Ormsby-Gore Commission

Last updated

The Ormsby-Gore Commission was a Parliamentary Commission, with the official title The East Africa Commission. Its chairman, William Ormsby-Gore, later the fourth Baron Harlech, was appointed in June 1924 together with two other Member of Parliament as commissioners. The terms of reference for the commission, which was appointed by the short-lived First MacDonald ministry, included to report on measures to accelerate economic development, to improve the social conditions of African residents, to investigate employment practices and to secure closer cooperation between the five British dependencies in East and Central Africa.

Contents

The commission recommended that transport and other infrastructure should be improved as a precondition of possible later administrative union. It expressed concern over issues of land ownership and the conditions of Africans living on European owned estates, and suggested that promoting commercial agriculture by Africans could be a solution to the problem of labour migration. By the time the commission reported in April 1925, the MacDonald ministry had lost power and, although Ormsby-Gore had become Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in the new government, little action was taken on its proposals. In 1926, the Hilton Young Commission on Closer Union of the Dependencies of East and Central Africa was appointed. Its report in 1929 re-examined and supported the closer union of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, but this was not acted on owing to financial constraints. [1]

Background

Following the indecisive general election of December 1923, which created a hung parliament, the Conservative government of Stanley Baldwin remained in office until January 1924 and was then replaced by the Labour government of June to November 1924. J. H. Thomas, the Secretary of State for the Colonies created an East Africa Committee, also known as the Southborough Committee, composed of sixteen members including parliamentarians and business representatives, to promote economic development and African advancement in that area. [2]

Only a minority of East Africa Committee members represented the interests of Africans and, after it appointed the Ormsby-Gore Commission, and following the resignation of the First MacDonald ministry and the publication of that Commission's report, the Southborough Committee was disbanded in June 1925 as being no longer required. [3] [4] Baldwin's Conservative government which replaced MacDonald's ministry took little action on the Ormsby-Gore Commission's report, but appointed the Hilton Young Commission in 1926 to look into the possible closer union of the British territories in East and Central Africa. The later commission placed less emphasis on African advancement and more on a possible closer union of the British colonies and protectorates. [5] [6]

The commission

In June 1924, the Parliamentary Commission officially named "The East Africa Commission" was appointed with the mandate:-

"To visit Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Tanganyika Territory, Uganda, and Kenya with a view to obtaining as much information as possible in the time available on all subjects covered by the terms of reference to the East Africa Committee, and to report to the Secretary of State on any facts which they may consider have a bearing upon the above matters."

The terms of reference to the East Africa Committee were:— "To consider and report:—

(a) on the measures to be taken to accelerate the general economic development of the British East African Dependencies and the means of securing closer co-ordination of policy on such important matters as transportation, cotton-growing, and the control of human, animal, and plant diseases;

(b) on the steps necessary to ameliorate the social condition of the natives of East Africa, including improvement of health and economic development;

(c) on the economic relation between natives and non-natives with special reference to labour contracts, care of labourers, certificates of identification, employment of women and children;

(d) on the taxation of natives and the provision for services directed to their moral and material improvement". [7]

The commission visited the Africa territories named in its mandate between August and December 1924. However, it reported that, owing to transport difficulties, its visits to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland were short, and it was unable to visit any of North-Eastern Rhodesia, northern Nyasaland, southern Tanganyika or the Lake Tanganyika area. Two members of the Commission also visited Zanzibar, although this was not within its original terms of reference. [8]

The commissioners

Ormsby-Gore, the commission's Chairman was the Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Stafford from 1910 to 1938 and Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1922 to 1929, except during the period of the MacDonald ministry from June to November 1924. He was regarded by Robert Coryndon, then governor of Kenya, as being sympathetic to African peasant production and opposed to European settler demands both for control over more land for self-determination, conceding only limited suffrage to Asians and Africans. [9] [10] By the time he was appointed to head the commission, Ormsby-Gore was more supportive of a dual policy of Europeans producing the more valuable export crops while Africans produced food and those cash crops that did not compete with European growers, [11] but he never accepted the political aspirations of the settlers [12]

