HC Deb 03 August 1877 vol 236 cc394-408

(Mr. J. Lowther.)

CONSIDERATION. [BILLS 195, 271.]

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)

MR. O'DONNELL

rose to move, according to Notice, that the Bill be considered this day three months. A great many Amendments had been introduced into the Bill which were wholly unnecessary, and 30 or 40 clauses struck out, and a few had been amended in a direction which seemed to supply some more guarantee for Constitutional government and the protection of the Native races than was originally provided; but still further and better guarantees were required for Constitutional government of the different States than the proposed Confederation would afford. Most of the objections to the Bill still remained unanswered. No answer had been made to the objection that the Bill was unasked for by those mainly concerned. Government had been repeatedly asked for the evidence of the convenience or necessity of this measure; but Government had adduced no proof that this or any similar Bill was or would be required by the States affected, either now or for some time to come. By clinging to the period named for the carrying out of the clauses of the Bill the Government tacitly admitted that a Bill which had been pushed forward with so much vehemence was not really required. The Cape Colony desired to have nothing to with it unless it could be worked so as to carry out the policy of the Colony; and he feared that, in spite of the appearance that the policy adopted was that of the Colonial Office, it would really be that of the Cape Colony, which was in favour, not of federal, but of legislative union. If we desired to win the support of the Cape Colony, we should have to assent to legislative union; and in that case the greater part of the time spent upon the Bill would have been wasted. The Colony of Griqualand West, which up to yesterday was as free a State as Natal, had not asked for it. Besides all those objections, the Bill was so studiously vague, being unasked for, that it was framed either for federal union or legislative union, and it contained no provisions for protection of the Colonists and Native races from mutual injuries. It was known from all recent news that had reached this country from the Cape that the Kaffir population and the European Colonists were not safe. Murders were committed. The Kaffir King declared that he had been deceived by Her Majesty's Government, and that instead of receiving the Transvaal, which he expected would be given to him, this legislation was proposed. Her Majesty's Government, with singular reticence, had kept back their project for federation until towards the end of the Session; but the project would prove a disturbing cause in the South African Colonies, and he would refer, as a proof of that, that one of the Native Chiefs was going about among his kinsmen, and arousing their passions to excitement and alarm. The matter was most serious, and the Native population interpret the legislation as a combination of the White men against the Black men. The Chiefs, according to Sir Henry Barkly, were combining for the protection of their race, and the European population, on their part, were full of apprehension as to the consequences that might result from this legislation. This Bill would be a danger to the Native population, because it took away liberties to it with one hand which it gave with the other. These Colonies were not ripe for confederation. The Colony of the Cape could alone pretend to anything like civilization. In Natal, for instance, there were 20,000 Whites who were mere adventurers, and 150,000 polygamous savages; and yet it was proposed to confer on these 20,000 diamond-dust washers and miners the power to override the Native races. He moved that the consideration of the Bill be deferred for three months—if it were deferred for 33 months he believed no one would be harmed—it would remain a dead letter from the day of its enactment.

MR. PARNELL

, in seconding the Motion, said, that in framing the Bill the Government had left out of sight the principles which ought to direct federation, and had equally disregarded the feelings of the people of the Colonies. The Bill was a parody on federation, and the manner in which it had been discussed in Committee was a parody upon legislation. It was worse, for it formed a precedent which might be acted upon most disastrously hereafter, whenever a tyrant majority desired to override the rights of a minority. They had shown that, practically speaking, there was no limit to the power of the majority to alter their Rules, and, having altered them, there was no limit to their power of abusing them. The hon. Member was proceeding to comment on the clauses of the Bill, when—

MR. WHALLEY

rose to Order, amid some expressions of disapproval, and asked Mr. Speaker whether the hon. Member, at that stage of the Bill, was at liberty to refer to separate clauses of it?

