Page:EB1922 - Volume 32.djvu/289

 Cases of grave injustice had occurred in the earlier history of the territory and in the period under review further charges were brought against the Company in connexion with the rearrangement of the reserves. Settlers complained that certain lands in native reserves were not being beneficially used by them; the natives made similar complaints. In 1914 a commission under the chairmanship of Mr. (afterward Sir) R. T. Coryndon, then resident commissioner of Swaziland, was appointed by the Colonial Office to inspect and report upon the reserves. The commission concluded its sittings at the end of 1915. It recommended that 5,610,595 ac. should be assigned as additional reserves or extensions to existing reserves, but that 6,673,055 ac. then included within the reserves were not required for that purpose. The total reserve area recommended was 19,428,691 ac., a net reduction of 1,062,460 acres. The Imperial Government decided to accept these recommendations in their entirety in 1917. There was, however, owing to war conditions, delay in adopting the commission’s recommendations and attacks were made on the Company’s native administration during the greater part of 1919. A Parliamentary White Paper issued in Feb. 1920 contained correspondence between the Aborigines’ Protection Society and the Colonial Office on the subject. The charges against the Company were replied to by Lord Buxton (then high commissioner) at Salisbury in Aug. 1919, and by Col. Amery (Under Secretary for the Colonies) in the House of Commons in March 1920. Col. Amery said:—“I believe this House can with confidence endorse the very high testimony of Lord Buxton to the native administration of Rhodesia and the attitude of the civil population generally towards the natives. It is a model, not only in Africa, but for any part of the world where you have the very difficult problem of the white settler living side by side with the native.” An Order in Council was passed giving sanction to the Coryndon commission’s recommendations. The changes it recommended were gradually carried out and gave rise to little friction. Lord Milner (then Colonial Secretary) set forth in an official despatch that the settlement reached was regarded as final, not only as to the present, but also the future requirements of the natives. To ensure them security of tenure the reserves were vested in the high commissioner for South Africa and would be inalienable save for certain limited purposes and only in exchange for other land.

In Aug. 1921 Prince Arthur of Connaught (the new high commissioner) visited Rhodesia and received a deputation of Matabele. He told them that the decision as to the reserves must stand and that their desire to have a son of Lobenguela recognized as paramount chief could not be granted. “You cannot go back,” said the Prince; “you must go forward.”

The general condition of the natives of Southern Rhodesia had distinctly improved between 1910 and 1920, and their value as an asset of the country became generally recognized. They were not only producers on their own account, but considerable purchasers of European goods. They paid an annual poll-tax of £1—the only levy made upon them by the administration. In 1911 several ordinances designed to secure better housing, feeding and medical supervision of native labourers outside the reserves came into effect. Steps were also taken to provide agricultural and industrial training, and to cope with cattle disease in the native reserves.

Vaccination and medical examination of natives applying for domestic service was made compulsory and the Bulawayo municipality introduced by-laws providing for a standard of housing accommodation for native servants.

Sleeping sickness along the Congo border of Northern Rhodesia necessitated precautions being taken to prevent its southward extension. Some cases of the disease occurred in the Loangwa valley, but they appeared to be sporadic.

History.—The outstanding feature of the history of the territory in the period 1910–21 was the steady growth of political consciousness on the part of the white residents of Southern Rhodesia. The framers of the constitution of the Union of South Africa left open the door for the adhesion to it of Rhodesia. The ultimate joining of Rhodesia to the Union was taken for granted by most South Africans, but the actual formation of the Union in 1910 seemed to have a contrary effect. It appeared to give a distinct stimulus to the already nascent desire of the Southern Rhodesians for independent self-government. A distinct advance in that direction was made in May 1911, when, by Order in Council, the elected members were given a majority of the seats in the Legislative Council, provision being made for safeguarding the interests of the British South Africa Company.

The legal position at that time was that the British South Africa Co. exercised under its charter sovereign rights subject only to such control as was exercised by the Colonial Office through the high commissioner for South Africa and a Resident in Rhodesia. While the Company’s administrative expenditure was by this time slightly exceeded by the revenue, there was no means of making good the heavy losses incurred in opening up the country save by the sale of unalienated lands. Of their ownership of the land and of their rights of disposal the Company entertained no doubt and this fact had much influence upon the attitude of the directors. Sir Starr Jameson, on resigning towards the close of 1912 his leadership of the Unionist party in the South African Parliament, became president of the Chartered Co. and retained that position until his death in Nov. 1917. The administrator in Southern Rhodesia was Sir William H. Milton, a man of great experience and tact in his dealings both with the white residents and the natives. After over 16 years’ service in the territory Sir W. H. Milton resigned in Oct. 1914 and was succeeded by Mr. (afterwards Sir) Drummond Chaplin. But while the administrator and his executive could do much to make the machinery of government work smoothly, there was no power, locally, to shape policy. Disputes arose between the Company and the settlers, who desired a still larger share in the administration. The controversy became acute in view of the fact that in Oct. 1914, under the terms upon which the charter was originally granted, the Crown would have the right to revise its terms with regard to administration. Sir Starr Jameson, Mr. Rochfort Maguire and other representatives of the Chartered Co. visited Rhodesia in 1913, when a further increase was announced in the numbers of elected members of the Legislative Council. As to the financial position the directors said that, as “the land and minerals belonged to the Company,” no debt in respect to past deficits would be placed on the country when the Company relinquished its administration. Mr. Maguire described the Company’s proposals as a means for bridging the period antecedent to self-government, the ideal towards which, he claimed, the Company was working. In accordance with the promise given, a redistribution ordinance was passed, the elected members being increased to 12, while the number nominated by the Company was fixed at six. At the general election in March 1914 1 of the 12 elected members returned were pledged to support the maintenance—for the time being—of the Company’s administration, but, the Council declared, its continuance should not affect the right “at any time” thereafter to the institution of self-government.

The Council in April 1914 definitely challenged the right of the Chartered Co. to the ownership of unalienated lands. The question had been raised in 1908, but was then allowed to drop. It was now recognized as essential that the matter should be settled before the political status of Rhodesia was altered. On behalf of the Rhodesians (i.e. the white settlers) it was claimed that the Chartered Co.’s power to deal with the land was only a delegated right granted by the Crown, and secondly, that if the Company had acquired ownership rights such rights were vested in it “as an administrative and public asset only”; that as a trading body the Company had no title to the land or its revenues. Consequently it was contended that, on the Company ceasing to exercise administrative rights, all unalienated lands should go as public domain to the Government which succeeded it. In July 1914 the claim of the Legislative Council was referred to the judicial committee of the Privy Council for adjudication.

In the meantime it was decided that the Crown should not exercise its right to vary the terms of the charter, which therefore, in virtue of the original provisions, would legally continue unaltered for ten years from Oct. 20 1914. The directors of the Company intimated, however, that they would offer no objection to the earlier establishment of responsible (i.e. self) government should it be deemed necessary and had the concurrence of the British Government. A supplemental charter giving effect to this agreement was issued on March 13 1915.

Meanwhile the outbreak of the World War for a time forced the constitutional question into the background. But the war itself had an important bearing on the political question. The party which desired the indefinite continuance of Chartered Co. rule had nearly disappeared, but an influential party had advocated, as the alternative to self-government, joining the Union of South Africa. This party lost ground as Rhodesians