Besides Ormsby-Gore, a Conservative MP, the commission included A.G Church, a Labour MP and F. C. Linfield, a Liberal MP, with a senior Colonial Office civil servant as secretary. Church's main interest was promoting trade between Britain and its colonial Empire and, as a result of his visit to East Africa, he supported the political ambitions of white settlers for internal self-government on the model of Southern Rhodesia, in defiance of official Labour Party policy. [13] Linfield also had a strong interest in colonial development and suggested the creation of an Imperial Development Board largely financed by the British exchequer. [14] He also advocated that the African people should have sufficient land to grow both food and economic crops, rather than expanding European land ownership. [15] [16]

By the time the commission returned to Britain, the 1923 United Kingdom general election had taken place and Stanley Baldwin had returned at the head of a Conservative ministry in which Ormsby-Gore was again Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. Church and Linfield both lost their parliamentary seats in the election.

Report

The commission's report contained five topic sections, the three most important being on Transport and Communications, Native Policy and Trade and Commerce; sections on the six territories visited, including Zanzibar, a Conclusion and a supplementary memorandum by Linfield. Much of the information contained in the report was prepared by the colonial administrations of each territory in advance of the visit. [17]

Transport and Communications

The commission noted that the economic development of large areas of East and Central Africa was hampered by limited transport facilities and high transport costs. It stated that the development of railways, and to some extent lake transport, should be preferred to roads as the main solution". [18] It suggested a rail link from North-Eastern Rhodesia and Northern Nyasaland to the existing Tanganyika Railway Central Line. Although the Hilton Young Commission endorsed this proposal, no comparable link was completed before the TAZARA Railway in 1975. [19] [20]

The report also supported the building a Zambezi Bridge, and a detailed report proposing what became the Dona Ana Bridge was published in 1929. [21] [22] The commissioners realised it was unlikely that major infrastructure projects such as railways and improvements to ports would be undertaken without substantial British government investment, and recommended that, where railways were in private hands, they should be brought under state control. [23]

Native Policy

This longest section, almost one-third of the whole report, restated the principles of the Devonshire Declaration of 1923, that the Africans in Kenya and Uganda were as much under British government "Trusteeship" as those in Tanganyika were under its League of Nations mandate, and that African interests must be paramount in Kenya. [24] It also considered the Devonshire Declaration should apply to all British dependencies in East and Central Africa, defining "Trusteeship" as including both the social and educational development of African people and development of the economic resources of those dependencies. [25] The commissioners accepted Indirect rule should continue where it already existed and was effective, particularly in Uganda. However, the commission considered that it was in decline elsewhere and that, where direct rule by British administrators had replaced the power of chiefs, the latter should only be used to assist these administrators. [26]

In most of the territories, systems of land tenure included land recognised as belonging to their African peoples (native land) which was dealt with under customary law, land alienated to non-natives as freehold or leasehold land, and a residual category of Crown land, capable of being declared native land or alienated to Europeans. This last category included forests and game reserves. The commission suggested that land policy should evolve to promote individual ownership of agricultural land by Africans, that Crown land, where suitable for cultivation or pastoralism should be reserved for African use unless manifestly surplus to expected future requirements, and that African tenants on European owned-estates should be protected from exploitation. [27]

The commission also recommended that cultivation of food resources and economic crops by Africans should be encouraged and pastoralism discouraged, except in drier areas unsuited to crop cultivation. It suggested that colonial agricultural departments should be strengthened, and the production of suitable exportable crops in each territory should be promoted. [28] The supply of African labour for public works and on European owned-estates competed with encouraging African production, but the commission believed the shortage of labour would be reduced if the large numbers of adult males who were currently labour migrants outside their home territory were repatriated and redeployed in productive agricultural work on native land or estates, and if local employers offered better pay and conditions. [29] Education was also seem as the path to African economic development.

