The Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom have unanimously urged the retention of East Africa on the grounds of commercial advantage. The Presidents of the London and Liverpool chambers attended a deputation to her majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs to urge "the absolute necessity, for the prosperity of this country, that new avenues for commerce such as that in East Equatorial Africa should be opened up, in view of the hostile tariffs with which British manufacturers are being everywhere confronted." Manchester followed with a similar declaration; Glasgow, Birmingham, Edinburgh, and other commercial centers gave it as their opinion that "there is practically no middle course for this country, between a reversal of the free-trade policy to which it is pledged, on the one hand, and a prudent but continuous territorial extension for the creation of new markets, on the other hand." Such is the view of the Chambers of commerce, and I might quote endless paragraphs from their resolutions and reports in the same sense. The "Scramble for Africa" by the nations of Europe--an incident without parallel in the history of the world--was due to the growing commercial rivalry, which brought home to civilized nations the vital necessity of securing the only remaining fields for industrial enterprise and expansion. It is well, then, to realize that it is for our advantage--and not alone at the dictates of duty--that we have undertaken responsibilities in East Africa. It is in order to foster the growth of the trade of this country, and to find an outlet for our manufactures and one surplus energy, that our far-seeing statesmen and our commercial men advocate colonial expansion.... There are some who say we have no right in Africa at all, that it "belongs to the native." I hold that our right is the necessity that is upon us to provide for our ever-growing population--either by opening new fields for emigration, or by providing work and employment which the development of over-sea extension entails--and to stimulate trade by finding new markets, since we know what misery trade depression brings at home. While thus serving our own interest as a nation, we may, by selecting men of the right stamp for the control of the new territories, bring at the same time many advantages to Africa. Nor do we deprive the natives of their birthright of freedom, to place them under a foreign yoke. It has never been the key-note of British colonial method to rule by and through the natives, and it is this method, in contrast to the arbitrary and uncompromising rule of Germany, France, Portugal, and Spain, which has been the secret of our success as a colonizing nation, and has made us welcomed by tribes and peoples in Africa, who ever rose in revolt against other nations named. In Africa, moreover, there is among the people a natural inclination to submit to a higher authority. That intense detestation of control which animates our Teutonic race does not exist among the tribes of Africa, and if there is any authority that we replace, it is the authority of the Slavers and Arabs, or the intolerable tyranny of the "dominant tribe."...
So far, therefore, as my personal experience goes, I have formed the following estimates: (1) No kind of men I have ever met with--including British soldiers, Afghans, Burmese, and many other tribes of India--are more amenable to discipline, more ready to fall into the prescribed groove willingly and quickly, more easy to handle, or require so little compulsion as the African. (2) To obtain satisfactory results a great deal of system, division of labour, supervision, etc., is required. (3) On the whole, the African is very quick at learning, and those who prove themselves at the superior class of work take pride in the results, and are very amenable to a word of praise, blame, or sarcasm.