Page:EB1922 - Volume 31.djvu/719

Rh work in the country was not disturbed by this episode and the reports of the administration bore increasing testimony to the value of their labours. The missionaries found some of their strongest supporters among the white settlers.

The hostile attitude of the Merehan tribe in Jubaland com- pelled the Government to begin operations against them in Dec. 1013, and disturbances among the Turkana and other tribes in the frontier district adjoining Abyssinian Somaliland necessitated further operations. Thus when the World War began in Aug. 1914 nearly all the military forces of the protec- torate one battalion and two companies of the King's African Rifles were in the region most distant from the frontier of German East Africa, and it was some weeks before they could be brought back to Mombasa. In the meantime the majority of the male settlers volunteered for active service, and from their ranks two regiments were formed. The story of the campaign which followed is told in the article EAST AFRICA.

It was not until March 1916 that the protectorate was finally freed from German incursions. The war proved very onerous for the natives, heavy demands being made on them for carriers, transport oxen and for meat supplies for the troops, while large numbers of them joined the combatant ranks. The natives re- sponded remarkably well to the needs of the campaign and, despite an inevitable shortage in the white staff and a great loss of cattle through rinderpest, their loyalty was not shaken, and the administration continued on practically normal lines. The official report for 1917-8 described the work of the district officials, chiefs and native authorities as " worthy of the highest praise." Tribes on the Abyssinian border and in Jubaland continued however to give trouble. They had never been brought fully under control, and during 1915-6, despite the exigencies of the campaign against the Germans, further punitive measures had to be undertaken.

In 1917 Sir H. C. Belfield went on leave and later resigned, the administration being taken over by Mr. (afterwards Sir) C. C. Bowring, chief secretary to the Government. Changes in the administration, including an elected Legislative Council, were recommended by a committee of the existing nominated Council in June 1917, but no action was then taken. On Jan. 31 1919 Maj.-Gen. Sir Edward Northey took over the governorship. It was a period of change and strain, and Gen. Northey was called upon to deal with difficult political, racial and economic problems. A currency crisis was one of the effects of the war. The original currency was the Indian rupee, and since 1905 the sterling had been legal tender at 15 rupees. With the apprecia- tion of silver during the war the exchange value of the rupee began to rise in 1917. The rise, at first gradual, was rapid in 1919 and early in 1920 had reached 2S. pd. The result was to inflict hardship on the producing class, not only in Kenya, but in Uganda, which had the same currency. In an effort, ill con- sidered, to rectify this state of affairs the Colonial Office in Feb. 1920 fixed the rate of exchange at 23. sterling a rupee for Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika Territory. This interference with the course of the exchange prevented the producer from benefiting by the subsequent fall in the price of silver and the reversion of the rupee in 1921 in the open market to the value of is. 4d. or less, and in effect added 50% to his costs. The result on the industries of Kenya and Uganda was serious. The very marked decrease in trade in 1920-1 was not due wholly to this cause; the fall in value on the world's markets of tropical produce was a consider- able factor, and many of the recent white settlers were without experience as farmers or planters. Sir Edward Northey strongly but unavailingly opposed the alteration in the exchange value of the rupee. In April 1920 a further change was made a new coinage based on British currency was introduced, the unit being the florin at 25. sterling, at which value the Indian rupee continued current until it could be replaced. In May 1921, " to prevent too abrupt fluctuations in local values," the Colonial Office decided to make the shilling and not the florin the standard coin. This appeared a reasonable change, as the labourer, clerk and petty trader had persisted in regarding the florin as of no more value than the rupee at the old rate of exchange.

Conditions in Kenya were further strained by the failure, as a whole, of a scheme launched in 1919 to establish ex-soldiers on the land. For this result the administration was partly responsi- ble. Most of the settlers were allotted farms remote from the railway and in some cases undiscoverable, while the need for considerable capital had not been sufficiently made known.

During this period the change from a protectorate to a Crown colony was effected. In July 1919 an ordinance came into force establishing an elective element in the Legislative Council for Europeans, with two nominated members representing the Indian community and one nominated member representing the Arabs. A sufficient number of other nominated members was however retained to give the administration a majority in the Council. Eleven single member constituencies were created for the European electors. Adult franchise on a residential quali- fication was enacted. The first election was held in Feb. 1920. This was followed, in July 1920, by the formal annexation of the protectorate to the British Crown and the change of name to Kenya Colony. At the same time the raising of a large loan under the Colonial Securities Act was announced, the money to be spent chiefly on railway development, harbours and other public works. The building of a deep-water wharf at Kilindini so that goods could be loaded direct on to the Uganda railway was begun.

The discrimination against Indians made by the administra- tion and in the new constitution caused acute controversy. The Indians outnumbered the whites by nearly three to one, and while the majority of them were mechanics, clerks, shop assistants, small traders or labourers there were many of higher class, professional men and merchants with large interests in the country. The effect of the growth of national sentiment and the progress towards self-government in India was seen in East Africa, where associations were formed to protect Indian interests. These were held to be threatened by the withholding from Indians of " due and effective " representation on the Legislative and Municipal Councils, by the adoption of the principle of segrega- tion of races and by the restriction placed on ownership of land by Indians. The Indians claimed full political and economic equality with Europeans. Neither claim was admitted either in theory or practice by the white settlers in Kenya, to whom the development of the country was predominantly due. The Euro- peans had the support of the local administration and of the Colonial Office in London, though the Colonial Office disavowed racial prejudice. Such prejudice existed in Kenya, as was seen in the report (published in 1919) of an official commission on the economic condition of the country. If this prejudice was not shared by the administration its position was, as stated by Sir Edward Northey in June 1919, that " though Indian interests should not be lost sight of, European interests must be para- mount." Lord Milner (Colonial Secretary), in a despatch dated May 21 1920 to Sir E. Northey, laid down certain principles affecting Indians, including approval of the segregation policy and the reservation of the highlands (outside municipal limits) for Europeans. He proposed that the two Indian members of the Legislative Council should henceforth be elected on a special franchise, similar arrangements to be made for municipal elec- tions. To these proposals the Indian community replied by reiterating their demand for equal rights, and they found power- ful supporters in the Government of India and the India Office. The case for the Indians was put with much cogency in a des- patch by the Government of India dated Oct. 21 1920. This despatch stated that in the opinion of the Government of India the true solution of the problem was " a common electoral roll and a common franchise on a reasonable property basis, plus an educational test without racial discrimination, for all British subjects " a formula which would admit natives as well as Indians to the franchise:

Public opinion throughout India (the despatch added) regards the case of the Indians in East Africa as a test of the position of India in the British Empire. At the Imperial Conference of 1918, for the sake of Imperial unity, we accepted the reciprocity resolution, which practically excludes Indians from the self-governing domin- ions. We cannot agree to inequality of treatment in a Crown colony, especially in which India has always had a peculiar interest.