occupied by Africans. The Parliamentary Commission were brought up against this feeling, and refer to it in their Report. It is time that a serious effort was made to obtain the information upon which a sound judgment could be arrived at on this matter. Statistics, again, are urgently needed, and not in one colony only, but in all areas where whites are dominant in legislative assemblies. The one exceptional Protectorate is that of Uganda, for there can be no doubt that the revenues of Uganda are expended on services of benefit to Africans.

The contrast between the administration of Uganda and that of Kenya is most striking. (I was in Uganda from 1904 till 1918, and have been in Kenya since 1918 to the present time.) The difference lies in the fact that the Government of Uganda has consistently developed native production, while the Kenya Government has, until quite recently, favoured production by Africans on European estates, and treated production in native areas with but scanty consideration. The Uganda Government did not debar European enterprise (which took the form of coffee and rubber plantations), but it did not curtail native production through any fear that it would operate to prevent the Baganda engaging themselves as wage-earners on European estates. The prosperity of Uganda has become a byeword in East Africa.

When we first took hold of Kenya and Uganda the currency was cowrie shells, which were collected on the shore at Lamu and other places. With the building of the railway, Indian rupee currency was introduced, but the cowrie currency ran with it, a rupee selling for a thousand shells. When taxation was enforced in 1902, the difficulty of collection was very much complicated, owing to the fact that those who were called upon to pay the taxes had little or no currency. So the early ordinances of Kenya and Uganda provided that taxes could be paid in currency or produce or labour, a month's labour being considered the equivalent of a

There were two rival methods of getting currency in the country, one to attract buyers of native produce by growing native produce which would attract buyers; the other to attract employers of labour. Uganda took the former method, and Kenya (then the East African Protectorate) adopted the latter. Employers of labour were attracted by grants of cheap land, and the vicious circle was begun which has made problems in Kenya among the most difficult which statesmen are called upon

to handle. It is a simple matter of history that the employers of labour whom the Government of the time attracted, in order to enable Africans to obtain currency by wage-earning soon began to demand that the Africans be taxed more heavily in order to make them become wage-earners in larger numbers. Only as recently as January and February of 1926 it was urged publicly by Farmers' Associations in the Colony that the African Poll Tax be increased from 12s. to 20s., in order to get more men out as wage-earners, the employers proposing at the same time to pay 2s. per month towards the tax for every month the labourer worked. So that if the man worked for ten months the employer would have paid the Poll Tax in full. Happily the suggestion was turned down by the convention of settlers themselves.

On page 64 of Blackie's "Life of Livingstone" a quotation is given from a letter of Livingstone's, dated Dec. 4, 1850:"The world is ours. Our Father made it to be inhabited, and many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. It will be increased more by emigration than by missionaries." The italics are Livingstone's. Blackie adds: "He held it to be God's wish that the unoccupied parts of the earth should be possessed, and he believed in Christian colonization as a great means of spreading the Gospel. . . . To plant English and Scotch colonies in Africa became one of his master ideas and favourite schemes."

Yes, but Livingstone's idea was that the industrious poor of England and Scotland should farm their own land in Africa, not that large employers of labour should employ Africans. Large schemes of development are proposed under the East African loan. If the real object of this development is to enable our markets to acquire the raw materials of industry, I would suggest that we require the African to shoulder no part of the burden of paying the interest. The development is in our interests; let us pay the piper. Recent news from Kenya tells of cutting down schemes of African education. Is the African to be denied education that the revenue from his taxation may go to meet the interest on loans? It looks like it.

Under the head of Native Taxation, the Governors, with the exception of the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, who reserved his opinion, agreed :

That there was no objection to a tax on native cattle, where the stock was sufficiently numerous; and that such a tax was desirable . . . in

order to promote the economic use of stock, and the development of animal industry. . . . It was generally felt that, while Europeans should not enjoy any special exemption, the taxation of Europeanowned stock must be based on revenue considerations and was not necessary as a means of promoting development.

