KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).

HC Deb 16 February 1904 vol 129 cc1501-66

[ELEVENTH DAY.]

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [2nd February],"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

"Most Gracious Sovereign,— We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Hardy.)

Question again proposed.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)

said it was from no choice of hon. Members on his side of the House that that discussion on the Chinese labour question was taking place on an Amendment to the Address. They would have infinitely preferred an opportunity when Part ties were not so strong, and when the Party whip did not crack so loud. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench had again and again pressed for some other opportunity for that debate, but just as the Government had refused to permit a free vote in the Transvaal, so they had refused to permit a free vote in the House of Commons. The fault was not theirs that they were obliged to proceed in that manner. He would also like to be allowed to say that in making that Motion they were animated by no prejudice against the gold mines, as such. They had no desire to hamper their prosperity and he for one could fully endorse the remark of Lord Milner that they should be willing to adopt any measures—any reasonable measures—for the assistance of the gold mines, which were not in themselves intolerable. But they held that this measure which was proposed was in itself intolerable, and not only intolerable but also unnecessary. These were the two propositions he should set out to prove. He had no wish to use hard words concerning the Chinese nation as a whole. Anyone who had made a study of Chinese characteristics was aware that the educated classes of that nation—the wealthier classes—had many amiable and admirable qualities. They were possessed of great courtesy, of fortitude, of patience. Their integrity in commerce, their respect for literature were well known. But the class of Chinamen who were accustomed to emigrate were in the main a degraded people. They were vicious, immoral, and unclean. Their only amusements were gambling and opium smoking. Wherever they went they carried with them those qualities, and wherever they settled in white communities they were hated. That was the universal experience—an experience not merely in one case but in all, in Australia, in New Zealand, in he United States, in Canada —everywhere the presence of Chinamen had been found by white men to be intolerable. This was not a small question—a question of the importation of a small number of Chinese. They heard it said that the demand was merely for 10,000 Chinese labourers, but there was no such limit in the Ordinance, and when the Colonial Secretary was asked in that House if he would impose such a limitation of numbers he definitely declined to do so. It was true that in the Ordinance the employment of Chinese was limited to the one district of the Rand, but it was very doubtful if it could be permanently limited in that manner. Lord Milner only last June said that he wished to employ Asiatics on public works. An Ordinance had been passed in Rhodesia for the importation of the Chinese and only awaited the Royal assent, and if mines in other districts were opened they would have a demand for Chinese to be employed which it would be difficult to resist. But even if that proposal were limited to the Rand mines it would be seen that it was not merely a question of the importation of 5,000 or 10,000 Chinese. A Royal Commission in the Transvaal had considered this matter, and the Majority Report pointed out that the present deficiency of labour in the mines amounted to 129,000 men. In five years time an additional 196,000 men would be required—making in all 300,000 labourers needed in five years. That statement had been endorsed by the Chamber of Mines and in a speech by Sir George Farrar, who was the leader of the pro-Chinese party in the Transvaal. They could not keep 300,000 men in a ring fence. No matter what their restrictions might be, they could not keep such a multitude of men in close permanent confinement. They must mix with the neighbouring white population, and with the native black population. He did not wish to dwell on a distasteful subject, but he asked the House to imagine what would be the effect of that vast body of men living together, and belonging to a race admittedly immoral. He had asked the Secretary for the Colonies if he would (secure an alteration in the regulations to the effect that any Chinaman who wished to do so should have the right to bring his wife and family with him on the same terms as he came himself. But the right hon. Gentleman declined to give any such pledge. Although he said he would endeavour to secure reasonable facilities for the introduction of women he distinctly declined to pledge himself that any labourer who wished to take his family with him should have a right to do so. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but if he would refer to his answer and the Question he would see that he used the words: "I cannot give the pledge which the hon. Member asks." That being so, they would inevitably have moral evils arising, and he ventured to assert deliberately that if the Ordinance was passed in its present form they would be inoculating Africa with the worst vices of Asia.

Now let them look at the terms of the Ordinance, and from the standpoint of the labourers themselves. He was sure that hon. Members opposite, who were inclined to support the measure, could not have realised the provisions of the Ordinance. In the first place, the labourer was not to be allowed to be employed in any occupation other than that of unskilled labour in the mines, therefore he had no opportunity of improving his position. But that was the smallest of the restrictions. He could be transferred and assigned from one master to another, but there was nothing in the Ordinance to secure that his consent should be given to the transfer. When the Ordinance was first introduced there was a clause in it that the labourer's consent should be required before he could be transferred from one master to another, but when the Ordinance was being passed through the Legislative Council that clause was struck out. Thus the masters might transfer a man from one to another as though he was a chattel, but on the other hand the labourer could not change his master if he wished to do so. When once he had signed his contract he could not terminate it so long as it lasted. He could not give notice to one employer and go to another. If he struck work he could be arrested and imprisoned. He was bound to reside on the premises of his employer in charge of a manager appointed for the purpose; he could never leave the premises without permission, which might or might not be granted, and, in any case, he could never leave for more than forty-eight hours at a time. If he escaped, he might be tracked down, arrested without warrant and imprisoned by a magistrate, while anyone who harboured or concealed an escaped labourer might be arrested and fined £50, or imprisoned in default of payment. Apparently the Transvaal Government had gone to the Statute-books of the slave States of America for a model for their Ordinance. The labourer might not be permitted by the importer to take his wife and family with him, and should they desire to join him afterwards and go to South Africa for the purpose, they might reach the shores of Natal, but they would not be allowed to land. They would be sent back. He asked the House, and he especially appealed to hon. Members opposite with whom the responsibility for this decision would largely rest, whether this Ordinance was not an enormity to be placed on the Statute-book of a British Colony. They would be told that the labourers would sign the contracts of their own free will, that the conditions would be fully explained to them, and that they need not go unless they chose. But these labourers were not a highly intelligent people, and he very much doubted if they could be made to understand the real meaning of the Ordinance. Even if they did, however, that was no justification for establishing such a condition of affairs. There was an edict of the Emperor Diocletian to the effect that no Roman citizen should be allowed to sell himself into slavery. That was a wise edict, it was not an infringement but a safeguard of liberty. But in this case they were not prohibiting—they were inviting the Chinese to sell themselves into slavery. It might be said that that there was freedom of contract—but there were cases in which freedom of contract might really be a contraction of freedom. If the Ordinance passed into law how should we be able to hold up our heads in the face of foreign criticism. The Frenchman and the German would say: "You English set yourselves up as teachers of humanity to the world at large. You condemn the harsh Government of Russia, you pass resolutions against the cruelties of Turkey, you circularise the Powers about the administration of the Congo Free State, but look at your own newest colonies; see how you keep your unskilled labourers there—like beasts in a stable—prisoners in gaol, like what Mill once called a 'human cattle farm.'" He did not think that would redound to the greatness or glory of the British Empire, that it would add to its prestige, or raise the honour of its name. Then, again, they were told that they must have these severe restrictions or the Chinese would overrun the country, would enter into all occupations, and would undersell the whites. It was true. They were in this dilemma, either the Chinese must be serfs or a danger. He did not know which alternative was the worse. But there was a third alternative, that which he would ask the House to adopt, and that was to have nothing to do with the scheme at all.