MR. SPEAKER

A reference in detail to the several clauses of the Bill is, at this stage of it, no doubt out of Order; but a reference to one particular clause of it, as an illustration of the argument, is in Order, and the hon. Member is therefore in Order in taking that course.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was very much obliged to Mr. Speaker for his protection. The hon. Member proceeded to say that the magnitude of the Bill was greatly in excess of the apparent requirements of the occasion. What was actually wanted was simply an enabling Bill to authorize Her Majesty's Government to do whatever they pleased in the matter. Instead of being a Bill to give certain options to these States, it was rather a Bill to enable an Order in Council to override the authority of Parliament, to take away from these Colonies, with the exception of Cape Colony, all their legislative power, and to join them together in any way the Crown might see fit. The Cape Colony had a representative system, but what of the unfortunate Transvaal Republic, which had been annexed? What of the Orange Free State, whose forcible annexation they contemplated? and what of Natal? These Colonies, he maintained, would be perfectly helpless under the arrangements which the Bill made. With half the Members of the Legislative Chamber nominated by the Government, it would be easy to procure a vote that would override the wishes of the people and decide peremptorily on the question of federation or of union. It would have been far better if the Government had plainly avowed their object, and given to the Bill a title more in conformity with it. In that case the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) would have been spared many anxious moments, and the House itself much contention, and a great deal of bad language. ["Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is not in Order in saying that bad language is used in the House by other hon. Members, and I must call upon him to withdraw the expression.

MR. PARNELL

would at once withdraw the expression. He had, of late, been accustomed to read so much bad language in the newspapers, that he hoped that would be accepted in excuse for his transgression. The policy of the Government had tended in the direction of creating a system which should be under the direct control of the Cabinet at home, without reference to the true interest of the Colonies. If this had not been the case, the House of Commons would not have lost its character as a deliberative Assembly. [Cries of "Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

called the hon. Member to Order, remarking that imputations of the kind could not be permitted in the House.

