§ SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk, N.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State 1316 for the Colonies whether, as requested in his telegram of the 16th January last, express provisions have been introduced into the Transvaal Ordinance for the treatment and care of Chinese labourers on voyage out and home; and whether the transport will be confined to British vessels and the landing to British ports.
§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,) Warwick and LeamingtonNo express provision has been introduced, but I have informed Lord Milner that adequate provision will have to be made by regulation. The point raised will be fully considered. At present it is contemplated, as appears from Lord Milner's statement in the Blue-book, to make use of Durban as the port of landing.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the persons specified in Section 8 of the draft Transvaal Labour Importation Ordinance, whose duty it will be to explain to Chinese labourers the terms of their contracts, will be persons selected and employed by the British Government.
§ * MR. LYTTELTONI am in communication with Lord Milner as to the details of the arrangements under Section 8, but His Majesty's Government undertake that the terms of the contract will be explained to the labourers before their departure by some person appointed by and responsible to the Government.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUELI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason the definition in the first draft of the Transvaal Labour Importation Ordinance of the premises to which Chinese labourers are to be confined, so as to include a circle of one mile round the place where they are working, has-been struck out; and what meaning is to be attached to the term premises in Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the amended draft of the Ordinance.
§ * MR. LYTTELTONI am informed-by Lord Milner that the definition of the term premises in the first draft was omitted, as, under it, owing to the position of certain mines in Johannesburg, the 1317 labourers would have uncontrolled access to the most populous portions of the city, which was deemed undesirable. The matter will be settled by regulation.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUELI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal Government has made any examination of the signatures to the petition in favour of Chinese labour; if so, how many of these signatures were found to be genuine, and of these how many were duplicates.
§ * MR. LYTTELTONLord Milner reported by telegram on 28th January that the petition bearing 47,000 signatures of males only over sixteen years of age, which has been presented to the Council was collected with care and is entitled to as much consideration as such a method of ascertaining popular opinion ever can be. I have no further information.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUELAre we to understand that the Government have made no examination of the signatures?
§ * MR. LYTTELTONI have no further information to give.
§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)Is it not the fact that a considerable number of white miners have been dismissed because they would not sign the petition.
§ * MR. LYTTELTONNo such information has reached me.
§ DR. MACNAMARAWill the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
§ [No answer was returned.]
§ DR. MACNAMARAI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the desirableness of deferring the debate on the proposed Ordinance for the introduction of indentured Asiatic labour into the Transvaal Colony, until the House is in possession of the whole correspondence between the Colonial Office and the High Commissioner respecting the changes which have been made in the text of the proposed ordinance.
§ * MR. LYTTELTONI have to-day received a telegram from Lord Milner confirming my belief that no further changes have been made in the Ordinance in addition to those published in Cd. 1898. I do not propose to defer the debate.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no further information from Lord Milner in regard to these Amendments that he can lay on the Table. Can he not put the House in possession of Lord Milner's reasons for the very drastic changes which have been made in the Ordinance during its passage through the Legislative Council?
§ * MR. LYTTELTONI have no information or Papers to produce on the subject.
§ MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state by whom is the person mentioned in Section 8 of the Ordinance to be appointed, and is he to be resident in China or South Africa; and is the unwitnessed Certificate which he presents to the importer in South Africa to be the sole guarantee the Government will have that the labourer is made fully aware of the terms of the contract.
§ * MR. LYTTELTONThere is to be a protector of the Chinese in the Transvaal, and a representative of the Government will be in China to see that the conditions of the contract are fully explained to the Chinese labourers there and that they are fully understood by them.
§ MR. BUCHANANIs this official, who is to explain to the Chinese the terms of their contract, to be resident in South Africa or in China?
§ * MR. LYTTELTONThe Ordinance does not secure that there shall be an official in China. The objection which I have endeavoured to meet by the pledge I have given, is that a Chinaman might arrive at Durban and find out there for the first time from the explanation given to him by the official the true nature of 1319 the contract; so I have taken measures, which I have indicated, to secure that the contract shall be understood before he leaves China.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)As a simple and downright matter of fact, will these Chinamen not be treated as slaves?
§ [No answer was returned.]