These were the moral and ethical objections to the proposal; and they must always have the first place in any question of policy. But there were also political objections to be considered. When the war was over it was recognised that the greatest danger to the future of South Africa was the fact that the Boers constituted a majority of the population in the Transvaal, and that they were a race which increased more rapidly in numbers than the British. To obviate this difficulty and danger the Yeomanry were invited to settle on the land; emigration was to be encouraged; an association was formed to send out English women to South Africa to get employment, and ultimately to be married there. Every effort was in fact to be made to increase the British population in order to act as a political counterbalancing force to the large number of Boers. What, however, were they doing now that they had a natural economic attraction for the British population? They were slamming the door in the face of their British population. That meant an indefinite postponement of the self-government in the Transvaal to which as a nation we stood pledged. Besides, if this measure were introduced without the formal consent of the people of the Transvaal, the mine-owners would be more than ever afraid of the establishment of self-government. Their fortunes would be resting on a basis of Chinese labour. Self-government might destroy that foundation. It might lead to a reaction, and the people might insist, as they had insisted in Australia. New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, that this immigration of Chinese should cease. Consequently the whole influence of the mine-owners would be thrown into the scale against the introduction of self-government. They knew to their cost how great that influence was. There was a further political objection. The Federation of South Africa had long been an ideal they had wished to attain. The history of the movement had been long and chequered. There had been many attempts to secure this object, which was not only desirable in itself, but which was a necessary step in the Federation of the Empire as a whole. If they had not self-government in the Transvaal they could not have the Federation of South Africa. And even if they secured self-government in the Transvaal they would still be faced by a great obstacle in the way of federation. Immigration was naturally a federal matter. In Germany, in Canada, in the United States, and in the Australian Commonwealth it had been treated federally. But he did not believe the Cape would tolerate Chinese labour. He would ask the House to listen to the strong and emphatic declaration of Cape Ministers on this subject. In a telegram to the Colonial Secretary they said— In relation to the policy of British South African Federation, which Ministers are most earnestly pursuing, they cannot but feel that the importation of Asiatics will greatly hamper its consummation, as it will introduce a highly discordant element between the European communities which will certainly complicate, if not altogether prevent, the union of all the Colonies under a central Administration. That was a grave declaration which the House should not fail to note. Morally, socially, and politically they held that this measure was intolerable. Economically it was unnecessary as well. It seemed to be assumed among the commercial classes in this country that in the Transvaal at the present time everything was stagnant and at a standstill, that the mines were hardly working, and that the country was in the throes of a most severe economic crisis. That view was based on despatches from Lord Milner in December and January last, in which he said— The immediate prospect is very bad. There is a complete stagnation in commerce and enterprise owing to the labour difficulty. Lord Milner also spoke of "a crisis," of "grave distress," of "an inevitable exodus of the white population." But let the House contrast that with what Lord Milner said in the preceding June. At that time a deputation waited on him, and in the course of his reply, he said— It is an unfortunate circumstance that so many people seem unable to discuss this question of fact in a temperate manner, that they become partisans, so to speak, of a particular solution, and, while exaggerating everything that makes in favour of that solution, decline to see the plainest arguments on the other side. To listen to some of the extreme advocates of Asiatic labour you would think that this place was on the verge of total ruin. What is really the case? The production of gold even now is greater than in 1895 or 1896, when the Transvaal already was, and had been for some time the marvel of the world in the matter of gold production. The world progresses, no doubt, but what was fabulous wealth seven years ago is not abject poverty to-day. What had happened in the six months that had elapsed since those words were spoken? Had the gold production diminished? Had the number of labourers decreased? Let them compare the returns of December and June. The gold production had increased from 237,000 ozs. in June to 286,000 ozs. in December, an increase of 20 per cent. The number of labourers in the same period had increased from 59,400 to 68,800, an increase of 16 per cent. The production to-day was not what it was in 1895 or 1896 when Lord Milner said the wealth was fabulous, or in 1897 when it had largely increased, but it was on the same scale as in the first half of 1898, and there was only one year in all its history—the year from the middle of 1898 down to the beginning of the war, when there was a larger production of gold in the Transvaal than at the present moment. Lord Milner had long been more or less of a partisan of Asiatic labour. Last June, however, he had to suppress to some extent the movement for introducing Asiatic labour into the Transvaal. Now he was encouraging it. What was the reason for his change of policy? It was not because there had been no increase in the production of gold or in the number of labourers, but because last June he had to deal with a Colonial Minister who was personally opposed to the introduction of Chinese labour; and now there was a Secretary of State in office more amenable to pressure and advice. It was true that the number of labourers in the Transvaal was now considerably smaller than it was before the war, but then a smaller number was needed in view of the improved means of production. Owing to the enforcement of the liquor laws, better organisation, and a larger use of machinery, the production per labourer per month now was four ounces of gold. In 1899 it was 3.4 ounces—an increase of one-seventh. That was an important item, because it showed that in all these figures they had to consider the fact that the production of six labourers now was equal to seven labourers then. He did not deny that there was some depression in the Transvaal at present. After the war there was great inflation. There was much money spent on the building of houses, in re-opening the mines, and repairing the disasters of the war; much Imperial money was spent and circulated in the country, but that had now been stopped. There had also been a drought in South Africa. All these things tended to cause a natural depression. He did not deny, also, that there was a shortage of labour for the Transvaal mines, and that more labourers could be employed if they were forthcoming, that more enterprises could be undertaken if there were more labourers, and that new industries could be started. But there was no crisis, nothing that called for extreme measures. He did not propose to enter into the question whether or not it was possible to secure more native labourers. His hon. friends who were to follow him would go into that important controversy on the possibility of getting more Kaffirs—the influence of the reduction of wages, of the accumulation of money by the natives during the war, the methods of recruitment, the terribly high rate of mortality on the Rand. The statement was not yet proved that no more labour was obtainable from the Kaffirs of South Africa. But if they liked he would assume the truth of that statement. He would assume that the reports of the Bloemfontein Conference and of the majority of the Royal Commission were correct. He would assume that the native labour supply in South Africa had been absolutely exhausted, and that not one more Kaffir could be obtained from any source. Still he asserted that there was no necessity for this measure. He might be asked—Do you take a merely negative attitude, and say that there is to be no further increase in the labour supply? He could conceive of hon. Members taking that attitude, and saving "Rather than accept these Chinese slaves we would prefer that the gold should remain in the ground." That was not the argument he would address to the House. His argument was that if there were no more Kaffirs the mines could still be worked at a profit, not by Chinese labour, but by a larger employment of white labour. He would try to prove that proposition to the House. He knew many hon. Members opposite held the view that it was impossible to employ white labour at unskilled work in South Africa, because white men would not work side by side with Kaffirs at the same employment. It was true that white men would not work side by side with Kaffirs; whites and blacks would no more mix than oil and water. But white men could be employed in one part of a mine and black men in another part at the same class of work. This was not merely conjecture or prophecy. It was experience. It was not a question whether white men would do unskilled work in South Africa, but whether they had done it. Mr. Creswell, the manager of a mine, who had made the experiment, said— Since the war I have had a large number of men working for me, and have had practically the whole of my surface works run by white men to enable me to put almost the whole complement of my natives underground. Underground I have also had white men, replacing natives as machine-drill helpers, shovelling and tramming, and helping the timber-men. In all these departments the men have on the whole worked well. The evidence would be found in the Blue-book of the General Manager of the Rand Mines, Limited, who had had over 400 unskilled white labourers working in his mine for many months. Then there was the report of the Government Mining Engineer (page 193) who said— In the majority of the crushing mills the native has been entirely replaced by the European. There they had the fact recorded on the authority of the Government engineer that in one important department Kaffir work had been replaced by unskilled white labour in most of the mines on the Rand. They had also the fact that the Government had had a large number of English navvies and 200 Boers employed on earthworks on railways in South Africa. They could not get over facts. He hoped they would hear no more of the exploded superstition that white men would not do what was called Kaffir work. Hundreds of them had been doing work which was supposed to be derogatory to white men, and which should be limited only to the blacks. Then they were told that white labour was obviously too costly. They were asked "Can you afford to work a mine if you pay a white man 10s. a day for work which the Kaffir does for 2s. 6d.? How can a mine be made to pay with white labour on such terms?" Of course if they merely replaced a Kaffir by a, white man, doing the same work, obviously the cost of production went up fourfold. Many figures could be quoted, and doubtless would be quoted, showing that the cost of production was largely increased when white men were employed, but almost all these figures were based on the employment of irregular soldiers who were engaged on what were really relief works. After the war, a large number of irregular soldiers were left in the Transvaal without employment, and, in response to an appeal from Lord Kitchener, the mine managers provided work for many of these men. But just as in this country we did not expect to get economical work from men who were engaged on relief works for the unemployed, so in South Africa the cost of the work done by the irregular soldiers who were not accustomed to that class of work, was extremely high. They would be told, also, that the British navvies were taken out to do work on the railways and that these men were found to be so costly that they had to be sent home. It would be seen from the reports of the engineers at page 110 of the Blue-book that— These men are not navvies at all, and are determined to loaf through their year's agreement…Among these so-called navvies there are a number of men who appear to have come out with the intention of doing no work. Under the circumstances these gangs of navvies were bound to prove unsatisfactory. In any case the making of earthworks on railways was work requiring sheer brute force. If white men were employed in the mines they could use mechanical devices which could not be used if black men were employed. The general manager of the Rand Mines, referring to the Boers, reported that they— Have generally performed their work very satisfactorily, and although receiving much larger pay than the average native, in certain cases, as shown in the contracting for shovelling and tramming underground, they have proved nearly as economical as regards cost per ton as native labour. Mr. Creswell, who made his experiment under many adverse circumstances, reported that labour in the cyanide works of his mine was 5.3d. per ton when Kaffirs were employed, and 4.9d. when whites were employed. Labour in the mill cost 4.8d. with the Kaffirs and 4.2d. with the whites. In developing and stoping, which was the actual work of mining underground, the cost per ton mined of machine drill contract work was 6s. 4d. with Kaffirs and 6s. 9d. with white men, an infinitesimal difference which the industry could well afford to bear. If white men were employed with Kaffir methods the expense would be heavy, but if white men were employed with white methods then they could arrive at economy. In the Transvaal, as in all cases where there had been a large and plentiful supply of cheap labour, few attempts had been made to economise labour. There was absolutely no attempt at mechanical haulage underground in any mine except that, and the much-abused Mr. Creswell had introduced a system of electrical haulage in the Village Main Reef mine.

