The Hilton Young Commission (complete title: Royal Commission on Indian Currency and Finance) 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.
Background to the Commission In 1914, a number of territories on East and Central Africa were under British sovereignty, but they were neither united nor administered in the same way. The East Africa Protectorate, or Kenya, had originally been the subject of a grant to a Chartered company, the Imperial British East Africa Company in 1888, but when the company began to fail it was taken over as a British protectorate in July 1895. Uganda, which had become a British protectorate in 1894. Zanzibar became a British protectorate in 1890, but retained a Sultan as ruler.Institute of Curriculum Development, (1988). East Africa from 1850 to the Present, pp. 25–7. Nyasaland had been a British protectorate since 1891, but Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia were administered by another Chartered company, the British South Africa Company, under a Royal Charter dating from 1889.H. I Wetherell, (1979) Settler Expansionism in Central Africa: The Imperial Response of 1931 and Subsequent Implications, pp. 210–11.
Germany possessed German East Africa from 1885 to 1918, but after the First World War, Britain received a League of Nations mandate in 1922 over what was renamed Tanganyika Territory.Institute of Curriculum Development, (1988). East Africa from 1850 to the Present, p. 34. Also in 1922, a referendum was held in Southern Rhodesia in which the white minority electorate chose responsible government as an internally self-governing colony, rather than entry into the Union of South Africa. British South Africa Company rule in Northern Rhodesia ended in 1924, when it became a British protectorate.E A Walter, (1963). The Cambridge History of the British Empire: South Africa, Rhodesia and the High Commission Territories, Cambridge University Press pp. 690–1.
These changes resulted in a continuous block of British-controlled territories from the Zambezi northwards in which, following the principles first set out in 1923 by the Duke of Devonshire, who was then Colonial Secretary, the interests of Africans would be treated as paramount. However, the next Conservative Colonial Secretary, Leo Amery later attempted to qualify this principle, and gave tacit encouragement to the aspirations of non-native immigrant communities hoping to obtain a degree of self-government following the model of Southern Rhodesia. In Northern Rhodesia, the tiny white community aimed for a similar constitutional position to that in Southern Rhodesia.H. I Wetherell, (1979) Settler Expansionism in Central Africa: The Imperial Response of 1931 and Subsequent Implications, pp. 210–11, 217.
In Kenya Colony, which was formed in 1920 from the former East Africa Protectorate, there was a significant immigrant community from British India, and a smaller Arab one, as well as a European community. From 1905, one Indian was nominated to the Kenya Legislative Council to represent Asian interests. In 1919, when Europeans became able to elect members to the Kenya Legislative Council, Asians were excluded from the franchise. The offer of a second nominated Indian seat on that council was refused in 1920 as unrepresentative of the size and economic strength of the Indian community. In 1927, Indian representation was increased to five members, of whom four were nominated, compared with eleven members elected by Europeans. There was also one nominated Arab member and African interests on the Legislative Council were represented by a single nominated European. Up to twenty official Legislative Council members, all but one European, could outvote the 18 communal representatives. There were then no Africans on the council, and the representatives of both the European and Indian immigrant communities both opposed their admission and any increase in African representation there.R G Gregory, (1971). India and East Africa: a history of race relations within the British Empire, 1890–1939, pp. 90, 179, 271, 310.
The Commission's objectives The East and Central Africa territories were individually rather small and economically underdeveloped, so some form of association could result in cost savings. The inter-communal problems in Kenya were also of concern, so in 1927 the Colonial Secretary decided that these matters should be examined.Royal Institute of International Affairs, (1929). The Hilton-Young and Wilson Reports on East Africa p. 267-8.
The Hilton Young Commission on Closer Union of the Dependencies of East and Central Africa, was a Commission of Inquiry appointed in late 1927 by the Colonial Secretary, Leo Amery, and it reported to him in January 1929. Its chairman was Edward Hilton Young, later 1st Baron Kennet, and it included Sir Reginald Mant, a former Financial Secretary to the Government of India, Sir George Ernest Schuster, a barrister and former Financial Secretary to the Government of Sudan, and J. H. Oldham, the Secretary of the International Missionary Council. The terms of reference, in abbreviated form, were:
(1) To make recommendations on whether federation or another form of closer union could lead to more effective co-operation between the different Central and Eastern African governments, in particular on developing transport and communications, customs tariffs and administration, scientific research and defence;
(2) To consider which territories could now or in the future be brought within any closer union, considering the League of Nations Mandate over Tanganyika Territory;
(3) To make recommendations on changes in the powers and composition of the Legislative Councils of these territories:
(a) as the result of forming any Federal Council or other common authority;
(b) to associate the immigrant communities more closely in government; and
(c) to secure more direct representation of native interests;
(4) To suggest how the Dual Policy recommended by the Conference of East African Governors could best be applied in the political as well as the economic sphere.
(5) To make recommendations on what improvements may be required in internal communications between the various territories to facilitate the working of federation or closer union.
(6) To report on the financial aspects of any proposals they may make. Hilton Young Commission Report pp, 2–6. https://www.scribd.com/doc/74835698/CAB-24-201-Report-of-the-Commission-on-Closer-Union-of-the-Dependencies-in-Eastern-and-Central-Africa-1929
General recommendations The Commission interpreted its instructions as raising two main questions:
(1) Should there be either federation or a closer form of union between the territories of Eastern and Central Africa to secure more effective co-operation between them? and
(2) What form of constitution is suitable for those territories in which non-native immigrant communities have become permanently domiciled?
It concluded that to achieve effective co-operation, a coherent "native policy" was required. The principles of this policy should be applied uniformly in all the territories, although adapted to different local circumstances. Secondly, the relationship between the indigenous African population and the immigrant communities had to be defined. If those immigrant communities were to be given a political role, they could not be allowed to change the terms of that native policy. Co-operation in transport and communications, customs, defence and research were of much less significance.Royal Institute of International Affairs, (1929). The Hilton-Young and Wilson Reports on East Africa p. 267.
The "Dual Policy" referred to in the fourth term of reference was that proposed by Lord Lugard in his book "The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa". In colonies where climate and geography precluded extensive European settlement, Lugard suggested that their development must benefit their indigenous population as well as the economic interests of the colonial power. He recognised African interests as paramount, but encouraged settlement by immigrants if their interests did not conflict with those of the indigenous population. In East Africa, particularly in Kenya, the policy was complicated by the existence and political aspirations of both European and Asian settlers. The Commissioners considered that the policy of the British government towards both indigenous and immigrant communities should be agreed by all political parties.B. Malinowski, (1929). Report of the Commission on Closer Union of the Dependencies in Eastern and Central Africa, p. 317.
The "Dual Policy" and "native policy" both required the creation and maintenance of resources for African development. The report said that this should be the first duty of the government of each territory: only after this should any surplus be used to promote immigrant enterprises. The commissioners considered that the first requirement was for indigenous communities to have sufficient land to maintain a reasonable living standard using traditional agriculture methods. This land should be reserved for the African population and protected from encroachment by immigrants. They also thought it was necessary to deal with land tenure, and anticipated a change from communal landholding to individual tenure. The commission also considered labour issues, demanding a limit on the recruitment of more than a fixed percentage if workers as migrant labour and insisting on the inspection of work contracts and conditions.Hilton Young Commission Report, pp. 41–8.B. Malinowski, (1929). Report of the Commission on Closer Union of the Dependencies in Eastern and Central Africa, pp. 317–9