HC Deb 27 May 1892 vol 5 cc82-108
MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

I am very glad that this Debate has been carried over until to-day, because I am anxious to say a word or two about the Kanaka question, especially after the speech delivered yesterday by the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Baron H. de Worms). I want to put this matter as clearly as I can before the public, who I believe are very much exercised about it, and I consider that the arguments used yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Cornwall, in which he charged us with unduly interfering with the discretion and independence of the Queensland Parliament, require an answer. It is admitted by everyone that up to 1885 the Kanaka traffic was simply a bad form of slavery, and nothing more abominable or disgraceful attached to the British flag than the unspeakable horrors disclosed by the Royal Commission which examined into this matter. The Under Secretary for the Colonies had not a word to say in defence of this traffic up to 1885, and the same may be said of Sir Samuel Griffith. Even Mr. Kinnaird Rose, who was quoted during the debate last evening by the hon. Member opposite, dare not say one word in defence of the horrible atrocities connected with the Polynesian labour traffic up to 1885. Now, the greatest argument that has been used, so far, during the Debate, against our interference with this Kanaka traffic is the independence of the Colonial Parliament. If the English people have no moral obligation in this matter, and no right to interfere, as has been asserted, I ask, were we justified in interfering in 1885? What circumstances would justify this country in-interfering with the free action of an independent colony? Would negro slavery be a good reason? I want hon. Members opposite to answer this question. Speaking for myself, I say plainly that this Kanaka traffic is either what some of us believe it to be—a form of slavery to all intents and purposes—a system cruel, un-Christian, oppressive, and unjust to the coloured races, and, if so, a system Englishmen can be no parties to; or else the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies and Mr. Kinnaird Rose are right, and this opposition to it is nothing but a sentimental, philanthropic bubble. These are the words which have been applied to the Motion of my hon. Friend below me (Mr. S. Smith). Now, Sir, no defence or excuse is offered for this traffic up to 1885, but it is argued that no evidence exists of any misconduct or cruelty having taken place since that date. But it should be borne in mind that we have not had a Royal Commission on this question since 1885, and that, therefore, we cannot go to Blue Books and produce unanswerable testimony. I admit there is a lot of conflicting evidence as to the manner in which this traffic has been carried on since 1885. First of all we have the evidence of the missionaries, and I defy the Under Secretary for the Colonies to name a single missionary living on these islands who is in favour of the Kanaka traffic. The right hon. Gentleman asks me for evidence, and I will give it him. A resolution regarding this traffic was passed unanimously on the 20th July, 1889, by thirteen missionaries composing the Mission Synod of the New Hebrides, residing on the Islands. They were well acquainted with the character and results of the traffic, and these are the words that they used—"A traffic which has been and is" (remember this is 1889) "the cause of much sorrow, suffering, and bloodshed on the Islands," and they appealed to the English Government "under no consideration to allow a traffic to be continued so steeped" (this is not in 1885, this is in the present tense) "in deception, in immorality, bloodshed, and suffering." That resolution to my mind is conclusive. You may say we are sentimental philanthropists if you choose. We say the evidence of thirteen missionaries, the only missionaries on the Islands, met in solemn Synod and reporting in 1889 as to what this traffic is, ought to be conclusive, and to hundreds of thousands of Christian folk in England and Scotland it will be conclusive. You did not say one word about that. I did not hear when you were quoting from Bishop Selwyn one word about this. You trotted out Bishop Selwyn's letter very complacently, and I almost admired the ability with which you culled from the Blue Book a clause here and a line there out of the Bishop's letter. But what does Bishop Selwyn say? There are paragraphs in his letter every bit as strong in condemnation of this traffic as you will find in the resolution passed by the thirteen missionaries. Listen to what Bishop Selwyn says, and let him answer the Under Secretary as to the labour agents. He says— I have known many of these men, and found some of them men of high character and anxious to do their duty. But too often they are picked up when all other trades have failed. But they have one and all told me that the attempt to do their duty has led to great friction, and it needs an exceptional man to stand the strain of an incessant contest for a faithful fulfilment of the law. What does he say about the women? This is the great vice of the trade. The regulations are not sufficiently strict on this subject, and are not enforced with sufficient determination. No unmarried girl should be taken at all; indeed, girls are betrothed so early that it would be difficult to find one. And no married couple should be taken unless it has been ascertained from the people of the village that there is no objection to the woman going, and that she really is the wife of the man who goes with her. The labour vessel is now the handiest means of elopement. A man recruits over night, and tells the captain that his wife will be on the rocks the next morning. In the grey dawn a woman is discovered on the beach; the boat goes in, no questions are asked, and the deserted husband is left to make an 'unprovoked' attack on the next boat that comes in. I can quote instance after instance where this has been the cause of bloodshed. Then what does the Bishop say about