At the Annual Meeting of the Rand Mines on 25th March, 1903, the Chairman, Sir J. Percy Fitzpatrick, who was a leader of the Chinese party, quoted and endorsed a statement of Mr. Eckstein, which had previously been made, to the following effect— It is not yet entirely satisfactory, I admit, and we all acknowledge the cost, and in some respect, the unatisfactoriness of the machine-drill, but the experience is a comparatively recent one; we are improving all the time, and I think we may reasonably look forward to the introduction of a small stope-drill which will aid us immensely in solving our labour difficulty. and he went on to say— That by the development of the machine-drill we can cut down our native labour to a very large extent—50,000 or 60,000 natives who would be replaced by a very much smaller number of skilled white miners. That was not the statement of a mere partisan of white labour. Why should these gold fields in South Africa be the only gold fields in the world which it was impossible to work with white labour; which could only be worked by employing some subordinate race? There were gold fields in America and Australia. Were there natural difficulties in the way of winning the gold on the Rand which did not exist in America or Australia? If hon. Members would turn to the Minority Report of the Labour Commission they would see quoted a statement of Mr. W. H. Hall, who was for ten years State Engineer of California and Supervising Engineer to the United States Geological Survey, and was now in the employ of the Consolidated Gold fields of South Africa, and H. Eckstein & Co., and a distinguished American expert, who said— Judging from long experience, the natural conditions and circumstances under which this mining is prosecuted may well be compared with those surrounding and affecting the cost of working auriferous lodes, veins, or ledges in the Rocky Mountains and Pacific Slope States of America. The methods of mining and reducing the banket ores here are practically the same as those followed in American quartz mining. Having made such comparisons, from my own personal knowledge I have no hesitation in saying that the conditions—so far as nature has made them —under which the industry which is here developing, viewing the Witwatersrand fields as a whole, are decidedly more favourable than those present, and affecting the cost of similar mining, as a general thing, in. America. and then he went on to say— If gold is not obtained here at less cost, the reason is to be found in the shortcomings of man, not the obduracy or unkindness of Nature. If Australia was pointed to, he would quote from the last number of the Mining Journal of London—a paper of long-established reputation. That paper said— Strong evidence is to be found in the work of white labour in other camps, and especially of late in West Australia amid natural difficulties unknown on the Rand. On these fields highly skilled labour has been evolved from raw material and costs reduced to something like Mi per cent. below those current on the Rand for similar class of ores, which suggests that economic considerations do not prevent the magnates from accepting this solution, since it is idle to pretend that the cost of living could not be made cheaper on the Rand than in Western Australia, In South Africa no attempt has been made by those who reject white labour to reorganise their system so as to utilise its superior intelligence. Again he asked under those circumstances and conditions in South Africa, which were much more favourable naturally than in America or Australia, why it was that in South Africa, and in South Africa alone, it was impossible to work gold mines except with coloured labour? The secret of the matter was that white labour was not desired. It was not that white labour was impossible. White labour was not wanted. For that there were two reasons. One was that it required a great reorganisation of the industry, something like an industrial revolution, and men were naturally unwilling to spend time, effort, and trouble in making such a great change if they had some other solution applicable. Everyone was inclined to take the line of least resistance. But there was a second reason, far more cogent from their point of view, and in-finitely more powerful. Even financiers had their moments of candour, and in some of these moments they had from the leaders of the mining industry on the Rand some very significant statements. There was the statement of Mr. Rudd, one of the Directors of the Consolidated Goldfields' Company. That leader of the industry said— If we could replace the 200,000 native workers by 100.000 unskilled whites, they would simply hold the government of the country in the hollow of their hand, and, without any disparagement to the British labourer, I prefer to see the more intellectual section of the community at the helm. A report on the whole mining industry of the Rand was prepared for the ex-Colonial Secretary the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, by the Johannesburg Chamber of Mines. A summary of that report was published in The Times, and appeared in that journal on 9th February last year. A paragraph in that summary contained the words that, as long as the present policy was continued on the Rand "they could avoid that trail of the serpent, —the formation of labour unions." Now a very significant thing had happened in connection with that paragraph!. That report had been printed verbatim in the Blue-book, but the paragraph he had read was missing! [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: The Trail of the serpent rubbed it out.] Now, either The Times correspondent must have invented that sentence out of his own head and put into it the summary he had forwarded to The Times, or else the Chamber of Mines must have found out that they had been too candid, and had published a revised version of their report and sent it to the Colonial Office. But they had further corroboration in the evidence of Mr. Hennen Jennings, who had played an important part in this question. That gentleman was one of the most distinguished American consulting mining engineers on the Rand. And it should be remembered that most of the leading consulting engineers were not Englishmen looking at this problem from the standpoint of patriots, but Americans who looked at it through the eyes of foreigners. A witness before the Labour Commission, Mr. Wybergh, was asked the question—"Can you tell the Commission what his (Mr. Jennings') opinions were, or are, on the matter?" And he answered—"I think it would probably be better to get them from himself, but as he made no secret of his opinions, I may say that what he told me was that he did not want white labour, and that he did not believe in it—at least it came to this really, that he did not want it—he objected to it." And there was the now famous letter of Mr. Tarbutt, a Director of the Gold fields' Company and the Chairman of the Village Main Reef Company, who wrote on 3rd July, 1902,to Mr. Creswell— With reference to your trial of white labour for surface work on the mines, I was not present at the board meeting, when a letter was written stating that the board did not approve of the suggestion, and on receipt of the last mail I called another board to reconsider the matter, in view of the fact that the local board had already commenced to adopt your suggestion. I have consulted the Consolidated Gold fields' people, and one of the members of the board of the Village Main Reef has consulted Messrs. Wernher, Beit, & Co., and the feeling seems to be one of fear that if a large number of white men are employed on the Rand in the position of labourers, the same troubles will arise as are now prevalent in the Australian Colonies, i.e., that the combination of the labouring classes will become so strong as to be able to more or less dictate, not only on the question of wages, but also on political questions by the power of the votes when a representative Government is established.

MR. CUST (Southwark, Bermondsey)

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the answer of Mr. Jennings?

