The Hokitika Guradian WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 1922 TROPICAL AFRICA.

Hokitika Guardian, 2 August 1922, Page 2

The Hokitika Guradian WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 1922 TROPICAL AFRICA.

The war has given Britain additional responsibilities in equatorial Africa in the shape of tho mandates over “German East” and over part of the former German colony of the Cnmeroons. Their acquisition serves as tho text for “Tho Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa,” by Sir F. D. Lugard, a recent publication, though actually the hook is wider in scope than its title might suggest, and consists of a. survey of tho principles adopted by Britain, in tho administration of her colonies in Tiopical Africa. Sir F. T. Lugard is eminently qualified for bis task ; He Ims a fine record of service In m»ny parts of Africa Pfl'l bis" name jj I«»ft|en|ap]y \

sociated with the development of Nigeria, cnee the Cinderella of African colonics, but now on the threshold of n brilliant future. The history of colonisation in Africa presents many )>eciiliur features. Although Portuguese, British and Spanish navigators explored the roasts of the continent at n very early date, it was long before advantage was taken of their discoveries lAmeric.n, the East-and the South Seas offered more tempting opportunities, there was little demand in Europe for African products, and until well on in the nineteenth century European activities were chiefly confined to the southern end. British interests in Tropical Africa were limited to a fewfortified posts which had l>cen established in connection with the suppression of the slave-trade. At a latoi date two newcomers entered the scene. One of the immediate causes which led to the opening up of Africa w-as the Franeo-Prussian War. Crippled by her defeat, France proclaimed by the mouth of her principal statesmen and writers that it was to greater France beyond the seas, and especially in West and North-west Africa, that she must look for rehabilitation. Germany, on the other hand, found herself with a great and an inereasing industrial population in urgent need of raw materials and additional food supplies, also of an outlet for her surplus population. At that time white settlement in Tropical Africa was believed to be both possible and desirable. England was unwillingly forced into the competition. On the one hand, her little colonies on the West Coast demanded some effort to save them from being cut from all access to the interior and becoming mere coast **ntilHwes. On the other band, her position in India compelled her to protect her route hither l>y the occupation of Egypt, and the eastern shores of Africa, while the essential interests of Egypt, for which she had become responsible, required in their turn the control of the Nile sources. It should be noted, however, that while the economic and strategic factors, entered largely into the colonisation of Tropical Africa., humanitarian motives wer,, by no means absent. This aspect of the case was emphasised bv Joseph Chamberlain, who assuredly no sentimentalist. declared that Britain had assumed definite obligations by her new acquisitions, and that her policy must bp one not of exnloitation, but of protection and education. “We develop new territory.” ho said, “as trustees for civilisation for the commerce of the world.” Another peculiar feature of tne settlement of Africa was that much of the spade work was accomplished by semi-private enterprise in the shape of the great chartered companies such as the Royal Nigeria Company. the British East Africa Company, and the British South African Company. Sir F. D. Lugard admits that in principle the system of investing commercial concerns with the powers of government is impossible to defend. Such companies will be tempted to consider the interests of their shareholders rather than of the natives. But. in fact, this phase of African development did not have any evil effects. The companies in question were animated by a high sense of responsibility, and that profits were by no means their sole pre-occupation is proved by' their history. Indeed, from the point of view of the investor, their error was in the opposite direction. But although Sir F. D. Lugard pays a tribute to their work, he considers that they were an anachronism. In Jine. lie declares hat Britain, has good reason to be proud of her record in tropical Africa, and describes the institutions and the systems of administration obtaining in various tropical colonies with a view to showing that they might, with advantage, be applied to the mandates. He criticises the German administration, not so much on nccount- of the atrocities committed byindividual officials, which appear in many cases to have been winked at bv the authorities, but because of its harsh and unsympathetic attitude to the natives in general. Thus natives were prohibited from acquiring any rights in land, from possessing cattle and horses without special permit, and they were also required to have passports. Such regulations are entirely foreign to Britain’s concept of her duties. The French regime in tropical Africa is far milder than the German, though less benevolent than the British. But the author can find no justification for the French contention that in the territories held by France under mandate she is entitled to introduce conscription among the natives for service abroad.