MR. PARNELL

at once withdrew the observation. The Bill was not one calculated to effect the object for which it was nominally introduced. The Bill proposed completely to destroy the functions of the existing Colonial Legislatures, to destroy the existing boundaries of the Colonies, to cut up the Colonies into what were called Provinces, and to give to the Provinces what were called Provincial Councils. But these Provincial Councils would be but poor and paltry substitutes for the local Legislatures of which these Colonies would be deprived. The Provincial Councils would not be representative of the opinion of the people, inasmuch as they were to remain in existence for such time as Her Majesty in Council should appoint. Why did not this Bill follow the example of the Canada Confederation Bill, and make provision for the continuance of the Legislative Assemblies of these Colonies? The result of such a measure would be to preclude Cape Colony from joining the Confederation, because she could not do so without surrendering her Legislative Assembly. And how had we treated the Transvaal? We had seized the opportunity of conquering that brave little Colony at the moment when she was engaged fighting with numerous enemies on the other side—and then annexed her. The ground upon which we had annexed that Colony was that slavery existed, and that the Natives were badly treated in it. But slavery did not now exist there; and if the fact that the Natives were badly treated was a ground for annexing the Colony, we should be laying down a rule that would justify any stronger Power than ourselves in annexing our Colonies. We were told, and that by persons who were thoroughly conversant with the subject, that a far worse form of slavery than that which prevailed in the Transvaal existed in one of England's own Colonies at the present moment—a Colony in which the Natives were said to have been as badly treated as those in the Transvaal had been. The fact was that we were simply setting up the doctrine of the strong hand. He had thought that this England was an enlightened and a civilized country, and that we had laid aside all the principles of spoliation and of conquest. In this case, however, we had marched troops into this Colony where they had no business to be, and had annexed a braver people than we were ourselves, and one far more worthy of liberty than a people who did not know what liberty meant. ["Question!"] This was very much to the Question. All that we knew about the Transvaal was that Sir Theophilus Shepstone, backed by 1,300 British soldiers, was ruling this Colony, about the Government of which we were entirely ignorant; and that we were asked to pay £100,000 for this act of spoliation. The rights of the Colony of Natal, instead of being respected, had been placed at the mercy of an Order in Council by this Bill, and those of the Transvaal had been equally disregarded. In fact, there never was such a parody upon legislation and confederation as this measure presented to us. The Government had never yet told the House what their object in passing this Bill was, and day after day had been wasted in endeavours to get at the bottom of the Government designs in the matter. It would appear from this measure that the Government intended to give these South African Colonies no rights or privileges whatever, but to place them completely at the mercy, not of that House, but of Orders in Council. So far from thinking that he had gone sufficiently far in his opposition to this Bill, he was convinced that he had not gone half far enough. He was glad to have had an opportunity of stating his opinion upon this measure; because, owing to the multitude of subjects which had engaged the attention of Parliament this Session, he had not been able to make himself fully acquainted with the provisions of the Bill in time for its second reading. He was not then aware of the enormous scope of this Bill, and, in common with most other hon. Members, he had been deceived as to the intentions of the Government on the subject. The hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill had shown how well he was able to oppose by dilatory means the passage of Bills, such as the Ballot Bill and the Army Purchase Bill, which were supposed to infringe on the privileges of his class. The hon. Gentleman had shown, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown, that while they knew how to protect the interests of their own class, they knew also how to prevent others from protecting the interests of those who lay at their mercy.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that he could not allow the speech to which they had just listened to pass without remark. The hon. Member who had just sat down had intimated that no adequate opportunity had been afforded to hon. Members to address the House on the subject. [Mr. PARNELL: In Committee on the clauses.] He (Mr. Lowther), on the other hand, ventured to say that the Bill had been amply discussed at every one of its stages. The principle of the Bill had been fully discussed on the second reading. The Bill was set down, as the First Order of the Day, and the whole time up to the termination of the sitting of the House was left at the disposal of those hon. Gentlemen who chose to address it. If hon. Members who had devoted attention to the question had not addressed the House, it was not the fault of the Government. A whole night was devoted to the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair, another night to the 3rd clause, and a day and night, prolonged after a fashion for a parallel to which we must look back to the early period of Scripture History, to the other clauses of the Bill. Taking into account the long period devoted to the consideration of the principles of the Bill and the discussions recurring in such a manner as to afford any hon. Gentleman who might have been absent at one time an opportunity of hearing all that could be said upon the subject at another, and thus fully compensating him for what he might have lost, he might fairly say that the principles of the Bill had been discussed ad nauseum. He should only disobey the general wish of the House if he were to enter once more on the question of the annexation of the Transvaal. He had already treated that question very fully, and, notwithstanding what had been said, he still adhered to the opinion that he was right in devoting a large portion of his attention to a subject of great importance and interest to the House of Commons. All he would say now was that he could not accept the allegation that the annexation of the Transvaal was the result of the alleged oppression of the Native races by the Boers. As long as the people of the Transvaal confined themselves simply to those matters which concerned themselves only, and with which we had nothing to do, we should not have interfered. He had stated positively that they were entitled to govern themselves as they pleased, provided always that they did not act in any way to the prejudice or injury of Her Majesty's Colonies. That was the policy he laid down, and he entirely repudiated anything of a humanitarian character in the matter. The action of Her Majesty's Government was solely, expressly, and avowedly caused by the imminent danger to Her Majesty's subjects, brought about by the external policy of the Transvaal. And with regard to the Orange Free State, he most distinctly repudiated any idea that its "forcible annexation" was contemplated by the Government. On the contrary, it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government to continue those friendly relations with the Orange Free State which had characterized the intercourse between them up to the present time. The hon. Gentleman had talked of 19 or 20 clauses having been struck out of the Bill; but if the hon. Gentleman could have spared from some of his multifarious occupations time to examine the Bill more closely, he would have seen that only 13 clauses had been struck out—all, except one, being matters of the purest detail. He hoped the House would excuse him for not entering into further details.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered.

Clause 3 (Declaration of union and provision for its completion).

MR. O'DONNELL

proposed, in page 2, line 3, after "Council," to insert "issued within two years from the passing of this Act." He said that his object was that a vague measure like this should not be left for an indefinite time to beat about the four corners of the world. In the course of five years the whole history of Europe might be changed, and the Government might be perplexed to find that they had this business of the Confederation on their hands. He hoped the Government would be able to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 3, after the word "Council," to insert the words "issued within two years from the passing of this Act."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

opposed the Amendment.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

MR. O'DONNELL

proposed, in the same clause, line 5, after "legislatures," to insert "after the constituencies have been consulted." He thought that before the formation of any union the constituencies had a right to be consulted as well as the Legislature. It would not be fair to press on the people a Confederation to which they might object—particularly when the nominee element prevailed to such an extent.