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

No, I have not seen it, but the hon. Member can give it when he speaks in the course of the debate. It must be remembered what strong motives these men had for not being candid; how everything must induce them to keep quiet their opinions; and yet they had these four declarations clear and distinct, to the effect that even if white labour were economically possible, they did not want it, because the white labourers would be members of trades unions and have votes. Indeed, everybody who was acquainted with the opinions of these circles was aware that what was continually being said was that they did not want the Transvaal to become another Australia; they wanted to keep the power in their own hands. It was not so much coloured labour, or cheap labour, that they desired. They needed above all labour which would be voteless and subservient. That was the secret of the whole matter. But it would be said that Lord Milner supported these men. Lord Milner also said he did not want white labour, even if it were possible. His reason for this attitude was different. It had been distinctly declared. He did not want unskilled white labour. His words were "We do not want a white proletariate in this country." His deliberate policy was that he wished the Transvaal and South Africa to remain permanently a country in which an aristocracy of whites was supported by, was dependent upon, the labour of a servile class of coloured men. Now, he submitted to the House, he submitted to the Colonial Secretary, who was a student of political science, and who was accustomed to take large views, that was a profoundly false ideal for the future of South Africa. It was always a temptation to depend upon the labour of alien serfs. Perhaps it was in the tropics unavoidable. He had no doubt that they should be told that there was the precedent of the West Indies and Natal. But that was no precedent. The West Indies were a tropical country and Natal was a sub-tropical country, whereas the Transvaal was a temperate country. Moreover, the conditions of the indentured labour were wholly different. In the Transvaal, which had a temperate climate, it would be far better if there never had been any servile black races in the country. Who could doubt that South Africa would have been a cleaner and a happier country if the Kaffirs bad never been there. But the Kaffirs were there; and they must naturally take their place in the economic system; and he was not, of course, going on the assumption that the blacks could be removed. But the helot system was always an evil system, and they wished as far as they could to work away from it, and to make the Transvaal as far as possible a homogeneous white country. Lord Milner, on the other hand, finding that one race of subordinate labour had apparently proved insufficient in numbers now desired to reinforce that by another race of subordinate labour. The black being not enough, he now wished to introduce the yellow. They had no sympathy with this administrator in a hurry, who wanted to run up a jerry-built colony. They would rather see the Transvaal built up slowly as a white man's country than built up rapidly as a yellow man's country. They were at the parting of the ways. The whole future of South Africa was at stake to-day, and it was that consideration which gave this question its momentous importance. They were told that the Transvaal Labour Commission had reported that the native supply of labour was insufficient, and that white labour was impossible. They should, however, remember that the Commission was not like an English Royal Commission. It was merely the Chamber of Mines writ large. Twelve members reported; two of them were in favour of white labour; and of the remaining ten, seven had made public declarations in favour of Chinese labour before their appointment. The evidence in support of that statement would be found on page 350 of the Blue-book. Two other members were said to have acted similarly; but he had no evidence as to that. The Commission accepted without question all the evidence presented by the Chamber of Mines and rejected all the contrary evidence. Indeed it was common talk in Johannesburg immediately after the formation of the Commission, and before it had begun to take evidence that the Report would be ten against white labour, and two in favour of it; and in the circumstances he thought they might dismiss very lightly the Report of this Commission. But they could not dismiss very lightly the action of the Transvaal Government in appointing a Commission of that kind. The Transvaal Govern-men had a parti pris in this matter. It had abandoned the seat of judge, it had come down to the bar and taken on itself the functions of counsel for the plaintiff. There had long been two Governments in the Transvaal. There was the official ostensible Government of the Crown, represented by the High Commissioner, the Lieutenant-Governor, and the Legislative Council. But there was also another Government—unofficial, intangible—a Government appointed by no warrant, and embodied in no individuals, the Government of the mine-owners. The late Colonial Secretary recognised that, for when he was in South Africa and complaint was made that the Government of the Transvaal was a Crown Colony Government, he said at a banquet—"Surely you would rather be governed by Downing Street than by Park Lane." Whereupon his audience burst into loud applause. But Downing Street had now abdicated and Park Lane was supreme, and that was why this House should don the ermine of the judge and take into its own hands the decision. There appeared to be a kind of "Alice-in-Wonderland" theory that the more white labour that was excluded the more white labour would be employed. It might be true, as the majority of the Commission had reported, that if they had Chinese labour in South Africa they would have 5,000 more white artisans employed. But if there was no Chinese labour in the Transvaal they would employ, not 5,000, but 50,000 white labourers. And from the point of view of the future of the Transvaal, they must depend not so much on the gold mines as on agriculture. Fifty thousand white labourers would form an important market for agricultural produce. The Chinese would consume rice and salt fish, which would not give any encouragement to the agricultural industry. It was true that they were to be supplied with gods from Birmingham, and with coffins in which their bones were to be transported to their fatherland, but those things were not likely to encourage the economic development of the Transvaal. This was as clear an issue as had ever arisen between capital and labour—between money and men. The ex-Colonial Secretary, speaking at Leeds on alien immigration into this country, said— We are not going to allow the foreign workman, unless he be of a very desirable description, to take the bread oat of the mouth of the British working man. Were they going to adopt that rule in the Transvaal? Did the right hon. Gentleman pretend that a Chinaman was of such a very desirable description, or did he maintain that the employment of Chinese unskilled labour would not exclude the British workman? Evidence after evidence, authority after authority, showed they could employ unskilled white labour if only they adopted the proper machinery and appliances, and the reason why it was excluded was because it was not wanted. And this was to be the outcome of the great war. He thought that it was Guizot who said of the French Republic of 1848 that it began with Plato and ended with the gendarme. The South African War began with great ideals. They were told that it was fought in the interests of freedom, that here we should have a great new colony to be the home of another British nation. And how does it all end? In 300,000 Chinese serfs. In this country there was a feeling of hitter disappointment—an undercurrent of deep resentment—in this matter, which, when it came to the surface, would sweep away many of those who now supported this proposal. Was the voice of the Colonies not to be heard in this matter? The Colonies helped to conquer the Transvaal, and they had expressed their views clearly and emphatically. The Cape was unanimously against Chinese labour, and there was a deep feeling against it in Australia and New Zealand. They were told during that war that England should consider the opinion of the Colonies. Now they were told that the Colonies had nothing to do with this matter.

* THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,) Warwick and Leamington

I said directly the contrary.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

said that whatever the right hon. Gentleman's words might have been, what were his acts? The advice of the Colonies was being ignored and disregarded. Why this difference between now and the time of the war? It was because the views of the Colonies were in agreement with the views of the Government then, and they were opposed to them now. This Amendment had been drawn with extreme moderation. It did not ask this House to veto the Ordinance. He thought they might have been justified in doing that. They had not even asked the House to refer the matter to the whole of South Africa. They merely asked that the assent of the people of the Transvaal themselves should be formally ascertained, either through a popularly elected Parliament which they should prefer, or, failing that, through a referendum. The right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to treat the Transvaal as a self-governing colony. That was precisely what they asked. What course would be adopted by a self-governing colony on a question of this magnitude, in Australia, for instance, or in New Zealand? There would be either a general election or a referendum, and that was what they now asked. They were told that the delay would be too long, but it would only take a few weeks to frame a register on the basis of the franchise in Cape Colony, perhaps, and to take a vote. To decide this important question, which was pregnant with so much good or evil for the future, was it too much that they should ask for a delay of a few weeks? but they were told that the Government knew that the majority in the Transvaal were favourable to the proposal, and that therefore it was not necessary to take a referendum. But if the Government knew that the majority was in favour of Chinese labour, why do they fear a referendum? Why did the mine-owners oppose it? They, on the contrary, felt convinced that the majority in the Transvaal was not in favour of this proposal. They knew that the majority was against it a year ago. The ex-Colonial Secretary said in that House in March— That the vast majority of the people of South Africa were opposed to Asiatic labour. In January last Lord Milner said that— A year ago Sir George Farrar's proposal would have found very few supporters in the country. Now they were asked to believe that in the brief period which had elapsed such an extraordinary turnover had occurred in the Transvaal. That was an exceedingly difficult thing to prove.