these self-governing colonies? England is powerless to prevent the action of a self-governing colony, except at the risk of civil war; but she is not powerless to control and guide it, and the strong pressure of public opinion has in years past done much to this end. I do not accept that conclusion, but I mention it now. I am quoting from this letter, because I shall allude to it later on. Then the Bishop finishes up his letter by giving a, b, c, d, e, f, g, six or eight special recommendations, which I think the Government ought to insist on enforcing if they allow this traffic to be re-established. I think Bishop Selwyn is a very strong witness on our side, and that we are entitled to call him instead of his being claimed by the Under Secretary. But I will now pass from the Bishop and the missionaries, and come to the Admirals. The letter of Admiral Scott on page 5 is absolutely conclusive as to this traffic, and I want the country to understand that this is the evidence of the Admiral in command of the station. Because this is a water question, not a land question. You will not cover it by having excellent regulations on land, but you will be able to cover it by insisting that the Union Jack shall never float over a slave, and refusing to allow this hateful traffic to be carried on, where we have any influence, either by Englishmen or Frenchmen. Admiral Scott was asked for his opinion by the? Queensland Government, and he regrets that it is proposed to introduce Kanaka labour. He says— Proper supervision of recruiting in the Islands appears to be a very difficult matter. All those concerned, such as the Government agent, the master and mates of the vessel, and the recruiting agent, should be highly honourable and trustworthy men, and above all the Government agent who has nominally the entire control. Then he goes on in paragraph 5— It is a difficult matter to find men for such service. It is difficult to find masters and mates of vessels who will not strain a point, when by so doing their voyage will be shortened, or the number of the recruits increased. The date of this is March, 1892, and it is useless for the Under Secretary, in the face of that letter, to talk about what occurred before 1885. This letter, which is included in the Blue Book issued yesterday, is dated only two months ago. Listen to what the Admiral says as to the way in which these regulations are carried out, and see why he recommends the establishment of depôts. A damning piece of evidence is contained in paragraph 7, which I hope the House will study. I will now touch on the subject of the recruits themselves. I believe that in the majority of cases the recruits are passive agents, the active agents being the chiefs of tribes, head men of villages or communities, and sometimes the recruits themselves. This is in March, 1892, from your own Admiral on the station, who virtually says that these men are shipped by their chiefs against their will; and all this long rigmarole of a letter which is written by the agent from Mary-borough has no weight with me. If I wanted to be satisfied as to the value of Mr. Kinnaird Rose's letter, there is one line in it which I think should be enough for any hon. Gentleman. What are you going to think of an advocate who deliberately tells his fellow-countrymen that there are hundreds of thousands of men and women in every large city of Great Britain who would "passionately yearn for this cruelty and oppression"? Fancy passionately yearning to be sold into slavery by your own chief, shipped off in a labour vessel, taken to a land where you do not understand their language and they do not understand yours; separated from your wife and children; and yet this agent tells us that there are hundreds of thousands of English people who are "passionately yearning" for the treatment meted out to these poor Kanaka savages! The letters of Admiral Scott, Admiral Erskine, and Commodore Goodenough are sufficient evidence to any man who wants to be persuaded as to the abominations of the traffic carried on under the British flag. Under no possible regulations can this traffic be anything else than cruel, oppressive, hateful, and un-Christian. But there is a third witness to whom, I think, the Under Secretary did not allude. You may put a Bishop against the missionaries, and you may play off your Captain Somebody against the Admiral; but now what do you say to Sir William Macgregor? Another Blue Book was issued yesterday along with this one on the Polynesian labour question. It referred to New Guinea, and I think it might be studied with advantage by hon. Members in connection with this question. New Guinea is inhabited by the same class of people as those we are talking about, and it used to supply some of this very labour; and here is a report of what is being done in New Guinea under the British flag, and I say such a report is a credit to the country. We read that Sir William Macgregor has stopped this traffic and that not a single man, woman, or boy is now shipped from New Guinea for this sugar industry. Here is a letter from Sir Samuel Griffith, the official chief of Sir William Macgregor, to the Colonial Office:— The Chief Secretary was aware before the appointment of Sir William Macgregor as Administrator of British New Guinea, of his views as to the opportunity which would be afforded in the Possession for making a systematic attempt, such as probably had never been made before, to elevate an almost entirely uncivilised native race without any exploitation of either their land or their capacity for labour. He expresses the opinion that Sir William Macgregor's administration has been conspicuously successful, and he goes on:— He is confident that if the future administration of the Possession is continued on the same principles the British rule will prove beneficial to the native races, and advantageous and honourable to the Empire. Then if you go to page 11, you find the only conditions on which Sir William allows native labourers to be engaged outside their own country:— If native labourers are engaged for the fishery for periods exceeding one