§ MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the telegraphic statement which appeared in the Times of 13th May, that Governor Sir Henry Norman has given the Royal Assent to the Bill for removing the prohibition on the importation of Kanaka labour for employment on the sugar plantations in Queensland, is correct; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government has any further power to disallow this legislation?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,) Liverpool, East ToxtethAs I have already stated, the Bill has been assented to by the Governor, and is therefore in operation. The power of disallowance still remains with the Queen. The Act as passed by the Legislature has not yet been received, but I may remind the House that the outrages referred to by the hon. Member in his former questions were all committed before 1885; and looking to the fact that the recruiting and employment of natives has been carried on under the existing 970 regulations from 1885 to the end of 1890 without any abuses, and that, as appears from the telegram from Queensland, those regulations will be made still more stringent, and as the Colonial Government is firmly determined to prevent infringement of those regulations, there would not seem to be sufficient ground for advising so exceptional a course as disallowance. I may also remind the House that the High Commissioner's Court of the Western Pacific has, under the Pacific Islanders' Protection Acts, and the Orders in Council made under those Acts, and the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, jurisdiction to try and punish British subjects for offences committed against natives of the Western Pacific Islands in or within three miles of any of those islands or on board a British ship at sea.
§ MR. SAMUEL SMITHWill the right hon. Gentleman allow time for the House to see the provisions of this new Act before finally deciding to allow it?
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will say on what day this Government received from Queensland information that the Act was passed; and whether he will reconsider his determination, in view of the strong feeling existing in the country, not to telegraph for these new and stringent regulations which he has assured the House are inserted in the Act?
§ BARON H. DE WORMSMr. Speaker, in answer to these questions I have to say that the recruiting could not be stopped except by immediate disallowance of the Act; and, as I have stated, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to take that extreme step. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that by the Colonial Regulations, No. 50, every law which has received the Governor's assent, unless it contains a suspending clause, immediately, or from the time specified in the Act, becomes law. The Crown has power to disallow the law, and if it be exercised, the law ceases to operate from the date at which that disallowance is published. And that answers the second question, because if we were to telegraph for the regulations in force, 971 we could not prevent recruiting without disallowing the Act.
§ MR. PICTON (Leicester)Does the right hon. Gentleman know what these new and satisfactory regulations are? If so, will he lay them on the Table of the House?
§ BARON H. DE WORMSI have only to say that all the information I am in possession of I have given to the House. The information contained in the telegram which I read on Friday—which was sent by the Government of Queensland to the Agent General of Queensland—contained an assurance that the Colonial Government had imposed most stringent restrictions, which would prevent any possible recurrence of those events which I, in common with every Member of this House, lament. I cannot see, in view of the explanation I have given, that we should be further advanced by adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member.
§ MR. PICTONMay I ask if the prerogative of the Crown cannot be held in suspense until the regulations are received, and the House knows what they are? How can the Government, without having seen them, tell that they are satisfactory?
§ BARON H. DE WORMSI have endeavoured to make my meaning clear, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman has understood my answer. I read the 50th paragraph of the Colonial Regulations, showing that the recruiting could not be stopped except by immediate disallowance of the Act.
§ SIR R. LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice, whether his attention has been directed to a telegram in the Times of the 14th instant, giving a statement of Mr. Playford, the Premier of South Australia, at Townsville, Queensland, to the effect that the Polynesian labourers imported from the South Sea Islands into Queensland were practically slaves?
§ BARON H. DE WORMSIn consequence of this paragraph in the Times of the 14th instant, the Agent General for Queensland telegraphed to 972 his Government, and he has received the following reply, dated Brisbane, 16th May:—
Playford arrived yesterday here. Denies emphatically that he stated anything of the kind mentioned. Never ashore in Queensland before yesterday.
MR. JOHN ELLISWhat we desire is that the House shall have the opportunity of seeing what the present regulations, which have proved insufficient, are; and what the more stringent regulations are. Will the right hon. Gentleman telegraph and obtain that information?
§ BARON H. DE WORMSAs far as I know, the more stringent regulations are on their way home. The House would not be farther advanced if they possessed them. We have either to allow them to go on or disallow the Act in force.
§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as this Act has provoked considerable friction, the Government are prepared to disallow it?
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAMI am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman further; but, in answer to a question, the right hon. Gentleman said that still more stringent regulations would be issued on the Governor's return. Can he state what objection there would be to telegraph for these more stringent regulations?
§ BARON H. DE WORMSI do not see that there is any objection to telegraph for them. But I am bound to say I do not think the position would be in the least altered thereby.