The Government were relying on three things: the Legislative Council, public meetings, and the petition. The Legislative Council had declared in favour of Chinese labour. But it was not representative. Every one of its members had been nominated by Lord Milner. The late Colonial Secretary said that when a question was put to a Council so appointed they should weigh the votes as well as count them; and he added that if they found that the representatives of labour were opposed to any proposal he should regard it as an important factor. What was the position with regard to this Council? Of the twenty-six members who voted thirteen were official, and of the other thirteen four were directly or indirectly concerned with the financial houses. Of the other nine, four belonged to the class known locally as "tame Boers." The representative Boers had not consented to serve on the Council, and the Government secured these gentlemen who it was well-known were very open to influence and advice. He did not think the opinion of the four Boers was really representative of the Boer population because it was well-known that they were susceptible to advice. Of the thirteen non-official members four were directly connected with this matter, four were these Boers, and of the five that remained one voted for the Ordinance and the remainder voted against it. There was only one labour member in the Council, and the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Colonial Secretary had said he would attach the greatest importance to the opinion of labour members. This labour member voted against the Ordinance. There could be no doubt but that very great pressure had been brought to bear on the people of the Transvaal in this matter. He would mention only one case in illustration. Three men had stood out as the opponents of Chinese labour, each in the front rank of his several calling. Mr. Wybergh in the Government—the Commissioner of Mines: Mr. Monypenny in the press—the editor of the Johannesburg Star; Mr. Creswell at the mines—the General Manager of the Village Main Reef. What had happened to those three men? Mr. Wybergh was obliged to resign his appointment in the Government, Mr. Monypenny his editorship of the Johannesburg Star, and Mr. Creswell his position of mine manager. If that was what happened to those in high places what might have happened to those in obscure positions. With regard to public meetings, on only two occasions was the number of votes in favour of the importation of Chinese labour given in the reports of the fourteen meetings mentioned in the Blue-book. But in any case open voting by a show of hands was no test of the opinion of the people; had the voting been by secret ballot the result would have been very different. As to the petition, no authoritative examination had been made into the signatures, half of which, for all they knew, might have been duplicates or fictitious, Great pressure had been exerted and all opposition had been forced underground. But a great many resolutions had been passed against the importation of Chinese labour, and only yesterday we had presented the letter sent by the leaders of the Boer people. So long as the Constitution of the Transvaal was suspended it was this House, and not the nominated Council in Pretoria, that was the true guardian of the interests of the people of the Transvaal. This House could not divest itself of that function unless it deputed the matter to a free vote of the people of that country. In conclusion, he thanked the House for its kind indulgence in having listened for so long, and so patiently to one who was young, not only in Membership of this House, but also in years. He had spoken, he hoped, without exaggeration. He had spoken, he was sure, without Party feeling. To sum up what he had said: They asserted that these thousands of Chinese, socially, could not fail to be a centre of demoralisation in the places in which they lived. They asserted that the conditions under which they would be employed were conditions almost of slavery. Politically, the proposal, by maintaining the Boers in a majority would lead to the postponement of self-government in the Transvaal, and it would hinder, if not prevent, the Federation of South Africa. Although there was a shortage of labour, there was no crisis in the Transvaal due to the low production of the mines, since the production of gold was as high now as it was in 1898, and in only one year had the yield ever been higher than it was now. Even if Kaffir labour could not be obtained, white labour could be economically employed in getting the gold. The reason why white labour was not employed was not because it could not be used economically but because it was not desired. He did not ask the House itself to settle this question, but to refer it to the judgment of the people of the Transvaal. That was their case, and he submitted it was an overwhelming case. This House had to arrive at a grave judgment; it had to look to the future, to build up the greatness, of a new British colony. It had to decide whether it would lightly permit a new community of serfs to be established under its flag. It had to decide whether the waste-places of the earth under its control should be peopled by Mongolians or should be the homes of the white peoples. Those were large issues. They touched the very roots of Imperial policy. He prayed that the House might be guided by wisdom in its decision.

* MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)

, in rising to second the Amendment, asked the House to believe that he fully realised the gravity of the question to be discussed, and he asked the House to reflect what the consequences might be if it refused to sanction the Amendment. He also craved indulgence, because he himself had some special reason to take an interest in this matter. He took up the question and protested against the importation of Chinese indentured labour long before he dreamed that any hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House would make it their cause. Nor could he believe even now they had made this cause their own. He was certain the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had not, and he believed before the debate terminated that the truth would prevail, and that the House would arrive at a judgment which would avoid the disaster which would follow hasty action in this matter. Many Members might have deeper knowledge of the methods of the mines and all connected with them than he, but no hon. Member could have a deeper political interest in the welfare of South Africa. The question presented itself to his mind as one upon which they should try to proceed as far as possible by way of agreement. The able speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment had stated very accurately some reasons for believing that it was possible to use white labour in South Africa, but he would approach the matter from another point of view and see how far both sides could agree. Every single Member of the House was agreed that this proposal to import Chinese labour was in itself an evil.

SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

No.

* MAJOR SEELY

The hon. Member for Gravesend had said it was not an evil. Even he would agree that it was highly undesirable, so that every Member with one exception would agree that it was an evil and all would agree that it was highly undesirable. It might be difficult to appeal to any living man for an impartial opinion upon this question, he would therefore appeal to one who was dead, to the greatest thinking mind of this age, Herbert Spencer! Herbert Spencer was asked his opinion as to the importation of Chinese labour into America, and he said— I am opposed to it, because if it occurs one of two things must happen, either the Chinese must mix with the nation, in which case you get a bad hybrid, and, if on the other hand they do not mix, they must occupy a position of slavery. While the Chinese were as much justified in their repugnance to us as we in our repugnance to them, the fact remained, and this could not be disputed, that so great was the repugnance of all Anglo-Saxon peoples to the admixture of Chinese in the population that in no single case had Chinese been imported into any country without great efforts being subsequently made to get rid of the influx of Chinese. He was speaking of Anglo-Saxon people resident in Anglo-Saxon communities for white people, but the case was wholly different in the tropics, where a small white aristocracy dominated a necessarily subject race. It was a strange thing that the House should now be asked, after somewhat scant consideration, to import into a country, which we had lately acquired not too easily, the very thing that every Anglo-Saxon community was doing its utmost to eject and exclude. Moreover, it had always been opposed in the country to which the Amendment referred. The question of the shortage of labour had been the subject of various inquiries. The Cape Labour Commission of 1893 came to the conclusion that there was not a sufficiency of Kaffir labour, but their Report concluded with the words— We are strongly opposed to the importation of Asiatic labour, adding that there was quite enough race complication already. In 1898 the Chamber of Mines, in their Annual Report on the Labour Supply, after stating that there was a shortage of labour, said that proposals had been made for an importation of Asiatic labour, but they did not recommend the adoption of that course. So that the Chamber of Mines at the time saw the grave dangers which underlay the importation of Asiatics. He did not desire to dwell on the social evils which must flow from Chinese labour. Herbert Spencer, in a letter which recently appeared in The Times, after stating his objections to Chinese labour, declared that if there was any large importation of Chinese labour immense social difficulty, and ultimately great social disorganisation, would arise.

The House should not be misled by suggestions for bringing wives and families with these Chinese. Without imputing evil motives to anyone, he unhesitatingly stated that those responsible for the importation of Chinese labour would demur to the suggestion that they contemplated bringing wives and children for 40 per cent. of the number of labourers they hoped to obtain. If the mine-owners induced this country ultimately to agree to the importation of 150,000 indentured labourers it was not at all likely that they would also take upon themselves the burden of supporting wives, with an average of three children apiece, for 40 per cent. of the number. That would mean that something like 250,000 women and children would be herded round about the Witwatersrand mines, and from what he had heard from gentlemen thoroughly conversant with the question, he thought the suggestion was prima facie absurd. Chinamen had never taken their wives and families into distant lands in the past, even when there were no restrictions. During the years 1861–81 there were practically no restrictions on the entry of Chinamen into Australia and New Zealand; large numbers went there, and some 30,000 were still left, but he had never heard that they took their wives and families or that they were desirable citizens. He had read Blue-book after Blue-book on the subject, and all colonial statesmen of experience concurred in the view that the importation of Chinamen, whether indentured or otherwise, was disastrous to a country. That being so, was it likely that to this new country, where the cost of living was infinitely dearer than in other countries, the Chinamen would take their wives and families? Before believing that anything so inherently improbable was likely to take place, the House should be placed in possession of incontrovertible proof that arrangements had been made in writing by those who proposed the importation of these men for the bringing of the wives and children. But even if such arrangements were made, what about the remaining 60 per cent.? It was difficult to speak on the subject in the House of Commons, for he deprecated the raking up of terrible stories of the results of Chinese immigration. He did not believe that those stories were generally founded on facts, but he did hold that, whereas the Chinese might be a great nation, and no man would wish to say anything against a people who had so many great qualities, the class of persons who emigrated under the conditions foreshadowed in this Ordinance, were not a desirable class, and that they tended to be a criminal and a debasing people.