month, the engagement must be entered into before a Resident Magistrate or a Customs officer; and all such labourers must on completion of their engagements be returned to their homes. Contrast the glorious and creditable administration of Sir William Macgregor in New Guinea and the wonderful development of the native races under fair and reasonable conditions with the tale of depopulation and misery which we hear from the New Hebrides. This is a witness whose evidence it is impossible to get over if hon. Members will study it and weigh it fairly. I have heard nothing to shake my faith in Sir William Macgregor. I have read very carefully Sir Samuel Griffith's explanation which is published in this Blue Book, and even that does not agree with you. In this very letter he says it is all nonsense about white labour being impossible. It is idle in the face of that for anyone to say that the sugar industry depends upon this horrible cruelty, and I scarcely think the Under-Secretary can have read the Report. This Report is dated 13th February this year, and on page 2 Sir Samuel Griffith gives the reasons which guided him in reference to his policy. He says:— It was answered that tropical agriculture could not be performed by white men, and that the employment of coloured labour was therefore inevitable. This statement I always doubted, and careful inquiries made from time to time led me to reject it altogether. A few paragraphs down he says:— It has been proved that in Queensland cane can be grown by white labour—I am aware that this position is still disputed, but it is admitted by most of those liberal-minded planters with whom I have been in communication. The whole basis of this Bill is that you have a languishing sugar industry. You cannot oblige the planters to pay the high rate of wages demanded by white men; they will not take Indian coolies because they are sent under regulations which do not apply to these poor islanders, and the traffic is regulated in a way in which the traffic in these islanders is not regulated. The Blue Book is full of suggestive facts. When you come to deal with the figures you find on page 42, the ledger balance stands thus: return passages, £17,935 10s. 6d.; deceased Islanders' estates, £22,920. That I understand is one year's accounts, and an examination of the figures will show any unprejudiced person that the mortality among these islanders is excessive and terrible. I find that boys under sixteen are taken from the islands; on arrival in Queensland they are said to be over sixteen, and no difficulty is met with in landing them. What are the arguments in favour of the traffic? I have alluded to one, the distressed sugar industry, but I do not believe one ever did any good by bolstering up an industry by such means. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that no nation and no cause ever prospered if if it did anything abhorrent to the law of God. The other argument is that of separation. When the late Professor Freeman spoke about "Perish, India"—he never used the words—his speech gave a great deal of offence to many good people who think that we must maintain the British Empire at all hazards and costs, and that the British flag may wave over any law, whether we like it or not. I am glad of this opportunity of uttering my protest upon the matter. If, after studying the matter, the Government are satisfied the new regulation cannot be so framed as to make the traffic such as this country can approve, I hope we shall have the courage to say that we will have no part in it, and prevent it by not allowing a single ship loaded with these men to leave the islands; by sending out gunboats and stopping the traffic, as we stopped the slave trade in the Red Sea. It is perfectly absurd to say that if the Government had been earnest in the matter the traffic could not be stopped in three weeks. We should have the support of public opinion through the whole of the British Empire in taking such a course. I know the Government were taken by surprise. I find that in 1889 the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question, said— I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this traffic will totally cease at the end of next year. That was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman then. It is evident that Lord Knutsford—of whom I have the highest opinion—was utterly unaware of the gravity of the question; he was also taken by surprise. The Under Secretary asked what more the Government could have done. I am glad to see they did one thing. I want to read this telegram of the 9th May from Lord Knutsford— I trust your Government will not object to a short delay before issuing licences under the new Act until I can receive and consider the measure and the safeguards with which it is doubtless surrounded. Where is the answer to that? There were two telegrams from Sir H. Norman. The first was— Kanaka labour telegrams received; must defer reply until I reach Brisbane about a week hence. The second telegram (No. 13), a day or two later, says— Polynesian Labour Act has been sent by mail of 22nd April. Debates in Parliament have been sent by mail of 29th April. Revised regulations go to-day. Every effort will be made to secure reliable agents. I agree in Premier's telegram to Agent General of 11th May, which was communicated to you. Regulations seem adequate. Where is one word of answer from Queensland to the representation of the Government? Lord Knutsford was right in sending that telegram, and if the Under Secretary will say the Government will insist on it, and see that no licences are issued until they have had an opportunity of considering the regulations and seeing if they are humane, reasonable, and fair, I shall appeal to my hon. Friend not to divide the House. But if he cannot, if we are only a dozen, I hope we shall go into the Lobby as a protest in the name of Christian England against that abominable traffic being re-introduced without due and proper precautions and provisions by the Government that it shall be conducted under such regulations as shall be efficient and successful.