The wording of this finding is ambiguous in its meaning. It may mean that the natives' cattle are to be taxed in order to promote animal development, but that the cattle of Europeans are to be taxed for revenue purposes. Or it may mean that the European's cattle is to be exempt from taxation or more lightly taxed than native cattle. There is one statement which ought to be challenged, and it is that " taxation of European-owned stock ... was not necessary as a means of promoting development.' I would challenge this, because veterinary departments are expensive to run, and the revenue they earn is but small compared to the expenditure on them. If native animal husbandry involves expenditure by the State which ought to be met by a tax on nativeowned cattle, then, for exactly the same reason, ought Europeanowned cattle to be taxed. I was in Kenya in 1920 when a similar tax on native cattle was mooted, and I know the alarm it aroused amongst Africans. If Kenya wishes to have trouble with Africans it will get it by taxing native cattle and exempting European.

The kind of argument which used to go the rounds in Kenya on this question was as follows: "Europeans want to build up an export trade in meat and meat products, but there is not enough European-owned stock to justify putting up a factory. If we could force the native to put some of his stock on the market, the thing could be done; therefore, put a tax on his stock, to compel him to sell some of it. This will supply the meat factory." It may be that the native would ultimately reap benefit from such an industry, but for whose benefit is it primarily? It is for our own benefit, and we ought to be prepared to let the capital forego interest while we take the longer but eminently more satisfactory method of educating the native up to his own interests. If we take the short cut of taxation we shall but add another to the many acts which embitter racial relationships. Incidentally, such a tax might drive some men on to the labour market to earn the money to save them from selling stock. A double-edged tax, this.

There is one curious divergence of policy in Uganda and Kenya which deserves to be widely known. From the days of

Sir Harry Johnston's treaty with the Baganda, all legislation affecting the Baganda has been published in both English and Luganda, so that the Baganda who know how to read, and who now number probably 200,000, can see for themselves what the law requires and thus check acts of administrators, African or European, which are outside of the law. I have heard administrators in Uganda roundly condemn this policy, because it fetters their actions; but, all the same, it is the only right policy. In Kenya, on the other hand, all the legislation is published in English. By this means, natives are prevented from knowing what the law actually says, and they are placed at the mercy of those in authority whose actions in administration go beyond the powers given by law. I give but two instances out of many, of how the ignorance of the native of the law is used to exploit him. Taxation has been collected from those not required by law to pay it. Forced labour has been exacted from those not required by law to render it.

The argument used to justify non-publication in Swahili of the laws affecting Africans is that there are not enough natives able to read Swahili to make it worth while. That argument was equally valid in Uganda twenty years ago, but that did not deter the Uganda Government from letting those who could read have the law in a tongue they could understand. It is unfortunate that it so happens that ignorance of the law on the part of the people has been a real advantage in preventing criticism of proposed legislation. The first the poor unfortunate Africans knew of the 1915 Crown Lands Ordinance was years after it was passed and published in English. This Ordinance reduces all Africans outside of the Protectorate of Zanzibar, to "tenants at will of the Crown" on their own ancestral lands. It was a great misfortune from the point of view of the Africans' security of land tenure that Islamic law did not have sway from the coast to the lake, before we took the land under our protection. Islam really has saved the coast peoples from being reduced on their own land to tenants at will of the Crown.

Now, to turn in conclusion to say a word about the benefits Empire and Church have brought to East Africa. Each has made its own particular contribution to Africa. No attempt can be made here to assess the value of the spiritual ideals the Church has enabled Africans to acquire, but something must be said of the

great work undertaken everywhere in East Africa by the Missions in the sphere of education. The East African Parliamentary Commission gives high praise in its Report to this side of Mission activity, and urges upon Governments the duty of closely cooperating with Missions in this work. Since the publication of this Report, British Governments everywhere in East Africa have initiated or increased their grants-in-aid to the educational work of Missions.

And, what of Empire? With all our mistakes there is a very high and noble record of achievement on behalf of Africans. Gone is the slave trade, and gone inter-tribal wars. A new era of civilization has dawned for Africa, and out of the sleep of ages Africa awakes to find laid at her feet the rich treasures of knowledge and achievement which it has taken us hundreds of years to acquire. We are making a great effort to bring the animal and human diseases of Africa under control; and who can evaluate the measure of this contribution to Africa's welfare?

We need the African, and the African no less needs us. In mutual co-operation lies the solution of some of Africa's problems and ours. If only we can live in the spirit of Kipling's linesTeach us the strength that cannot seek,

By deed or thought to hurt the weak;

then Africa will have nothing to fear from us, but only from herself.

W. E. OWEN