African education had, before the commission's visit, been left to the missionaries, and only a small proportion of pupils had been educated beyond an elementary level. The commissioners suggested that the administration of each dependency should give financial assistance to those mission schools found to be efficient, but should also create government schools for the education of African teachers and to teach technical skills. [30] Similarly, colonial medical and veterinary services had neglected African users, but the Commission recommended that they should be extended to reduce epidemic diseases among Africans and improve the condition of their livestock. [31]

Trade and commerce

The commission accepted that trade and commerce was generally underdeveloped, more particularly in Nyasaland,,and in and Northern Rhodesia where copper mining was only just starting. International shipping and banking and credit were both underdeveloped in East Africa and this hampered economic development. The Commission recommended that the commercial law of all the territories should be standardised in line with British law, including the law relating to companies, insolvency and trademarks, and that an East African Trade Bureau should be set up in London, similar to existing Canadian and Australian trade bodies. [32]

Other issues

The report contained a section on the serious problems caused by the tsetse fly in many areas of East and Central Africa, and suggested that the territories should coordinate efforts to eliminate the flies or their carriers and to treat human sleeping sickness and animal trypanosomiasis with a view to their eradication. [33] It also considered the importance of promoting scientific research in many fields, including crop production, forestry, fisheries and animal husbandry, and suggested that much of this should be financed by the British Government rather than from local revenue sources. [34]

Linfield's memorandum

In the section on the policy adopted for African labour, the report discussed the "contact theory" that Africans benefited by contact with, and especially working for, Europeans, in terms of learning skills, receiving rudimentary health care and possibly some education. The report did not fully endorse this view, mainly because much of such work was temporary. [35] However, Linfield argued more strongly against this theory, on the basis that lengthy absences by male workers from their homes damaged African societies and reduced their ability to be self-supporting. He claimed that European skills and education were best imparted in their Africans' home and family setting. [36] Linfield also advocated more protection for African-owned land, particularly in Kenya. [37]

The dependencies

Much of the reports on the individual territories are compilations of statistics provided by their administrations. The issues it discussed with the greatest subsequent importance are summarised below.

Northern Rhodesia

The commission considered it was important for the protectorate to have more direct railway access to the coast. It did not consider a westward route was viable, although this was built later as part of the Benguela railway once copper production became significant. [38] Most of the European population of the protectorate lived in North-Western Rhodesia, along the line of the railway, and representatives of these settlers had proposed that all or most of North-Western Rhodesia should be amalgamated with Southern Rhodesia, and North-Eastern Rhodesia and any other areas not so amalgamated should be combined with Nyasaland in some way. The Commission did not consider such a division should be made. [39]

Nyasaland

The report noted that production of cotton and tobacco, the two most important export crops, was declining as the land was continuously cultivated without fertilizer being applied, and the quality of both crops grown was poor. [40] The protectorate's difficult financial position was caused by large debts incurred in the construction of the Shire Highlands Railway and its extension: the commission hoped it would be improved if the Zambezi Bridge were built and the railway extended to the port of Beira, Mozambique. [41] The commission also expressed concern at the large amount of land alienated to Europeans under Certificates of Claim, and the under-development of much of this alienated land. [42]

Tanganyika

Tanganyika, which had been ravaged by fighting in the East African Campaign of the First World War, was a League of Nations mandated territory, whose administration was to be carried on in line with the mandate of 1922. The existence of this mandate, which suggested impermanence, and the wartime destruction had hampered investment and many government departments were under-staffed or under-resourced. [43] The commission considered that the territory could best be developed if the existing railways were repaired and extended and roads and port facilities improved. [44]

Zanzibar

Zanzibar had become a British protectorate in 1890 after Germany had secured the cessation of most of its mainland territories to German East Africa, and was ruled by a sultan advised, initially by a locally based British resident. However, the governor of Kenya, based in Nairobi had, since 1914, also been the British High Commissioner for Zanzibar, an arrangement that caused delays, as no matters of importance could be settled locally. The commissioners recommended that the post of High Commissioner should be abolished and its powers devolved to the British resident. [45] They also recommended replacing the Sultan's consultative Protectorate Council with a Legislative Council, as was normal in other African dependencies, and including more unofficial members. [46]

Uganda

The commission recommended the extension of the Uganda Railway west and north of its existing terminus, to open more areas for cotton cultivation, the most valuable export of the protectorate, and to reduce transport costs in those areas where cotton was already grown. [47] It also referred to the problems that had arisen in the Kingdom of Buganda over pre-colonial land rights, [48] and the more general issue of the relationship of Buganda to the protectorate [49]