(5.15.) DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I do not think the history of our interferences in the past has been very creditable, but, notwithstanding that, I do not think the Government have acted in this matter as they should have done, and I shall support the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) if he goes to a Division. Because a Colonial Legislature may pass an Act, we are not bound to support them in the course they take. I do not think the present Parliament of Queensland represents the feeling of that country on this question. The present Premier was opposed to the policy, and the people did not know when the present Parliament was returned that they would start the traffic again. In this question you have to consider Victoria, New South Wales, and the other parts of Australia, and the feelings of those colonies ought to be considered before the Government sanctions this Bill. The proper course would have been for the Colonial Office to have sent a telegram to the Governor instructing him not to approve the Bill till we had considered the matter. The Ministers and Parliaments of Victoria and New South Wales are opposed to the measure, and the Labour Party is opposed to Chinamen, coolies, or Kanakas coming into the country and lowering the standard of comfort, as in Sydney. I know the history of the traffic fairly well, and some of the worst aspects of it have not been brought before the Committee by my hon. Friend. I think he was mistaken in his statement that the Queensland Government gave licence to white men to kill natives.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)

The case occurred a long time ago, and my informant was a gentleman who lived there a long time. I do not associate myself with the statement, and perhaps it was a mistake to make it in the House.

DR. CLARK

I am glad my hon. Friend has withdrawn, because I feel sure he was mistaken. So far as I can gather the blacks were more often the aggressors than the whites, and are now. The real iniquity of this business, however, was the Intestates Estates Act of 1877. The Kanakas came over for a three, five, seven, or ten years' period of servitude, and their wages were kept by the planters to the end of the term. If they died before the end of the term the money went into the planter's pocket. The result was that towards the end of the term the mortality became considerable. By the Act of 1885 the planters were compelled to pay the wages into a fund, and by the last Act to send the money to the relatives of the Kanakas on the islands. With reference to the sugar question, wherever you have tropical sugar grown you have imported labour. After the abolition of slavery you imported coolies into Natal and the West Indies. That was done under a system to which nobody could object, but you have not the same care and provision so far as the Kanakas are concerned. Many of them are practically sold by their chiefs, and do not know what they are doing or where they are going. I do not think the planters, however, are very bad, or that they would do anything to get rid of their men; they probably treat them as well as the hands. But there is undoubtedly a very high mortality. Even from the Returns before the House the reported mortality is admittedly over sixty per thousand. This is not the mortality of men, women, and children, but it is the reported mortality of adult men and women. Can you point to any place in the world where the mortality is equal to that? Under these circumstances I think every care should be taken to see whether the present Queensland Parliament represents the Queensland people in reference to this matter. To take an illustration: The present Conservative Government, I think, came into power in 1886 pledged against land purchase in Ireland. They have passed an Act for land purchase in Ireland. I think it would have been a wise thing if the Imperial Parliament had not given its consent to that measure, and if the Ministry had been sent back to their constituencies to see if they would support them or not. I believe that if Sir Samuel Griffith and his Ministry came before the people on the question of the maintenance of this labour traffic the probability is that they would be defeated, and that the Queensland people, and the South Australian and New Zealand people, as well as the people of Victoria, would go dead against this policy. I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because the Government have aided and abetted the Queensland Ministry in the course they have taken, without trying to ascertain whether the present Ministry or Parliament represents the Queensland people in the matter; and I do not think they do. I know both New Zealand and Victoria, and I really think that the Imperial Parliament ought not to permit any of these colonies to take such a serious step as this, which would hamper and restrict the growth and prosperity of Australia as a whole. So far as these men are concerned I have been on these sugar plantations, and have seen the Kanakas on their own islands and on the plantations; and I do not think their labour is a cheap or efficient kind of labour. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will be astonished when I tell him that £6 is high wages. It is about two-shillings and fourpence a week, and they are provided with food and houses. So that practically these Kanaka labourers get about two shillings and sixpence a week and food and lodging as well. On a large number of the sugar plantations they are doing away with these island labourers. They prefer to have white or Chinese labourers,. as they are much more efficient, and they find it pays better to employ them. The same thing has occurred in Natal. There are plenty of Kaffir labourers there; but they find that the Indian labourers are much more efficient. I believe if the people of Queensland could be fairly canvassed on this matter they would throw out the Ministry and go in for the development of this sugar industry by white labour only. There is a strong feeling that Queensland ought not to be a country for coloured men, and that they should not have an importation of labour there which will bring down the standard of comfort.

(5.25.) MR. HENNIKER HEATON (Canterbury)

Perhaps the Committee will bear with me for a few moments upon the ground that it is only a few months ago since I was in this very Colony of Queensland, and that for twenty years I have had experience of this Kanaka question. I have visited the plantations and taken part in many discussions on the treatment of these labourers. As the result of my experience I may say that many years ago, no doubt, great outrages took place; but by the firm action of the Government of Queensland all these outrages have practically ceased. The Government now from practical experience take such precautions as will prevent these outrages. As regards the point raised by the last speaker, hon. Members will understand that Queensland is an enormous country. The southern or more habitable part of Queensland is represented by an enormous majority of Members. My friend, Sir Samuel Griffith, the Prime Minister, represents a Southern constituency, which is very largely composed of working men. The Labour Party have an enormous majority in that colony; and the demands of labour became so outrageous that the whole of the sensible people of Queensland stood out like one man against their demands. In the northern parts of Queensland the climate is extremely hot—I myself have property there. I have lived in there, and my experience is this—that it is not a country for a white man to live in or to till. No matter what Sir Samuel Griffith may have said in former years, he knows as well as I do that the climate is so hot that a white man cannot cultivate the soil. It is absolutely impossible. Black labour is therefore necessary. I had the greatest difficulty in getting white men to look after cattle and sheep. Under these circumstances, as it has been found that the sugar industry is very profitable, they must necessarily have recourse to this legislation. Though always opposed to it before, they find that the time has arrived for introducing black labour, and the result has been the re-introduction of this matter by Sir Samuel Griffith for the reason already given—namely, that the climate in North Queensland is so very hot that it is absolutely impossible for any white man to cultivate the soil.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

I quoted from the Blue Book which was circulated as a Parliamentary Paper yesterday, in which Sir Samuel Griffith explains his reasons, and in which he says that after careful consideration for years he has come to the conclusion, in which all intelligent planters agree, that white labour is quite possible.

MR. HENNIKER HEATON

A statement such as that in the face of my practical experience seems to me extraordinary. I declare that if hon. Members will look at the temperature they will find that it is impossible for any white man to cultivate the soil in North Queensland. ("Why, why?") Because of the heat of the place.

A hon. MEMBER: The middle of the day?

MR. HENNIKER HEATON

The climate is of such a character that no white man can go out in the middle of the day. I believe the black men will be well treated, and that they will be well looked after. In my opinion the restrictions will be carefully enforced. In fact, I consider them too severe on the planters. I regret to say that since I left Australia ten years ago, there has come over Australia a spirit of independence; and I am quite prepared to say that any interference on the part of this House will rouse a feeling of indignation in Australia of which hon. Members may have no conception. The idea of sending British ships to prevent these labourers from leaving their islands will be received with derision in the Southern waters. There does not exist on the face of the earth a more capable or more intelligent set of men than the public men in Australia. I beg the House not to interfere with the people of Queensland in their action, and I pledge my word that no outrages will occur, and that the most kindly feeling will exist between individual labourers and their employers. The restrictions, as I have already said, owing to the very strong feeling which exists in favour of the labourers, are so great that if I were a planter I should hesitate before I employed labour under those conditions. I remember in 1875 that I was in Queensland when the new regulations were passed, and a large number of the labourers were re-employed and made fresh engagements for a number of years. That shows that these people were not ill-treated; and those who wished were sent back to their homes. Public feeling is so strong, there are so many intelligent men in the Colony, and there are so many intelligent newspapers there, that it would be absolutely impossible for outrages to occur without being telegraphed throughout the country. I thank the Committee, for having listened to me, and I conclude by expressing the hope that it will not interfere with this traffic.

