CO885-(18-19) — Page 385

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

ياسيا

Reference :-

C.O.885

19 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

| ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

+

›and coloured, though the property quali n operates in favour of the white. The

West Indian is, or can be as much a

1 of his colony as is the white.

ere there is no elected legislature in these es, there is no disability attaching to the red man. In the more highly developed rn colonies representatives of the coloured are found in the Legislative Councils. In

n there are Sinhalese, Tamil, and Moorinen ers, while in Hong Kong and in the Straits ments a Chinese is in the Council.

less organised communities, e.g., in West 1, again there is no disability, though there

al

large extent Special Courts and laws or

vs to meet the special cases of the natives. e older West African colonies there are cally always coloured men in the Legisla ouncils. We have in short in such cases, ule. Colony shading into Protectorate, and h Crown Colony citizenship coupled with 1 laws or institutions arising out of and ying upon such tribal organisation and rity of native Kings and Chiets as existed to the introduction of British rule or tion.

e case of Fiji is rather special. Under rs Patent of 1904 the Legislative Council its of the Governor, ten official members, leeted members and two native members. six elected members are elected by s of European descent, the two native ers are selected by the Governor out of of not more than six names submitted to by the Great Council of Native Chiefs. It some extent a Crown Colony reproduction * New Zealand plan.

PAPUA.

e case of Papua is a special one. By a nonwealth Act of 1905, British New Guinea, was then called, was "accepted" as a itory under the authority of the Common- h." I do not know a quite parallel instance dependency of a colonial federation. The men seem to be under 1,000 and to be to atives in the ratio of one in 100 or more. Act provides for a nominated Legislative eil. It does not directly enact that the ficial members must be wliste, but it implies r the numbers of such members depend upon umbers of the white resident population." ision is made for taking a poll on the sub- of liquor licences, and the adult white le shall for the purposes of this section be ed to be the people of the Territory." We here Crown Colony Government as the ralian self-governing colonies wish to ise it. Where the Imperial Government d, if possible, put natives in the Legislative wil, the Commonwealth Government does not rently comtemplate the possibility of any white members,

!

į

5

Land Tenure and Citizenship.

Probably the most complicated questions that arise with regard to native rares in the British Empire are connected with land tenure. I only want to point out here the close connexion- which indeed is obvious-between land tenure

and citizenship. Occupation or ownership of land is largely the basis of franchise, wherever there is not a near approach to universal man- hood franchise. Private ownership of land is the system with which white men are familiar, com- munal ownership is the more usual system among natives races; and it is interesting to notice that while the more advanced views among white men are tending back towards communal owner- ship, progress of the native races is generally looked for in the direction of gradually sub- stituting individual for tribal ownership. The natural inference is that some intermediate stage may be evolved in the future which will suit white and coloured alike.

Tribal tenure of land is very difficult to combine with citizenship, as we understand it, though it may be combined with representation of the race, such as the Maori representation in the New Zealand Parliament. It may be taken. I think, as roughly true that ordinary citizenship and tribal tenure are incompatible with each other. In the one the individual is the unit, in the latter the tribe.

There may be, of course, and are, grades both in communal and in private ownership. Com- munal tenure itself may be a long advance on no tenure at all, or on tenure at the will of the strongest.

Where there is much land and a relatively small nomad population, as in parts of East Africa, I take it that there has been no tenure at all in the sense of ownership.

Of land tenure in the Nile province of the Uganda Protectorate, Judge Carter writes. "There is no king or overlord of this part of the Protectorate, and there would appear to be no conception of ownership as apart from occu- pation, consequently there is no absolute owner- ship by the chiefs or by the peasants. Although it has been stated that for the purposes of cultivation natives hold the land in common. I gather that this is not intended to convey the idea that there is collective ownership, but merely indicates that the natives are grouped together in villages, and that the natives of a village occupy the land and cultivate it, and apparently a person possesses his own piece of land and does not hold it in common." In some other parts of the Uganda Protectorate, so far as there is any ownership at all, it would seem to be ownership by chiefs simply in virtue of superior strength and not as a matter of right.* In Swazi- land, as I understand, communal ownership has meant little more than holding or occupying

a

73

36172/07, Ugan·la.