Kenya

The colonial administration had encouraged Europeans to settle as farmers in the colony since 1903, and numbers had increased significantly after the First World War. In consequence, a considerable proportion of Kenya's best agricultural land had been allocated to these settlers as medium-sized or large farms, and the bulk of export crops were grown on these farms. [50] African agriculture had been neglected, but the commission suggested that growing maize and groundnuts for domestic consumption and export should be encouraged by training African instructors. [51] The extension of European agriculture was causing demands for African workers that competed with opportunities for them to cultivate their own land or to migrate to work in the towns. As the supply of African labour was limited, the commission advocated limiting the influx of settlers wishing to take on new large farms and restricting further conversion of African-occupied lands into such farms [52]

Aftermath

Much of the work of the Ormsby-Gore Commission was called into question by the change in government which took place while its members were in Africa. However, the subsequent Hilton Young Commission endorsed certain of the earlier commission's conclusions, including the desirability of not including Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia in any East African union, at least initially. A majority, excluding the chairman, also discounted the idea that all or part of Northern Rhodesia should be amalgamated with Southern Rhodesia. [53] The Hilton Young Commission also accepted that African interests must be paramount, that African development must be the first priority of all the colonial administrations and that indigenous African communities should have enough land reserved for them to grow sufficient food and economic crops, and that this land should not be available to be alienated to non-Africans. [54] These all reflected the Ormsby-Gore Commission findings.

Shortly before the East Africa Commission was appointed, the Secretary of State for the Colonies had appointed an Advisory Committee on Native Education in the British Tropical African Dependencies, which included Ormsby-Gore and Church, two Anglican bishops and five other members. The Advisory Committee reported after Ormsby-Gore and Church had returned from East Africa, and its report included the results of their review of educational provision in East and Central Africa. This report advocated adapting teaching to the needs of the local communities by using vernacular languages as well as English, training more African teachers and establishing higher-level vocational and technical training. [55] It also promoted the education of girls and young women and the establishment of a hierarchy of schools that would eventually include university-level institutions. [56] This report formed the basis for educational development in East Africa until the late 1940s. [57] Although the numbers attending schools did not increase beyond one-third of school-age children, the majority of these had at least four years' of education and, between 1925 and 1939 the standard of education in the British dependencies in Africa improved considerably and secondary education became available, although only to a small number of pupils. In all of these areas, Ormsby-Gore laid the educational foundations for the first generation of African professional men and women in these territories, and for such future political leaders as Jomo Kenyatta, Kwame Nkrumah and Jaramogi Oginga Odinga [58]

Ormsby-Gore was promoted away from the Colonial Office in 1929, but returned as Secretary of State for the Colonies between 1936 and 1938. In 1936, he announced that the government had no plans for the political amalgamation either of East Africa or the Rhodesias, [59] and continued to promote education and railway development in East Africa, but much of his time was taken up with the situation in Palestine [60]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nyasaland</span> British protectorate from 1907 to 1964

Nyasaland was a British protectorate located in Africa that was established in 1907 when the former British Central Africa Protectorate changed its name. Between 1953 and 1963, Nyasaland was part of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. After the Federation was dissolved, Nyasaland became independent from Britain on 6 July 1964 and was renamed Malawi.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Central Africa Protectorate</span> British protectorate from 1893 to 1907

The British Central Africa Protectorate (BCA) was a British protectorate proclaimed in 1889 and ratified in 1891 that occupied the same area as present-day Malawi: it was renamed Nyasaland in 1907. British interest in the area arose from visits made by David Livingstone from 1858 onward during his exploration of the Zambezi area. This encouraged missionary activity that started in the 1860s, undertaken by the Universities' Mission to Central Africa, the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland, and which was followed by a small number of settlers. The Portuguese government attempted to claim much of the area in which the missionaries and settlers operated, but this was disputed by the British government. To forestall a Portuguese expedition claiming effective occupation, a protectorate was proclaimed, first over the south of this area, then over the whole of it in 1889. After negotiations with the Portuguese and German governments on its boundaries, the protectorate was formally ratified by the British government in May 1891.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry Johnston</span> British explorer (1858–1927)