But admitting the evil, was it a necessary evil? The hon. Member for the Cleveland Division had made out an extraordinarily good case against immediately assuming that the alternative of white labour was impossible. He did not say that white labour was possible, but it had not yet been shown to be impossible. A view which prevailed with many hon. Members was that if more Chinamen were imported more white labour would be used. We wanted to arrive, as far as possible, at a white South Africa. It was agreed that the more white people there were the better it would be. It must also be agreed that if the importation of Chinamen was not permitted, the proportion of white men to coloured would be greater than if the importation was allowed. Before the war about 9,5000 natives and 9,500 whites were employed in the Witwatersrand mines, while in the last month for which figures were available, the numbers employed were 68,000 and 12,700 respectively. Therefore, when there was not so much shortage of labour, the proportion of whites to natives was one in ten, while at present the proportion was nearly one in five. Although it might be more profitable to have more black men in proportion to the white, actually they could not get them but more white were employed in proportion. Let them suppose if they imported these Chinamen they might employ more white men altogether, although he did not admit this. The point was that if the House refused to sanction this Ordinance, the proportion of white men would be greater than if they allowed this Ordinance to come into force. The hon. Member opposite read a startling passage from Lord Milner's reply to a deputation. After having read that in the Blue-book he could not conceive how His Majesty's Government could for one moment dream of sanctioning an Ordinance which was known to be contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming proportion of those who were citizens under the British flag in those colonies. Lord Milner admitted that the progress of South Africa after the war had been amazingly rapid, and they were now producing more gold than in 1895 and 1896. The hon. Member opposite had not, however, brought out the more startling fact that at the moment Lord Milner made that statement he was speaking only one year after the most devastating war which this country had experienced for a good many years. The rapid recuperation of the mining industry in South Africa, in the face of immense difficulties, had been marvellous, and those who managed the mines were deserving of the greatest credit for the way they had surmounted those difficulties. When he went to Johannesburg the line was blown up both in front and behind the train in which he travelled, and he wished to emphasise that it was less than two years since they sustained a crushing defeat not far from Johannesburg. Within less than two years the mines were actually producing between 80 and 90 per cent. of the greatest production they ever produced before. This proposal to introduce Chinese labour was like arguing that the man who stole a loaf of bread because he was hungry could no longer be sent to gaol because he pleaded urgent necessity to eat. In this case the man said, "I have had some but I am still hungry and want more." Take another example. Suppose a man found that he did not walk quite as fast as he used to before an accident and he contended that he was entitled to steal his neighbour's horse and cart in consequence. The argument was precisely similar to this proposal of the Government, and the bottom was, in fact, knocked out of the whole case by the statement of Lord Milner, who had admitted that the country was not on the verge of ruin. His hon. friend would no doubt tell them that South Africa was in a dangerous and difficult position, but there were two things to be done. One was to adopt an evil course, and the other to forswear the evil and reduce the expenditure. Seeing how great the interests involved were he thought it would be a wiser course to demand that the expenditure should be reduced rather than do an admittedly evil thing in order to increase the revenue.

He now came to the question, Who was to decide this matter? It was obvious that it could not be the people of the Transvaal, because the Government had not yet decided to give them self-government. To say that the Transvaal had decided the matter when only three meetings, two or three newspapers, and Lord Milner, who had changed his mind upon the question, had declared in favour of Chinese labour, was only trifling with the matter. Who was to decide? His right hon. friend might point out that it would have been competent for him to sanction this Ordinance without reference to the House, but the inherent power rested here, and here alone. This House had the power to turn out the Ministers and put in those who would do their will in this and other matters. The power rested in the House as well as the responsibility. What facilities had been given to hon. Members to really arrive at the truth in this matter? This was the strongest part of their case. How long had hon. Members been able to read the bulky book of evidence? He believed it was only possible to obtain it on Saturday morning last. The evidence had a startling bearing upon the whole question, because it showed that those who were in favour of another solution rather than the Chinese solution, were undoubtedly treated as hostile witnesses. That was a most extraordinary state of affairs. If they turned to the evidence of the Government Commissioner of Mines, who was the most important witness, they would find that from start to finish there were perpetual recriminations. It certainly was not the sort of Commission they were accustomed to have in this country. In Question 13976 one of the members of the Commission asked a witness if he left his employer because he was a better politician than an engineer. Was that the sort of question which ought to be put by a member of an impartial Commission? Owing to the excited state of political feeling, there could be no doubt that at the time this Commission sat, those witnesses who were opposed to the avowed desires of the mining interest were treated as hostile witnesses, and it was not a fair Commission in the sense in which they understood it. But there was another point. What was the Commission inquiring into? What evidence had the House to decide this momentous question upon? That Commission was only to inquire how far it was possible to obtain an adequate supply of labour from Central and Southern Africa. The question of Chinese labour was expressly ruled out, and there had been no inquiry into the advisability of employing Chinese labour in South Africa. It was a travesty of justice to ask the House to decide a question of this kind when there had been no inquiry into the question they were discussing. What was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman in the matter? There was no answer except that they were being hustled. He did not believe the House of Commons meant to be hustled in the matter. There had been no inquiry whatever into the desirability of Chinese labour and the possibility of obtaining white labour. They might rightly claim before they undertook so momentous a step, so absolutely contrary to every precedent—the imposition of this kind of labour on a country which was shortly to receive self-government—that there should be some inquiry. There ought to have been a great deal more knowledge on the subject presented to Parliament. He knew that a great many hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House were as bitterly opposed to this proposal as he was himself. Let them suppose that the forces against them were sufficiently strong to allow the Ordinance to be sanctioned. He understood from his right hon. friend that this was the moment when this matter was to be decided. If the Ordinance was sanctioned in the House by the rejection of the Amendment, his right hon. friend would communicate to South Africa the adhesion of the Government to it, and the importation of Chinese labour would then forthwith begin. If that was so, it was one of the most important moments that this House could well conceive of, involving as it did the welfare of the whole colony.

What was going to be the position of affairs? Whom were they going to have on their side in South Africa and whom against them? Undoubtedly this country, or rather this Government, would have on its side the mining interest a ting entirely from their own point of view in the interests of their share-holders, whose interests alone they had to consider, and rightly so; and they would have on their side a certain number of Englishmen in the Transvaal. He did not suppose that the Colonial Secretary suggested that the whole of the 7,000 out of the 12,000 white men employed on the mines were necessarily in favour of it. When employers handed round a petition it was wise to sign it. He absolutely assented to the telegram which was read out that no undue influence was used to obtain signatures, but it must be apparent that if employers wished a thing, and said they wished it, it was wiser for the work- men to accept it. The Government would have on their side a proportion of the 7,000. Whom were they going to have against them? They were going to have against them all the other Englishmen. They were going to have gainst them the whole of the Dutch population. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He heard an hon. Member say "No." He presumed his meaning was that, whereas the Boer leaders, Botha and Delarey, had issued a pronunciamento that the Dutch population was opposed to this that they did not mean what they said, and that their people would not follow them? The House had been twice taken in by that, and bitterly had this country cause to repent of her folly in not believing that the Dutch people stuck by those who had led them in peace and war. They had better not make the same mistake again. The Government, in this matter, would have practically the whole of Cape Colony against them. He might say that he received a telegram last night which he believed to be true—he would be corrected if he was wrong—saying that every one of the members recently elected to the Cape Colony Legislature had expressed themselves strongly opposed to the introduction of Chinese labour. Surely it was madness, in the face of this position, to go through with the thing with this indecent haste, because after all what was the idea with which we went through the war from which we had just emerged. He remembered reading an eloquent speech by the hon. Member for West Birmingham, which was delivered to Delarey's men in presence of Delarey, during the tour of the right hon. Gentleman in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had often seen the graves of British soldiers who fell in the war, and that he had often seen' side by side those of Boers who fell in the same struggle, and he concluded by saying —"They sleep together in peace. Let us who live, live also in peace." Fine words finely spoken. Now we come to the test of what we were going to do. These men with whom the right hon. Gentleman pleaded for peace have unanimously protested that this proposal is a mistake, and that it would be a national disaster of first magnitude. Was that likely to procure peace? He could not refrain from quoting a beautiful verse which was made on that very speech— They sleep possessed of her they sought, Briton and Boer side by side, They both alike for freedom fought, for freedom died. Here let us bury outworn hate For ever neath the tear-stained sod, And build a new and better State for man and God. Was that what they were going to do? He knew this House did not like sentimentality, but he claimed that this was no mere empty appeal. The hearts of the people at home had been bitterly stirred. There was hardly a family that had not suffered, but they thought that we fought for great ideals, but so surely as we imported 150,000 slaves into South Africa, so surely would we shatter these ideals. He did not believe this House would consent to it. Two voices were calling to them now. One called to them from every self-governing colony that had had any experience of the evil of which he told the Government. A vast majority of the people of South Africa, and he believed an overwhelming majority of the people of this country asked them not to be in a hurry, not to be in indecent haste, when they were without proper knowledge about to assent to this proposal. On the other hand, we had the cry of self-interest that we might be a little richer, the cry that the £12.500,000of gold now being dug might be increased to £16,000,000 as before. Surely this House would not consent to it. He did not think the force this Government could bring to bear on hon. Members would make them consent. He had advanced reasons for saying that they should weigh this proposal long and carefully. They were bound, not only by every tradition of this House, by every precedent, but in honour to many persons whose wishes in this matter were going to be flouted, to do this. When we made peace with the Boers, we pledged ourselves that we would not give votes to the natives until they had self-government. He asked hon. Members whether the importation of great numbers of Chinamen and the possibilities that entailed was not a graver step than the giving of votes to the natives. He thought so, and yet they were giving no chance to those people of expressing their views in any constitutional manner whatever. Our honour was bound up in this proposal. We had bound ourselves that the Colonies should have a say in the settlement of this matter He had spoken to many representatives of the Colonies on the matter, and he could assure the House that every one felt bitterly upon it. We were bound to consider the wishes of our self-governing colonies; we were bound to consider the Dutch with whom we had made peace; and we were bound in honour to consider the bitter cry of the people of this country who had suffered. It was only a little more than four and a half years ago that it seemed very likely that South Africa would be, as had been prophesied, the grave of England's greatness. Let this House see to it to-day that it was not the grave of England's honour.