(5.34.) MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

I am bound to say that I think the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) was more than justified in bringing this subject before the House. He has initiated a most interesting and, I think I may also say, a very useful Debate. But I am sure the House will agree with me that in touching upon this question we are treading upon very delicate ground. Whatever may be said, we cannot ignore this fact, that the Queensland Parliament is the Parliament of a self-governing colony, a colony particularly jealous of any interference. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) says we have not ascertained the feeling of the Queensland people upon the subject. How are we to ascertain the feelings of the Queensland people except by looking to the decisions of the Queensland Parliament? Surely the hon. Member would not go so far as to say we are bound to insist on having another Dissolution in Queensland and taking a plébiscite on this question. I am sure the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), who is a good Home Ruler, will feel that it is a most dangerous thing to interfere in any way with the action of a country to which you have given self-government—to take away with the one hand what you have given with the other. I quite agree this is a very special and exceptional case. This traffic is carried on under the British flag, of which this Parliament is the guardian. It is of the greatest importance, therefore, that we should look thoroughly into the question whether the facts which undoubtedly existed in times past do exist, or would exist, under the regulations that the Queensland Government have issued. On that question there is an immense amount of conflicting evidence. There is the evidence of Dr. Paton, and of Mr. Hume Nisbet—though I am bound to say Mr. Nisbet deals with a period of six years ago. On the other hand, there is a very important letter from Bishop Selwyn. I would call attention to this fact: that several of the objections urged by the Bishop have been expressly met by the amended regulations. The Bishop sums up the whole of the case for and against this traffic, and he does it in these words:— I have said enough to show that, though it is not the slavery it is described as being, and though the Government have tried, to a large extent, to do their duty, yet that there are serious abuses connected with it. The question is whether these abuses are so bad that they outweigh the certain amount of good, or whether they can be so met as to leave the trade one that Englishmen need not be ashamed of. But it is contended that the sugar industry would perish. I say a thousand times better that the sugar industry should perish than that the British flag should protect a traffic like the Slave Trade. The question really resolves itself into this: Can we remedy these abuses so that this shall be a trade of which the English people need not be ashamed? I read the evidence in the Blue Book very carefully, and it seems to me it would be premature at the present moment to come to the conclusion that the trade was one in which we should interfere. I admit our right to interfere. Still, is it not clear upon the evidence which we have before us that the trade is one of which the Imperial Parliament, in the interests and to the honour of this country and of the British flag, need be ashamed, for that is what it really means? I venture to hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Motion to a Division, for, having had the honour of holding an office of a responsible kind for some time, I shall not be able to vote for it. After most carefully considering the matter, I think it would be premature for the Government to take such a step as my hon. Friend suggests in his Motion at the present moment before we have seen the revised regulations. As the matter now stands, the Act has been approved by Sir Henry Norman. The only thing open to us is to ask the Queen to exercise her power to disallow it. That is the course which my hon. Friend proposes by his Motion. I say that if he means that by his Motion—and it can mean nothing else—such an action on the part of the Imperial Parliament would be viewed with great jealousy not only by the people of Queensland, but also by the whole of the people of Australia. Under these circumstances, I would appeal to my hon. Friend not to press this Motion to a Division, because I cannot help thinking that the effect of it would be to do a great harm to our Imperial position.