Sir Henry Hamilton Johnston was a British explorer, botanist, artist, colonial administrator, and linguist who travelled widely across Africa to speak some of the languages spoken by people on that continent. He published 40 books on subjects related to the continent of Africa and was one of the key players in the Scramble for Africa that occurred at the end of the 19th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Northern Rhodesia</span> 1911–1964 British protectorate in Southern Africa

Northern Rhodesia was a British protectorate in Southern Africa, now the independent country of Zambia. It was formed in 1911 by amalgamating the two earlier protectorates of Barotziland-North-Western Rhodesia and North-Eastern Rhodesia. It was initially administered, as were the two earlier protectorates, by the British South Africa Company (BSAC), a chartered company, on behalf of the British Government. From 1924, it was administered by the British Government as a protectorate, under similar conditions to other British-administered protectorates, and the special provisions required when it was administered by BSAC were terminated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Southern Rhodesia</span> British colony in Africa, 1923 to 1965

Southern Rhodesia was a landlocked self-governing British Crown colony in southern Africa, established in 1923 and consisting of British South Africa Company (BSAC) territories lying south of the Zambezi River. The region was informally known as south Zambesia until annexed by Britain at the behest of Cecil Rhodes's British South Africa Company, for whom the colony was named. The bounding territories were Bechuanaland (Botswana), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Portuguese Mozambique (Mozambique), and the Transvaal Republic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protectorate of Uganda</span> British protectorate in Africa from 1894 to 1962

The Protectorate of Uganda was a protectorate of the British Empire from 1894 to 1962. In 1893 the Imperial British East Africa Company transferred its administration rights of territory consisting mainly of the Kingdom of Buganda to the British government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British South Africa Company</span> 1889–1965 British mining and colonial enterprises company

The British South Africa Company was chartered in 1889 following the amalgamation of Cecil Rhodes' Central Search Association and the London-based Exploring Company Ltd, which had originally competed to capitalize on the expected mineral wealth of Mashonaland but united because of common economic interests and to secure British government backing. The company received a Royal Charter modelled on that of the British East India Company. Its first directors included The 2nd Duke of Abercorn, Rhodes himself, and the South African financier Alfred Beit. Rhodes hoped BSAC would promote colonisation and economic exploitation across much of south-central Africa, as part of the "Scramble for Africa". However, his main focus was south of the Zambezi, in Mashonaland and the coastal areas to its east, from which he believed the Portuguese could be removed by payment or force, and in the Transvaal, which he hoped would return to British control.

Thangata is a word deriving from the Chewa language of Malawi which has changed its meaning several times, although all meanings relate to agriculture. Its original, pre-colonial usage related to reciprocal help given in neighbours' fields or freely-given agricultural labour as thanks for a benefit. In colonial times, between 1891 and 1962, it generally meant agricultural labour given in lieu of a cash rent, and generally without any payment, by a tenant on an estate owned by a European. Thangata was often exploited, and tenants could be forced to work on the owners' crops for four to six months annually when they could have cultivated their own crops. From the 1920s, the name thangata was extended to situations where tenants were given seeds to grow set quotas of designated crops instead of providing cash or labour. Both forms of thangata were abolished in 1962, but both before and after independence and up to the present, the term has been used for short-term rural casual work, often on tobacco estates, which is considered by workers to be exploitative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alfred Sharpe</span>

Sir Alfred Sharpe was Commissioner and Consul-General for the British Central Africa Protectorate and first Governor of Nyasaland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frederick Linfield</span>

Frederick Caesar Linfield was a British Liberal politician. He was originally in trade as a corn-merchant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland</span> British territory from 1953 to 1963

The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, also known as the Central African Federation (CAF), was a colonial federation that consisted of three southern African territories: the self-governing British colony of Southern Rhodesia and the British protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It existed between 1953 and 1963.

Sir Charles Calvert Bowring was a British colonial administrator, mainly in Kenya, who was later Governor and Commander in Chief of the Nyasaland Protectorate from 1923 to 1929.

The Natives on Private Estates Ordinance, 1928 was a colonial ordinance passed by the Legislative Council of the Nyasaland Protectorate. The body was composed mainly of senior colonial officials, with a minority of nominated members, to represent European residents. The ordinance regulated the conditions under which land could be farmed by African tenants on estates owned by European settlers within that protectorate. The legislation corrected some of the worst abuses of the system of thangata under which tenants were required to work for the estate owner in lieu of paying rent.