Amendment proposed— At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that it is highly inexpedient that sanction should be given to any ordinance permitting the introduction of indentured Chinese labourers into the Transvaal Colony until the approval of the colonists has been formally ascertained.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

* MR. LYTTELTON

My hon. and gallant friend who has just sat down has advanced a great number of highly questionable propositions, and he has inferred with the courage of youth, from the silence in which they have been received, that hon. Gentlemen upon this side admit them to be true. He has taken, I think, as among the admissions made by us on this side of the House that we have acted upon insufficient evidence. I traverse that absolutely.

* MAJOR SEELY

I never said so.

* MR. LYTTELTON

He has taken it that it is admitted upon this side that it is in itself an evil to bring Chinese into a country whose necessities of labour demand that the existing labour should be supplemented. I must not be taken as admitting that. I admit, however, that it is an unfortunate circumstance when a country is unable to provide labour for itself. It is also, I think, more than unfortunate, but still an undoubted fact, that white men in Africa will not do the work which black men do. So far only do I make any admission to my hon. and gallant friend. To the complaint that the House has been rushed in this matter a sufficient answer is furnished by the speech of the mover of this Amendment. No one who heard that speech—though, of course, I do not agree with it and I think it did me some injustice—could for a moment doubt that a man of industry and a man of ability, such as my hon. friend is, had abundant time for mastering not only the principles but the details of this matter. My hon. and gallant friend said he under stood from me that I was going to sanction the removal of the suspensory clause inserted by my request, at the instance of the Leader of the Opposition, in order to give Parliament time, not to discuss every line of the Ordinance—that would be a wholly absurd proceeding for the Imperial Parliament—but in order to raise before the people of this country in the fullest way the general question whether the introduction of Asiatic labour into the Transvaal is right or wrong. Let me say at the beginning that the hon. mover of this Amendment did me an injustice when he said I was amenable in this matter. Does the Blue-book show it? The Blue-book shows that I endeavoured to take every possible precaution to ensure that the fullest deliberation should be given to the discussion of this matter, and the Government only approved of the principle of this measure with the distinct conviction and belief that the labour which would be introduced would not be a substitute for, but would be supplementary to, the labour now employed. They acted with the conviction that this step would increase and not diminish white employment. Further they are absolutely convinced that the measure is one of extraordinary urgency, and that the vital economic necessities of the Transvaal demand it. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why?"] I will come to that presently. I put last, but I am certain that no one in this House who knows me will suppose that I think it last in importance, the fact that the Government consider that these ends may be achieved without any ethical or moral stain either upon the Chinese who may be introduced or upon others.

Before I endeavour to make good these arguments may I make a few general observations to the House which I most earnestly commend to both sides of the House for their serious consideration I Do not approach this subject in the air. Look steadily at the actual facts of the situation. Just consider what the economic situation of the Transvaal is. When the Transvaal was annexed by this country, when Lord Milner took the government over, he did not fashion the economic structure of the country, he took it over ready-formed. And what was it that he took over ready-formed? He took over a very abnormal economic condition, a vast, organised, and wealthy industry imposed upon an almost rustic community. Lord Milner did not frame that industry; His Majesty's Government did not frame it; it was framed by the great ability of those who instituted it—erected in the course of only twelve or fourteen years. Most States pass through successive stages. They are pastoral, then rural, then cities grow up to minister to their needs, and, finally, you have an industrial community, industries generally being the latest growth in a State. But in the Transvaal there has been no such process. Johannesburg, with its tall steel chimneys and great white spoil banks, rises almost straight out of the veld. It is not a mining camp, as many great mining industries have been. The wealth which is being worked there is known to exist just as well as is the coal in South Wales and even better than on the diamond fields at Kimberley. The rate of output of this extraordinary place was £18,000,000 per annum before the war.

MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

£20,000,000.

* MR. LYTTELTON

I prefer to keep within the mark. That output practically represented the whole wealth, the whole taxable capacity of the State. It is thus, that, after the annexation, the rulers of that country are confronted not with the problems of a small State, but with all the problems of an advanced industrial community. From those facts there follow, as it seems to me, two things —first, that it was necessary to form and equip a fully civilised and modern Government; next, that it was necessary, having formed that Government, by means of the resources of the mines to endeavour to develop the residue of the country so as to bring the body into proportion with the head. It was a peril, and it is a peril, that you should have a State with a gigantic and wealthy centre and with the other portions undeveloped. It was the policy of the Government, by making roads and railways, by land settlement, by irrigation, to bring up this State into line with Johannesburg, its head. Men are better than minerals.

MR. SWIFF MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

What we want is free men.

* Mr. LYTTELTON

If you use the resources of this gigantic industry for the purpose of developing the whole country, surely you are doing a right, politic, and statesmanlike thing for the community. A strong rural community, well backed, is that without which no State is really secure. Lastly, we have spent £250,000,000 and made great sacrifices for that country. We have —I think I was one of the first in this country publicly to advocate it—repatriated the Boers; we have reconstructed their farms and stocked them to the best of our ability. We wish the Boers well, but we also wish well to our own people. We do not wish—it would be against human nature—that when we have made this gigantic effort it should be for the benefit of the Boers alone, and that we should leave our own people un-cared for and in a minority. May I summarise, what I have been endeavouring to say? I have said that the economic situation when this country annexed the Transvaal necessitated the institution of a well-organised and a well-equipped Government, and an attempt by that Government to develop the country by means of the wealth of the mines, so as to make it an organic and proportioned whole, and thus attract the Briton to come in with the Boer and possess the land. I submit to the House, whether they agree with it or not—and I should rather judge from the way they have met it that they do agree with it—I submit that that policy was a wise one. It is, at any rate, a coherent and far-seeing policy. But look at what it has involved. It has involved a substantial cost and we have laid a debt—and this House has assented to it—for the purpose of developing this country in the manner which I have described we have laid a debt on the country of £35,000,000 I have said the country would be well able to meet these charges. The gold in the land is to the eye of science actually visible. The machinery is equipped to get it, but the labour only is lacking for the purpose. I ought to read one or two extracts only. Sir Arthur Lawley, on 30th October, said— The financial position here to-day is most serious. I am of opinion personally that the only thing which stands between us and a general crisis is the sanguine hope of the early introduction of Asiatic labour. On 29th September Lord Milner said— The immediate prospect is very bad. There is complete stagnation of commerce and industry owing to the labour difficulty, and it affects almost every branch of revenue, especially the railways. He adds— There are no signs of an adequate amount of labour being obtained from the existing source of supply, and the consequent depression in every kind of business is increasing daily. The revenue is falling off, many people are out of work, and if the situation does not soon change a considerable exodus of the white population is inevitable. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with the mines except insufficiency of labour. They are equipped for the production of at least 60 per cent. above the present, and plenty of capital for further development is assured if only the labour difficulty is overcome. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment referred to 300,000 Chinese being required.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

That is in the Report.

