welfare is, I suggest, that His Majesty's Government should
limit immigration to the economic absorptive capacity of the
country, as they already do in Palestine. To encourage closer
settlement in country already densely populated while our
Dominions are crying out for settlers of British race is indefensable.

§That, my Lords, in Lord Lugard's words, is the price that the

African is paying for the doubtful benefits of British settlement.