MR. BIGGAR

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 5, after the word "Legislatures," to insert the words "after the constituencies have been consulted."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that five years would not pass without an appeal to the electors in the Colonies possessing Representative Assemblies; but if the scheme were handicapped with this Amendment, it was possible that the very object in view might be defeated.

MR. COURTNEY

urged that the Bill as it stood would leave it possible for a Legislature to vote one way and its electors immediately after to vote another—a danger which had occurred in Canada, and which it was desirable to guard against in this case. The second argument of the Under Secretary was most remarkable, for it implied that the danger was that the constituencies would reject Confederation. He should have been glad to hear from a Member of the Cabinet some sort of reason for objecting to so Constitutional a proviso. An Order in Council might be issued before an election could take place; and he submitted that the Legislature should not have power to effect Confederation if the constituencies were opposed to it.

MR. GORST

said, the idea of the Under Secretary was that the electors were now in favour of confederation, and it would be a misfortune if this House were to say that their Repre- sentatives should not vote for it without subjecting the constituencies to a penal dissolution.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 173: Majority 155.—(Div. List, No. 296.)

AYES — Barclay, J. W. W. Briggs, W. E.
Burt, T. Butt, I. Courtney, L. H.
Cowen, J. Fawcett, H. Ferguson, R.
Gray, E. D. Havelock, Sir H. James, W. H.
Jenkins, E. Lawson, Sir W. Nolan, Captain
O'Beirne, Capt. Parnell, C. S. Power, J. O'C.
Richard, H.

TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Biggar.

MR. O'DONNELL

moved, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "Union" and insert "Confederation." The effect of his Amendment would be that the new Union would be called the South African "Confederation," and it could not then be mixed up with the Canadian "Dominion" or the United States.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the word " Union,' and insert the word "Confederation,"— (Mr. O'Donnell,)—instead thereof.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that if the word "Union" were retained, it would enable the Colonies to choose either a closer or a looser title, as they might prefer the word "Union" or "Confederation." The clause gave power to Her Majesty to declare the Confederation "with name and designation as to Her Majesty may seem fit."

Question, "That the word 'Union' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Provinces).

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 36, before the word "The," to insert the words "Before the first assembling of the Union Parliament."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

MR. BIGGAR

supported the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

pointed out that the sub-section of the 3rd clause rendered the Amendment unnecessary.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Clause 9 (Constitution of Privy Council of the Union).

MR. O'DONNELL

moved an Amendment providing that all alterations in the Members of such Privy Council should be effected on the advice of Ministers responsible to the Union Parliament.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 16, after the word "general," to insert the words "always providing that such additions to and such removals from the said Privy Council shall take place by the advice of ministers responsible to the Union Parliament."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Clause 16 (Privileges, &c, of Houses).

MR. COURTNEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 30, at end, to add— And until the passing of such Act the said privileges, immunities, and powers shall be the same as those at the time of the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and by the Members thereof.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 (Constitution of House of Assembly).

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 5, after the word "Parliament," to insert the words "acting in conjunction with the Provincial Councils or Parliaments."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

MR. O'DONNELL

moved a proposal, that Members of the Union Parliament should be paid for their services.

MR. BIGGAR

seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 9, after the word "qualifications," to insert the words "and the members shall be remunerated for their services at such rates."— (Mr. O'Donnell.)

After some observations from Mr. E. JENKINS in opposition to, and from Mr. PARNELL in support of, the Amendment,

MR. J. LOWTHER

opposed the Amendment on behalf of the Government.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 194: Majority 188.—(Div. List, No.297.)

AYES — Burt, T. Cowen, J.
Macdonald, A. Nolan, Capt. Parnell, C. S.
Power, J. O'C.

TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Biggar.

Clause 20 (Summoning of House of Assembly).

On the Motion of Mr. O'DONNELL, Amendment made, in page 5, line 17, before "in," insert "but at least once a-year."