Blantyre and East Africa Ltd is a company that was incorporated in Scotland in 1898 and is still in existence. Its main activity was the ownership of estates in the south of what is now Malawi. The main estate crops it grew were tobacco until the 1950s and tea, which it continued to grow until the company’s tea estates were sold. Blantyre and East Africa Ltd was one of four large estate-owning companies in colonial Nyasaland which together owned over 3.4 million acres of land, including the majority of the fertile land in the Shire Highlands. The company acquired most of its landholdings between 1898 and 1901 from several early European settlers, whose title to this land had been recognised by Certificates of Claim issued by the administration of the British Central Africa Protectorate. After the boom for Europeans growing tobacco ended in about 1927, the company retained one large estate in Zomba District where its tenants were encouraged to grow tobacco and others where it grew tea. It was also left with a scattering of small estates that it neither operated nor effectively managed but obtained cash rents from African tenants on crowded and unsupervised estates. Many of its estates, excluding the tea estates which it continued to manage directly, were sold to the colonial administration of Nyasaland between 1950 and 1955.

The Abrahams Commission was a commission appointed by the Nyasaland government in 1946 to inquire into land issues in Nyasaland. This followed riots and disturbances by tenants on European-owned estates in Blantyre and Cholo districts in 1943 and 1945. The commission had only one member, Sir Sidney Abrahams, a Privy Counsellor and lawyer, the former Attorney General of the Gold Coast, Zanzibar and Uganda, and the former Chief Justice, first of Uganda and then Ceylon. There had been previous reviews to consider the uneven distribution of land between Africans and European, the shortage of land for subsistence farming and the position of tenants on private estates. These included the Jackson Land Commission in 1920, the Ormsby-Gore Commission on East Africa in 1924 and, most recently, the Bell Commission on the Financial Position and Development of Nyasaland in 1938, but none of these had provided a permanent solution. Abrahams proposed that the Nyasaland government should purchase all unused or under-utilised freehold land on European-owned estates, which would then become Crown land, available to African farmers. The Africans on estates were to be offered the choice of remaining on their current estate as paid workers or tenants, or of moving to Crown land. These proposals were not implemented in full until 1952. The report of the Abrahams Commission divided opinion. Africans were generally in favour of its proposals, as were both the governors in post from 1942 to 1947, Edmund Richards, and the incoming governor, Geoffrey Colby. Estate owners and managers were strongly against it, and many European settlers bitterly attacked it.

The Devlin Commission, officially the Nyasaland Commission of Inquiry, was a Commission of Inquiry set up in 1959 under the chairmanship of Mr.Justice Devlin, later Lord Devlin, after African opposition to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, particularly its farming and rural conservation policies, and demands for progress towards majority rule promoted by the Nyasaland African Congress under its leader Dr Hastings Banda led to widespread disturbances in Nyasaland and some deaths. A state of emergency was declared in March 1959; about 1,300 people, many of whom were members of the Nyasaland African Congress party, were detained without trial, over were 2,000 imprisoned for offences related to the emergency and the Congress itself was banned. During the State of Emergency and the week preceding it, a total of 51 people were killed by troops or the police. Although the four members of the Commission were members of The British Establishment, its findings were highly unfavourable to the Nyasaland Government.

The Hilton Young Commission was a Commission of Inquiry appointed in 1926 to look into the possible closer union of the British territories in East and Central Africa. These were individually economically underdeveloped, and it was suggested that some form of association would result both in cost savings and their more rapid development. The Commission recommended an administrative union of the East African mainland territories, possibly to be joined later by the Central African ones. It also proposed that the legislatures of each territory should continue and saw any form of self-government as being a long-term aspiration. It did however reject the possibility of the European minorities in Kenya or Northern Rhodesia establishing political control in those territories, and rejected the claim of Kenyan Asians for the same voting rights as Europeans. Although the commission's recommendations on an administrative union were not followed immediately, closer ties in East Africa were established in the 1940s. However, in Central Africa, its report had the effect of encouraging European settlers to seek closer association with Southern Rhodesia, in what became in 1953 the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bledisloe Commission</span> 1937–9 Royal Commission examining the potential Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland

The Bledisloe Commission, also known as the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission, was a Royal Commission, appointed in 1937 and undertaking its enquiries between 1937 and 1939. to examine the possible closer union of the three British territories in Central Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. These territories were to some degree economically inter-dependent, and it was suggested that an association would promote their rapid development. Its chairman was Lord Bledisloe.

