^{Page 221 note 1} See Hailey, Lord, The Republic of South Africa and the High Commission Territories (Oxford, 1963),Google Scholar which contains and invaluable commentary on the issues raised in this article.

^{Page 221 note 2} The relevant dates are: Basutoland 1884, Bechuanaland 1885, Swaziland 1907.

^{Page 221 note 3} Ashton, H., The Basuto (London, 1952), p. 5.Google Scholar

^{Page 222 note 1} Hodgson, M. L., and Ballinger, W. G., Britain in Southern Africa: No. 2, Bechuanaland Protectorate (Durban, n.d.).Google Scholar

^{Page 223 note 1} SirPim, Alan, Financial and Economic Position of Basutoland (London, 1935), Cmd. 4907, p. 49.Google Scholar

^{Page 223 note 2} Evans, C.I.L., Native Policy in Southern Africa (Cambridge, 1934), pp. 76–9.Google Scholar

^{Page 224 note 1} Hailey, Lord, Native Administration in the British African Territories, pt. v, ‘The High Commission Territories’ (London, 1953), p. 93.Google Scholar

^{Page 225 note 1} SirPim, Alan, Financial and Economic Position of the Bechuanaland Protectorate (London, 1933), Cmd. 4368, pp. 38 and 56.Google Scholar

^{Page 226 note 1} Hailey, op. cit. p. 219.

^{Page 226 note 2} It should be pointed out that reforms had been instituted in the other tribal areas, despite the delays in the Bamangwato and Bangwaketse reserves.

^{Page 227 note 1} Hailey, op. cit. p. 324.

^{Page 227 note 2} SirPim, Alan, Financial and Economic Position of Swaziland (London, 1932), Cmd. 4114, p. 18.Google Scholar

^{Page 227 note 3} Hailey, op. cit. p. 383.

^{Page 228 note 1} See e.g. Walker, E., A History of Southern Africa (London, 1957).Google Scholar

^{Page 229 note 1} Stevens, Cf. R. P., ‘Swaziland Political Development,’ in The Journal of Modern African Studies, I, 3, 1963.Google Scholar

^{Page 229 note 2} Macmillan, W. M., Africa Emergent (London, 1949), p. 171.Google Scholar

^{Page 230 note 1} Pim, Report on Swaizland, p. 25.Google Scholar

^{Page 231 note 2} Quoted by Ashton, Hugh, ‘The High Commission Territories’, in Handbook on Race Relations in South Africa (Oxford, 1949), p. 720.Google Scholar

^{Page 231 note 1} See Pim, Report on Basutoland, appendix VI, pp. 191–2,Google Scholar for detailed figures.

^{Page 233 note 1} It is extremely difficult to arrive at accurate figures for this period, because the annual Colonial Reports are sometimes ambiguous in their presentation of financial details. This is particularly true of Bechuanaland.

^{Page 233 note 2} Baustoland only began to receive these funds in 1944.

^{Page 234 note 1} In addition, the three territories received a total between them of £1,351,000 in loans from the Colonial Development Corporation between 1945 and 1955.

^{Page 235 note 1} Basutoland, Bechuanaland Protectorate, and Swaziland: Report of an Economic Survey Mission (London, 1960).Google Scholar

^{Page 235 note 2} See Green, L. P. and Fair, T. J. D., ‘Preparing for Swaziland's Future Economic Growth,’ in Optima (Johannesburg), 12 1960.Google Scholar

^{Page 236 note 1} Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and Swaziland: History of discussions with the Union of South Africa, 1909–39 (London, 1952), Cmd. 8707, p. 55.Google Scholar Subsequent page numbers given in the text refer to this document.

^{Page 236 note 2} Cf. the British Secretary of State: ‘General Hertzog remarked that the natives were never likely to be eager for transfer, but I pointed out that there was all the difference between a situation in which the natives are vehemently opposed and the House of Commons critical, or at any rate, uncertain as to the native policy of the Union, and the situation in which the policy of the Union has been proved in actual working to be such as to satisfy the House of Commons that the natives would in effect not be substantially worse off. In such circumstances the House of Commons might well be prepared to disregard the comparatively mild objection and agree to the administration using its influence to persuade the natives into acceptance of the transfer. I concluded, therefore, that it was better that the question should not be raised, even as regards Swaziland, until the new Native Policy of the Union had actually been in working for some little time.’ Note by L.S.Amery on his discussion with General Hertzog on 6 September 1927; ibid. p. 36. This is an interesting statement in view of the controversy that developed later between Hertzog and MacDonald over the interpretation of the 1935 aide-mémoire and particularly over whether local officials were to use their influence to persuade the inhabitants (see pp. 237–40, below).

^{Page 240 note 1} Letter of 1 July 1936 from MacDonald to Hertzog: ‘But whilst I am faced with difficulties in the House of Commons, I am conscious that you, too, have difficulties and am anxious that we should help each other’; ibid. p. 68.

^{Page 242 note 1} The Times, 23 December 1937.

^{Page 242 note 2} Mansergh, N. (ed.), Documents and Speeches on British Commonwealth Affairs, 1931–1952 (London, 1953), vol. II, p. 922.Google Scholar

^{Page 244 note 1} SirPim, Alan, ‘The Question of the South African Protectorates,’ in International Affairs (London), XIII, 5, 1934, p. 676.Google Scholar

^{Page 244 note 2} Pim, Report on Basutoland, p. 75.Google Scholar

^{Page 244 note 3} Hodgson and Ballinger, op. cit. pp. 64–6; Macmillan, op.cit. pp. 203–4; Evans, op.cit. p. 101: Pim, Report on Basutoland, pp. 69–75;Google ScholarPim, Report on Bechuanaland, pp. 56–67;Google ScholarPim, Report on Swaziland, pp. 39–43.Google Scholar A more recent critic is SirFurze, Ralph in his autobiography Aucuparius (Oxford, 1962).Google Scholar

^{Page 245 note 1} Edwards, Isabel, Protectorates or Native Reserves? (London, n.d.), Africa Bureau pamphlet, p. 17.Google Scholar