(5.43.) MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

I am always sorry when a right hon. Gentleman who has held office, especially when he sits on this side of the House, gets up to speak, because he generally concludes by saying that he will be obliged to vote with the Government. I am at a little loss to know why the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) spoke at all. His remarks are always very interesting; but as it was a foregone conclusion that, having held office, he would vote with the Government, it took the gilt off the gingerbread of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I do not think I have assisted at any Debate for some considerable time in this House that has evoked so much feeling—smothered feeling, it is true, but always smouldering there. I fancy I detected faint rumblings of what I believe will become thunderings when we get the next Parliament to discuss the labour question, because behind the arras of the Polynesian labour traffic—behind the philanthropic aspirations of those whom I honour for their philanthropy and for the good they do—there is undoubtedly the rat of the labour question. (Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but I will lay a few facts before them which I think will induce them to believe that my view of the case, to some extent, is correct. There has been a great deal of difference of opinion on this question during this Debate. We have a Utopia or New Atlantis described by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, who depicted such an Arcadia in Queensland that I wonder hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House did not take passages at once for Queensland, and enter themselves for those plantations. Then we had the statement of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Lawrence), who said that whatever excessive mortality there was amongst these labourers was caused by the excessive number of mutton chops and beef steaks that were pushed down their throats. But I wish to say a word or two upon the question from a somewhat different standpoint from that from which it has been approached by some hon. Members. A considerable amount of capital is, attempted to be made out of the statements of the Prime Minister of Queensland, and objections have been raised by hon. Members who have been in Australia as to the expediency, even if it has the right, of this House interfering with a self-governing colony in a question of this sort. There seems, as has already been said, something behind the speeches of these hon. Gentlemen, and the real reason seems to be that they desire to avoid "a yellow agony" in these colonies. I would ask the Committee to listen to what Mr. Kinnaird Rose, of Edinburgh, writes on this question. He is not antagonistic to the traffic, and thinks that under strict regulations the evils of the traffic can be minimised. In his letter he makes this remarkable statement:— Having fairly and fully answered the humanitarian and philanthropic objectors to the action of the Queensland Parliament, I turn to the politico-economic opponents who, despite their Home Rule principles for home consumption, urge the Imperial veto of domestic legislation in a distant colony. In the same category, of course, are the movers and supporters of the condemnatory resolutions in the New South Wales and Victorian Parliaments. The strings of opposition are pulled both here and at the Antipodes by the labour leaders of the new Unionism or their sympathisers and abettors. But when we further read the letter we find that the wish to re-open this traffic is only the desire of a gang of sugar planters, who, finding that the white men absolutely refuse to work in the tropical swamps almost incidental to the cultivation of sugar, desire to continue their profits at the expense of human suffering by a trade which has been designated, almost as slavery and which if not slavery I must characterise as a blot on those principles which all of us have been proud hitherto to hold. He says— White labourers refused to work in the field or were prohibited by the Unions from working at rates which agriculture can bear. The "rates which agriculture can bear" are to be fixed by that same gang of planters. He goes on— Without labour the cane could not be grown, harvested, or converted into sugar. More than one-fourth of the agricultural land in Queensland under tillage would be thrown out of cultivation and allowed to revert to jungle. Several thousand white men engaged in sugar mills as overseers, sugar boilers, engineers, smiths, foremen, &c, and in the open as ploughmen, overseers, draymen, &c, would be thrown out of employment. The foundries at Mackay, Bundaberg, Townsville, Maryborough, and Brisbane, employing many hundreds of skilled artizans, would be shut up. The markets in the southern parts of the colony for maize, horses, food supplies, &c. on the sugar plantations would be closed. Graziers whose runs are already over-stocked with tat cattle would have another outlet cut off. So that it appears that because of this contest between graziers and sugar planters this House is asked not to give its veto upon this traffic. It also states— No honest, no sane Government could calmly face the impending crushing ruin, the destruction of a great industry, the throwing (wholly or partially) idle of thousands of the beat and most active of the population. When, however, I turn to the speeches which have recently been delivered in the Australian Legislatures, I find that a great change comes o'er the spirit of the dream in connection with this question. The labour party is antagonistic to Sir Samuel Griffith, and the leaders of that party are convinced that under certain conditions sugar plantations can be carried on by white labour, even in the latitude of Northern Queensland. I do not think that even Sir Samuel Griffith can get the Bill passed in the Queensland Legislature without considerable truck- ling to popular opinion. It may be that he and his Government do not represent the democratic spirit of the colony. Now, the Under Secretary for the Colonies referred last night to the wages paid in Queensland, and he tried to make us believe that £17,000 had been deposited in the banks there as the result of Kanaka labour. But he omitted to say to whose credit it had been banked. Was it to that of the Kanaka labourers working in the colony, or to that of the Kanakas who had become colonists in Queensland, who had acquired the rights of citizens? I would ask the Committee to consider whether it is good for the colony that this sugar industry should be continued in it under existing conditions; also whether it would not be more profitable to break up the land among smaller white farmers? I am sure from practical experience in the northern parts of Brazil, and in the States of Louisville and Texas, that sugar and even cotton can be cultivated by white men who conform to the conditions of life required in the tropics, and who do not, as we have been told the Kanakas do, stuff themselves with too much meat and whiskey. Now, a good deal of capital has been made out of the declarations of Bishops and missionaries. I do not know that I have hitherto had a great deal of sympathy with Bishops or missionaries. I respect missionaries who go out to savage countries in order to reclaim the people there; but I need not remind the Committee that when the Debates for the abolition of slavery in the West Indies took place in the other House, almost every Bishop voted for the retention of such a sacred institution. When also the question of continuing the practice of pigeon shooting was under consideration, nearly every Bishop voted in favour of its continuance. Therefore, I am not inclined to attach much importance to the testimony of Bishops. Before sitting down I would point out that the re-introduction of coloured labour into the colonies will go far towards re-opening the whole racial question as between this country and the colonies. It will do more. It will discourage all future efforts to civilise the back lying lands in the colonies. It is impossible for white cultivators to compete against Chinese coolies and labourers from the Pacific Islands, whose standard of comfort is infinitely lower than that of the white man. Thus, instead of spreading civilisation—if it be a good thing—about which I have never been able to convince myself—

An hon. MEMBER: Spurious civilisation.

MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM

We are doing our best to put it back. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that they should accede to the very temperate requests made from this side of the House; and if they cannot see their way to totally disallow the re-opening of this traffic, that they should do something to establish a protectorate over the Solomon Islands and the New Hebrides, from which the greater number of the labourers for the Queensland plantations are drawn. I think it is a scandal and a disgrace that white men who have been kicked out of civilisation should practically be able to inundate the white population of the colony with coloured labour from the Pacific Islands. It is monstrous to imagine that civilised powers like France and Germany should for a moment object to combine with us in the regulation of this traffic. Under any circumstances I believe that a response would be drawn from the working classes of Australia, which would more than counterbalance the monopolists of the Queensland sugar plantations, who, in many cases, are absentees from their own country, and are always saying in London Clubs that Australia is going to the dogs.

