No Offense

Liberal leader Clement Davies rose last week in the House of Commons and said: "I beg to move that this House deplores the decision to continue the banishment of Tshekedi Khama from the Bamangwato Territory . . . and calls upon His Majesty's Government to rescind the order and allow him to dwell freely within the territory of his tribe."

It had been 15 months since Tshekedi, prosperous cattle rancher and former tribal Regent, was kicked out of the Bamangwato Reserve in the British Protectorate of Bechuanaland, following into exile his nephew, handsome, Oxford-educated Seretse Khama, chief of the Bamangwatos (TIME, March 20, 1950).

The official explanation for their banishment: their squabbling over Seretse's marriage to a blonde London typist endangered tribal unity. The real reason: to placate South Africa's rabid, racist Prime Minister Daniel Malan, who is ready to seize any excuse to take over Bechuanaland, which borders his country to the north.

Seretse has been living in London with his wife and baby daughter on a -L-1,000-a-year government allowance; Tshekedi stayed with a neighboring tribe in Bechuanaland until he turned up in London last March to plead his case.

M.P.s of all parties have been agitated by the nagging conviction that both Khamas got a dirty deal. "There can be very little doubt in anyone's mind," declared Tory M.P. Julian Amery, "that the government decided to banish . . . Seretse because of his marriage to a European woman. They were anxious to avoid giving offense . . . [but] instead of frankly stating the real reason . . . the [government] endeavored to find an alternative explanation . . ." Amery added that the government had "seized upon the difference of opinion which existed between Seretse and Tshekedi and magnified it, puffed it up," until London "could pretend that it threatened the unity and good order of the tribe."

Patrick Gordon-Walker, Commonwealth Relations Secretary, replied for the government but his arguments were unconvincing. Said he: "A very difficult case . . . We [must] balance private interests and public will and public good . . . against an African background which is not easy to understand . . . The passing of the motion tonight might have very grave consequences."

Many Laborite consciences were burning when the debate ended. If it had been a free vote, some undoubtedly would have joined the Liberals and Tories in condemning the government's highhanded stand. But the government's life was at stake; every Laborite dutifully cast his vote against Davies' motion, defeating it by 300 votes to 279.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.