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 (Decennial re-adjustment of representation).

MR. COURTNEY

moved an Amendment to the effect that changes brought to light by the decennial census should operate in producing re-adjustments both in the Legislative Council and in the House of Assembly.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 23, after the word "provinces," to insert the words "whether in the Legislative Council or in the House of Assembly."—(Mr. Courtney.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

pointed out that ample power was given by Clauses 33 and 56 to alter the composition of the Councils as might be thought expedient.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Clause 26 (Disallowance by Order in Council of Act assented to by Governor General).

MR. O'DONNELL

moved that the clause be struck out. The provisions of the clause were extremely unsatisfactory. The clause permitted that an Act passed by the Colonial Legislature, and sent home to this country, might be pigeon-holed for two years in the Colonial Office, and then be disallowed by the Crown. Thus delay might entail very serious pain and loss on Her Majesty's subjects in South Africa, where interests might have grown up under a belief in the efficacy of the local Act.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 26.—(Mr. O' Donnell.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

opposed the Motion on the ground that the clause was in the usual form, and that the words used were formal words.

Question, "That Clause 26 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 32 (Council for each province).

MR. PARNELL

moved an Amendment, providing that the Members of the Provincial Legislatures and the House of Assembly be elected by the British male subjects of the age of 21 and upwards, and that due representation of the Natives be also provided for by leave of Her Majesty, and without endangering the Government. His object was to determine how the Provincial Legislatures were to be elected, which was in no way determined by the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 10, after the word "such," to insert the words "councillors or councillors and members of assembly elected, until the Provincial Council concerned otherwise directs, by the vote of every male British subject aged twenty-one years or upwards being a householder in such province, and of such number, and elected for such term, as the Queen may direct: Provided always, That provision shall be made for the due representation of the natives in the Provincial Councils, in such manner as shall be deemed by Her Majesty without danger to the stability of the government."—(Mr. Parnell.)

MR. J. LOWTHER

opposed the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 188: Majority 183.—(Div. List, No. 298.)

AYES — Biggar, J. G. Cameron, C.
Nolan, Capt. Power, J. O'C. Trevelyan, G. O.

TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Donnell.

Clause 37 (Distribution of powers may be varied).

MR. O'DONNELL

moved the omission of the clause. It was impossible to permit the Home Government to abrogate the action of the Legislature of the Union they were now creating.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 37, as amended.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

MR. CHILDERS

said, the clause did no more than embody the principles of an Act which had been in operation for the past century, and which it was absolutely necessary to maintain.

Mr. PARNELL

said, he must differ from the right hon. Gentleman. If the Act was to be varied by Order in Council he failed to see what use the Act would be. It only showed that the Bill was a mere sham from beginning to end, that it did not respect the rights of the Colonies and States concerned, and that no real scheme of Confederation could possibly be carried out by the Imperial Government. It was a pity that time had been wasted over this Bill. The Government might have been satisfied with passing the first three clauses; those which followed would only plunge the Government into difficulties. But it was futile for him to urge anything. The result of the last division was sufficient to show that it was perfectly absurd— useless for a few Members to contend against the drift of opinion which prevailed in the House upon this question. It would, however, be regretted that the Bill had been hurried through the House in the way it had been. He supported his hon. Friend's proposal to omit the clause.

Amendment negatived.

Question, "That Clause 37, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 47 (Articles duty free within Union).

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 33, after the word "provinces," to insert the words "unless otherwise provided in the articles of Union of any province or Confederated State."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

Question, " That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Clause 55 (Laws respecting natives to be reserved).

Amendment proposed, in page 13, to leave out from the word "thereon," in line 13, to the word " opportunity," in line 16, inclusive.—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

Question, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 58 (Power to Her Majesty to authorize annexation to Cape or Natal of certain territories.)

Mr. O'DONNELL

moved, in page 13, line 38, the omission of the words " or of Natal." He objected to giving the Governor of Natal power to annex anything. The Colony had practically no constitution, and consisted of 20,000 nondescript Whites and one of the worst Native populations in the whole of Africa.

Mr. J. LOWTHER,

on the part of the Government, accepted the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.