(6.2.) MR. JOHN A. BRIGHT (Birmingham, Central)

I think it is the general opinion of Members of this House that this traffic is a very bad and dangerous one, and that we should all be pleased if we could see our way to prohibit it entirely. A trade which has to be carried on by armed force is not one that can be regarded with much favour by the inhabitants of the islands from which these unfortunate labourers are taken. I received a letter a few days ago from a friend of mine who was some years ago engaged in planting in Queensland. There is no necessity for me to give his name, because he is not publicly known, but he wrote to me and urged upon me the importance of doing all I possibly could to stop what he called this "atrocious traffic." During the time he was out there in a subordinate capacity he was obliged to wink at very bad things which he could not prevent. The condition of the labourers was most painful, and still more that of the women who had been imported to the plantations. We have heard from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies that probably we have no power to prevent this traffic, and that to disallow this Bill would be a very strong measure. That is probably the fact of the case, but I think we might do something short of that. We might utter a strong remonstrance, or, at any rate, a strong warning to the Government of Queensland that public opinion in this country will be in a watchful state to see whether the abuses which undoubtedly existed there not long ago do not occur again. It seems to me that, although we may not be able to interfere with the acts of the Queensland Government, we may do something in regard to the districts from which these poor people are brought. If there are difficulties with other Foreign Powers who claim some interest in these is lands, it would be easy to approach them, and to request them to assist us in the cause of humanity, by making some arrangement by which people who are taken away from these islands shall be somehow protected, that there should be some authority to see they are returned, and are properly treated while in Queensland. Perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury will tell us whether he can enter into communication with foreign countries on this point.

*EARL COMPTON (York, W.R., Barnsley)

We were asked by the right hon. Gentleman who sits below me (Mr. Osborne Morgan) not to go to a Division; and, speaking for myself and other hon. Members who brought this matter forward, I can say that we are not anxious to go to a Division if that can be avoided. We thoroughly understand the difficulty of disallowing a Bill passed by a self-governing Colony, but we have insisted from the beginning on the absolute necessity of a protest being made on the part of the House of Commons against any possibility whatever of a slave traffic being re-introduced into Queensland. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether he cannot still continue the line of policy adopted by Lord Knutsford in his telegram of 9th May. There is no question there of disallowing the Act; there is only a courteous request to the Queensland Government to delay the issue of licences until the Government have received and considered what, after all, is the kernel of the whole question—the safeguards. Without those safeguards I consider we certainly ought to take the extreme measure of disallowing the Bill the Queensland Government have passed. We have, I believe, the right to do so. At all events, if we have not that right, we ought to spare no effort to prevent it being said that the House of Commons in the year 1892 has allowed without protest one of our colonies to re-introduce the slave trade. We still feel, in the words of Lord Knutford's telegram, considerable apprehension, our apprehension not being removed by this discussion or by the answer to the telegram. I find at the end it is said— The sugar industry already shows great revival, and it is a matter of importance to afford every facility to supply the labour as soon as passed. The matter before us, however, is not the supply of labour; the question of import ance to this country is whether that labour can be supplied under proper conditions or not. We have no proof whatever that it can be so supplied. On the contrary, we have proof that in the past these conditions have absolutely failed. We want to know the new conditions. If the Government will continue that policy as far as they can; if they will impress upon the Queensland Government that we view with great apprehension their passing of this law; if the Queensland Government will persuade us, by sending the new restrictions, that those restrictions are worthy of the trial, then I think we should not go to a Division this evening. I ask for an assurance from the First Lord that something will be done in this direction.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I rise, because the noble Lord has appealed directly to me, but I do not propose to go over the ground traversed by previous speakers. I would point out to the noble Lord and his friends that the position of the Home Government with the Colonial Government is-this—we have the power of disallowing, the Act altogether, but we have no power to suspend the regulations under the Act while we consider whether those regulations are adequate or inadequate. It might, perhaps, have been inferred from Lord Knutsford's telegram that the regulations could be suspended until sent home for discussion by Parliament, but that is not the case. The regulations are now in full force, and the only method of action we have—and which I think every speaker in this House has repudiated—is direct intervention by way of veto upon the action of the Colonial Government. The noble Lord is anxious—and, I think, rightly anxious — that the Queensland Government should be aware how strong is the desire in this country that there should be no abuse of a traffic with regard to which we all admit that abuse is possible and has actually occurred, and which may easily occur again unless adequate regulations are established. Anyone who reads the Debate that took place last night will be convinced that this country and this Imperial Parliament feels keenly on the subject, and that the manifestation of that feeling will depend upon the practicability of the means and measures to be adopted for dealing with the possible evils of the traffic. We are all agreed that this traffic has produced evils in the past, and may produce evils in the future, and it is the business of the Colonial Government, and, to a certain extent, also of ourselves, to see that these evils are not allowed to be repeated. I feel convinced that what has occurred in this House will have an effect in the direction desired by the noble Lord, and I do not think anything further need be said on the subject to strengthen the impression of what occurred yesterday and what has ranspired to-day.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)

I quite admit the delicacy of this question, and I feel the extreme responsibility of urging upon the Government action that might create collision with the self-governing colonies. I had hoped, however, that the Government would have been able to say a little more—that they would have agreed to a despatch setting forth the strong feeling felt in this country of the great jealousy with which this country will watch a renewal of the traffic. However, I gather from the remarks of the First Lord that he is quite aware of the extreme risks connected with this traffic, and that the eye of the Government will be closely fixed upon the doings of Queensland, and that the instructions given to the Admiralty will be of such a nature as to promote constant vigilance, and that we retain the full power of, if necessary, disallowing this traffic. With that understanding I will not insist upon my Motion. I believe that much good will result from the discussion. I may say I regret, if during the heat of Debate, I have uttered any language likely to cause offence to the people of Queensland. To some extent I was speaking of the past. As to the future I express the hope that the people of Queensland will not do anything likely to cause a flush of shame to the old mother country. I shall not offer any further objection to the Vote.