Since 1933, various traditional chiefs in Nyasaland have been designated as Native Authorities, initially by the colonial administration, and they numbered 105 in 1949.. They represented a form of the Indirect rule which had become popular in British African dependencies in the second quarter of the 20th century, although Nyasaland's Native Authorities had fewer powers and smaller incomes than similar institutions in other African colonies. The Native Authority system worked reasonably effectively until after the Second World War, when they were obliged to enforce unpopular government agricultural policies and, in some cases, their support for the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland made Native Authorities unpopular with many of their people. After 1953, many of the powers of individual chiefs were transferred to councils which became the Native Authorities, although the chiefs sat on these councils. After independence, the authorities were renamed Traditional Authorities and continued to operate, and the status and influence of many of the chiefs revived through their cooperation with the Malawi government of Hastings Banda.

Leroy Vail whose birth name was Hazen Leroy Vail, was an American specialist in African studies and educator who specialized in the history and linguistics of Central Africa and later extended his interests to Southern Africa. He taught in universities in Malawi, Zambia and the United States and his research in the first two countries inclined him toward the view that Central Africa underwent a period of underdevelopment that began in the mid-19th century and accelerated under colonial rule. After his return to the United States, he cooperated with Landeg White on studies of colonial Mozambique and on the value of African poetry and songs as a source of oral history.

References

  1. ↑ Kalinga (2012), pp. 193, 389
  2. ↑ Gupta (1975), pp. 54, 73-4
  3. ↑ Dilley (1966), pp. 18, 165
  4. ↑ Gupta (1975), p. 75
  5. ↑ Dilley (1966), pp. 70, 203
  6. ↑ Gupta, (1975) pp. 129, 280
  7. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), p. 3
  8. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 3-4
  9. ↑ Dilley (1966), p. 172
  10. ↑ Youé (1986), pp. 179, 191-2
  11. ↑ Youé (1986), p. 192
  12. ↑ Dilley (1966), p. 192
  13. ↑ Gupta, (1975), pp. 68, 77
  14. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), p. 190
  15. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 186-89
  16. ↑ Kuczynski, (1948). p. 633
  17. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), p. 4
  18. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 10-11, 16-17
  19. ↑ Hilton Young and others (1929), pp. 252-64, 269 74
  20. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), p. 11
  21. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 12-13
  22. ↑ Hammond (1929), pp. 21-3
  23. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 18-19
  24. ↑ Dilley (1966), pp. 171-2
  25. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 21-2
  26. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 47-9
  27. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 24-5, 27-31
  28. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 32-3, 35-6
  29. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 36, 38-9
  30. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 50-2
  31. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 52, 53-5
  32. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 63-7, 69
  33. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 70-1, 78-80
  34. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 81-2, 90-1
  35. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 38-9, 172
  36. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 186-7
  37. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), p. 188
  38. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 99-100
  39. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), p. 101
  40. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 103-4
  41. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 106-7
  42. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 110-11
  43. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 113-15, 118-9
  44. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 120-5
  45. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 130-2
  46. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), p. 132
  47. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 139-40
  48. ↑ Mukwaya (1953), pp. 3, 6-8
  49. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), p. 147
  50. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 148-50, 152
  51. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 154, 158
  52. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Church and Linfield (1925), pp. 168-9, 172
  53. ↑ Wetherell (1979), pp. 214-5, 225
  54. ↑ Malinowski (1929), pp. 317-9
  55. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Bishop of Liverpool, Church and others, pp 4-6
  56. ↑ Ormsby-Gore, Bishop of Liverpool, Church and others, pp 7-8
  57. ↑ B. R. Mngomezulu (2012), pp. 49-51
  58. ↑ Oliver and Atmore (2005), pp. 176-7
  59. ↑ Hansard (1936), vol. 313, col. 194
  60. ↑ Miller (2016), pp. 164-8

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.