Dawn in darkest Africa

by John H. Harris

Mr. Harris’ position is so completely detached that he may, without the least hesitation, be acquitted of any desire to exalt unduly the achievements of his own countrymen. The spirit in which he writes is not national, but cosmopolitan. Moreover, he is manifestly not greatly enamoured of the proceedings of some, at all events, of the British officials. For these reasons his testimony is all the more valuable when he speaks, as is frequently the case, in terms of warm praise of the successful results which have been attained under British administration. He says it is not only the best in West Central Africa, but that the natives themselves recognize that it is the best. This testimony is all the more satisfactory because the excellence of British rule has not been always fully recognized in those circles in which Mr. Harris principally moves. “With inherent instinct,” he says ([p. 257]), “the British Government recognizes that the real asset of the Colony (i.e. the Gold Coast Colony) is the indigenous inhabitant, whose material and moral progress is not only the first, but the truest interest of the State.” It is by proceeding on this sound principle that the natives have been kept in possession of the land. “The almost phenomenal success of the cocoa industry in the British Colony of the Gold Coast,” Mr. Harris says ([p. 161]), “is due entirely to the fact that the natives are the proprietors of the cocoa farms.” It is also by the adoption of this principle that it has been possible to solve the thorny labour question. “The native farmers of Southern Nigeria and the Gold Coast employ a good deal of native labour and generally speaking find little difficulty in obtaining all they want” ([p. 262]).[4] Mr. Harris claims ([p. 264]) that the economic will be no less satisfactory than the moral results of the liberal policy which has been adopted by Great Britain, and that “the indigenous industry of the British Colonies working in its own interests, unencumbered by the heavy cost of European supervision and the drawbacks of imported contract labour, will, under the guidance of a paternal and sympathetic administration, certainly outdistance and leave far behind in the race of supremacy such systems as those which prevail in San Thomé and Principe.” I trust, and I also believe, that Mr. Harris will prove to be a true prophet.

It is, moreover, the adoption of the principle to which I have alluded above which enabled an American Bishop ([p. 109]) to characterize as “just marvellous” the way in which the English are “covering the Continent with educated natives,” and I am particularly glad he was able to add “with carpenters, bricklayers, and engineers.”

In spite, however, of the unstinted praise which Mr. Harris has to bestow and which makes it clear that, broadly speaking, we may legitimately be proud of what our countrymen, both official and non-official, have accomplished in Western Africa, he indicates certain defects in the administration, some of which appear to me to be well worthy of the attention of the responsible authorities.

In the first place, he says ([p. 125]) that “between the British official class and the merchant community a great gulf is fixed.”[5] If this is the case, there would certainly appear to be something wrong. There ought to be no such gulf. But as I presume there is an official side to the case, which I have never heard, I do not presume to pronounce any opinion on the merits of the point at issue. Neither is it altogether pleasant to read the episode related on [p. 151]. It is clearly not right to march into a church whilst service is going on, impound a number of carriers and “insist on a native clergyman carrying a box containing whisky.” One may charitably hope that the facts of the case were not quite accurately reported to Mr. Harris.

In the absence of adequate local knowledge I cannot pursue the discussion of this branch of the subject any further, but there is one observation I should wish to make. There cannot be a greater mistake than to employ underpaid officials in the outlying dominions of the Crown. We do not want the worst, or even the second best of our race to prosecute the Imperial policy to which we are wedded as a necessity of our national existence. The work presents so many difficulties of various descriptions that if we are to succeed we must impound into the British service the best elements which our race can produce, and, as I am well aware, even when their services are obtained and every care has been taken, mistakes will sometimes occur in making appointments. And if we want the best material we must pay the best price for it. Men of the required type will not submit to all the privations and discomforts, not to speak of the dangers of an African career unless they are adequately remunerated. I know well from bitter experience the difficulties attendant on paying high salaries out of an impoverished, and even out of a semi-bankrupt Treasury. And I also know the criticisms to which, notably in these democratic days, the payment of high salaries is exposed. My answer to the first of these objections is that if the Treasury cannot afford to give adequate salaries to its European agents it is, on all grounds, wiser to diminish the amount of European agency, or even to dispense with it altogether. My own experience has led me to prefer infinitely the employment of two efficient men on £500 a year to that of four doubtfully efficient men on £250. My answer to the second objection is that those who plead against high salaries are generally very ill-informed of the facts with which they are dealing, and that, if ever there was a case when Government, being better informed, should resist a hasty expression of public opinion, it is this.

Are the British agents employed in subordinate positions in Africa adequately paid? From all I have heard I have considerable doubts whether they are so. In dealing with this subject, I have heard it sometimes said: “Candidates are plentiful. If we can get a man on £250 a year or less, why should we give him £500?” I consider this argument not merely pernicious but ridiculous. It would never be used by any one who has been brought face to face with the difficulties which have actually to be encountered. Its application in practice is liable to lead to very serious consequences in the shape of loss of national credit, and possibly in other and even more serious directions.

Turning to another point, I notice ([p. 120]) that Mr. Harris states that coloured men are practically debarred from entering the medical service in the West African Colonies, and absolutely in the Gold Coast. If so, I can only say that this regulation contrasts unfavourably with the procedure adopted in other British possessions of which the inhabitants are coloured, and adopted, moreover, without, so far as I am aware, the production of any inconvenience. Possibly there are some special reasons, with which I am unacquainted, which apply to West Africa, but they must be very strong to justify a course so little in harmony with the general practice and policy of the British Government elsewhere.

Mr. Harris deals fully with the subject of education, and in his fifth chapter chivalrously defends the cause of that much-abused individual the “educated native,” whose merits and demerits seem to present a striking identity of character whether his residence be on the banks of the Ganges, the Nile, or the Congo. The old complaint with which Indian administrators are so familiar, that the education afforded is too purely literary, re-appears in West Africa. Mr. Harris, however, dwells with justifiable pride ([p. 109]) on the number of carpenters, bricklayers and other mechanics turned out of the Mission Schools, and ([p. 112]) he most rightly insists on the importance of extending “that largely neglected branch of education—practical agriculture.” He suggests that a Commission should be appointed “to study the whole question of the education of the African peoples in British Equatorial possessions, with the object of ascertaining how far the Government may be able to secure a more even balance between the literary and technical training of natives, and how far it may be possible to so re-adjust existing systems as to avoid denationalization.”

My confidence in the results obtained by appointing Royal Commissions is limited, but they afford a useful machinery for classifying facts and sifting evidence, and thus provide some safeguard against the risk, which is nowhere more conspicuous than in dealing with educational subjects, of generalizing from imperfect or incorrect data. Mr. Harris’ suggestion on this point will, I trust, receive due consideration.

Mr. Harris also dwells ([pp. 113, 114]) on the results which ensue when young Africans are sent to England to obtain legal or medical education. “No strong and friendly hand is outstretched to help them, no responsible person comes forward to take them by the hand and bring them in touch with the better elements of our national life.... Who can be surprised if the only seeds they carry back to the Colonies are those evil ones which produce a crop of tares to the embarrassment of Governments?”