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

On a point of order, am I to undenstand that an hon. Member who has proposed to reduce a Vote can withdraw an Amendment without the sanction of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Motion has not been withdrawn because it has not been made again to-day. It was made last night, and according to the usual practice it has now lapsed.

MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM

Then I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £500, as an expression of our dislike of this traffic. I really wonder the hon. Member has so trifled with the time of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £7,000, for the Colonial Office, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Cuninghame Graham.)

MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN (Merthyr Tydvil)

As one who has had practical experience in Queensland, I should like to address the Committee on this subject. I quite followed what was stated by the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) last night, and agree that there were considerable abuses in Queensland in the sixties and possibly in the seventies. At the commencement of the traffic the Government were necessarily hampered by the lack of proper regulations, but we must take matters as they are and not as they were. There can be no doubt that in former days the Colonial Government were to some extent to blame for that. But since then things have altered materially. Looking back to the year 1882, we find a strong feeling existed in the colony against anything like coloured labour, whether Chinese, Polynesian, or any other sort, and the working classes there, exercising their electoral rights, successfully opposed the return to the House of Representatives of anyone who was in favour of black labour. But what do we find now? The present Colonial Treasurer, who was strongly opposed to this Kanaka traffic in 1882, was returned by a large majority at a bye-election only a few weeks ago for a constituency close to the metropolis of the colony, because he pronounced in favour of this system of labour in the Northern Provinces. Sir Samuel Griffith was also strongly opposed to the Kanaka labour in 1882, and why? Because the working classes were opposed to it. At that time it was a political question in the colony—it was not looked at from a humanitarian point of view—and as such it was dealt with by the Legislature. Now, however, we find that the workmen in Queensland, thanks to liberal land laws and liberal mining laws, are enabled to earn a livelihood without working in the cane fields and cotton fields. In fact, they could not perform that work for more than three or four months in a year, and not even for that period at the necessary time. Therefore, if the sugar industry is to be encouraged in Queensland, it must be carried on by coloured labour. There is no doubt that when these Kanakas were first taken to the colony they did pine for their wives and homes, and wondered if ever they would get back to them again. But now that they have been, educated, as it were, and understand the conditions of their agreement they look upon the matter differently, and I have known many instances of Kanakas being sent to their homes after three years, in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Queensland Government, going on board the steamer again the moment after landing and returning for a further period of service. A great deal has been said about only £6 per year being given them, but it seems to be forgotten that in addition to that they receive their rations. Plenty of poor creatures in this country would, I believe, be only too glad to accept £6 a year if they were also properly fed. I feel perfectly certain that Sir Samuel Griffith, who is a kind hearted man, will take every possible care to prevent any such abuses as have happened in the past occurring in future. After the statement of the First Lord and the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies I hope the Committee will not go to a Division; but if it does I shall, for the first time, vote with the Government, and I shall do so, because I consider that Kanakas are taken better care of in Queensland than miners are in this country.

(6.25.) MR. CREMER

I have listened with the utmost regret to the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, because I recollect having heard the same kind of arguments nearly thirty years ago on the question of human slavery in the United States of America. It is the old story about the slave being better fed, clothed and housed than he would be in a state of freedom. I am satisfied that scarcely anyone in this House—except the hon. Member—will be deluded by any such sentiments. Although I have no mandate from the masses of the people to speak on this subject I feel sure that they do not object to the introduction of foreign labour into this country, or into the colonies, so long as it is brought in under free conditions and not in a state of semi-servitude. It is because these Kanakas are imported into Queensland with the one object of keeping down the wages of white labour in that colony—

MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN

No, no!

MR. CREMER

It does not follow that because the hon. Member has been to the colony he knows all about it. I have heard, Mr. Courtney, of men who after going round the world come back to their own fireside as ignorant as when they started. I do not say that that is the case with the hon. Member. Well, Sir, what we object to is that these men should be imported into Queensland, under conditions of servitude, with the one object of keeping down the wages of the white population there. I am glad that owing to the action of my hon. Friend (Mr. Cuninghame Graham), and notwithstanding that those who raised the discussion on this subject have thought it advisable, at the last moment, to withdraw their proposal, we are about to divide on this question; and if there are only a dozen of us to go into the Lobby, I hope we shall have the courage of our opinions, and record our protest against this traffic.

MR. EDWARD HOLDEN (Walsall)

I should not like to give a silent vote on this question. I shall vote with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, because I think it is impossible to carry on this Kanaka traffic without the evils which have been alluded to. If no abuse occurs within the next three or six months I believe it is sure to show itself sooner or later, and believing that I shall vote against the Government.

Question put.

(6.30.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 197.—(Div. List, No. 150.)

Original Question again proposed.