* MR. LYTTELTON

The Report said that that number of labourers might be required in the future, but there is no authority for saying that 300,000 Chinese would be necessary. Lord Milner went on— No one, indeed, any longer supposes that the experiment of Asiatic labour, even if successful, can do more than supplement the local supply or justify any relaxation in the immense effort that is being made to develop the latter…But in the opinion of the best judges we may hope gradually to obtain an amount of labour from Asia which will substitute steady and substantial progress for the present complete stagnation. I ought, perhaps, to give the House an independent authority on this matter. Mr. Birchenough, in his report on the financial condition of the country to the Board of Trade, having dealt in the fairest way with the question of Asiatic labour. He said— The real danger of the situation lies in the prolongation of the present financial strain. It is really a race against time, and that is why experiments, however well-meaning, which take years to show their results are impracticable. The trouble of the problem is the difficulty of obtaining labour. There is no dispute as to the wealth which lies in the Transvaal, nor is it denied that the essential conditions which affect the gold mines are more favourable than before the war, with the single exception of the labour supply. But, as I have indicated, the whole of the industrial and commercial interests of the Transvaal are too important for it to be allowed to stand indefinitely in the way. Now, I say that the credit of the new States, on which the prosperity of South Africa as a whole depends, is very vitally at stake in this matter. The House knows from the Blue-books that the deficit anticipated as the result of the shortage of the present financial year is no less than £350,000. This House has, without a division, imposed the obligations to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, which must be defrayed by the mines—the obligations, that is, of discharging the cost and expense of this newly equipped and expensive Government and the cost and expense of the equipment and development of the country, including the interest on the £35,000,000 loan. I am not simply speaking now of the moral question. Can you, as a matter of economic prudence and policy, having laid this great burden on a community, deny them, if they put proper restrictions and precautions upon it, the opportunity to discharge the obligations which you have so laid upon them? Now, Sir, you may say, and I fully accept the Tightness and relevancy of the challenge—you may say: "Granted in your favour that you have established a political and economic case for the introduction of Chinese labour, yet across your path in proposing that policy lie obstacles, social, industrial, and moral, which no considerations of economics or policy can remove." That is the issue.

I take first the political issue. The mover of the Amendment said that Lord Milner had been always in favour of Chinese labour. He is entirely inaccurate as to that. Lord Milner was not in favour of it at the beginning of 1903. The hon. Member also said that the reason why the proposal had been made was that I was more amenable than my predecessor. That is also inaccurate. My predecessor's views on this matter were stated as long ago as March of last year, when he said— I ventured, when I was in South Africa, to promise, at all events on behalf of my own Government—and I believe I can safely do so on behalf of the whole House of Commons—that although technically they"— the new colonies— were Crown colonies, and as such subject in the last resort to any ultimatum that may be propounded from Downing-street, the Government would treat them in all matters in which Imperial interests are not directly considered as if they were self-governing colonies. And the hon. Gentleman, I am sure unintentionally, endeavoured to convey to the House that my predecessor's mind was made up on this subject. He is quite inaccurate again. On 27th July last, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth, my right hon. friend said— As long as the opinion of the Transvaal is hostile"— that is, to Asiatic labour— the right hon. Gentleman may rest perfectly satisfied that I shall not assent to it, and I shall certainly not be a party to imposing it on a hostile majority. But the right hon. Gentleman asks me what the future is likely to be. I think it is very likely that the opinion which is now hostile may not always be hostile, and I have received information—I do not know exactly what importance to attach to it at the present moment—that amongst the Boer farmers the pressure for labour has become very acute.' I only want to show that my predecessor laid down the principle which the Government have adopted on this question—namely, that of treating these colonies, as far as possible, as if they were self-governing, and I have read that extract to show that my right hon. friend was aware in July that opinion was coming round on the question.

Now let me just enumerate the precautions we have taken before we venture to ask the House here to say that we have obtained a satisfactory pronouncement of opinion from the Transvaal. Before the Transvaal Government moved in the matter at all, a private member was directed to bring forward by way of resolution the question, aye or no, whether Asiatic labour should be introduced. On that resolution every official member had entire freedom to vote according to his own convictions. That liberty, which I think everybody here, even the Member for Northampton agrees was rightly accorded to them, was exercised. The result of the debate on the resolution brought forward by a private member was approved by a vote of twenty-two to four. Of the unofficial members nine to four voted in favour of the proposal. These unofficial members were collected from various parts of the Transvaal. They were representative men. Of the majority there were four Boers, two were mining men, two were leading men in business. One was a British farmer who had been living there for many years. That was the composition of the majority of the unofficial members. The thirteen official members of the Assembly all voted in favour of the resolution. [Cheers.] I suppose by that cheer it is meant to imply that they did not act honestly or according to their convictions. I absolutely repudiate that. Yes, Sir, and I have some right to repudiate it, because I have seen many of these gentlemen. Some of them belong to the party which I now confront. They belong many of them to a party which has opposed what are called "capitalists," and I should like any one here who has ventured to indulge in that sneer at the expense of absent men to get up in his place and say one single word in the face of South Africa and his own friends there, derogatory to Sir Richard Solomon, to Sir Godfrey Lagden, to Mr. Duncan, and to many others who have worked themselves to the bone on behalf of the State. Is this a new opinion in South Africa?

SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge Univerisity)

Yes.

* MR. LYTTELTON

Yes, the Member for Cambridge University says. He is generally too well informed. At the beginning of 1903, only a year ago, the intercolonial conference, called the Bloemfontein Conference, assembled, containing representatives of every State in South Africa. So far as Cape Colony was concerned—the only State of South Africa which has since declared itself hostile to the principle—Sir Gordon Sprigg, Mr. Molteno, and another member of the Bond whose name for the moment I forget, were chosen by their Parliament as representatives of the State on whose behalf they appeared. Every single State, including Cape Colony, passed a resolution with a unanimous voice. That resolution was that native labour was insufficient south of the Zambesi to carry out the labour requirments of South Africa, and recommended that, subject to proper restrictions, Asiatic labour should be introduced, pronouncing at the same time that Asiatic labour should be of a temporary and not of a permanent character. That is the situation affirmed again in 1903, as my hon. and gallant friend said, affirmed so far as ('ape Colony is concerned as far back as 1876, showing it was no new thing. It was no paradox, so far as the Cape was concerned, that this Commission was going to prove. In the opinion of Rhodesia, Natal, the Transvaal, Orange River Colony, and Cape Colony; all those five States, represented by five or six members for each, voted unanimously affirming the proposition. It seems ingenuous on the part of my hon. and gallant friend, but one expects ingenuousness from him, to suppose that the judgment of Cape Colony which affirmed the resolution has been wholly unaffected by the circumstances of the general election, which was proceeding, when it next came to declare itself. To those who are experienced in this House I will not labour that matter. The inference is obvious.

I pass from that to the Boer letter of three or four days ago on which my hon. friend seems to place so much reliance. I ask the House for a moment to follow the circumstances under which that letter was written. On 28th December, this debate on the resolution, aye or no, should Chinese labour be introduced, was before the Legislative Council. After the passage of the resolution by a majority of twenty-two to four, six weeks, or nearly six weeks, elapsed before the publication of the Boer letter. During that time and during the occurrence of the debate in the Transvaal Assembly every possible opportunity was given for the collection of Boer opinion in the matter, and Mr. Hull, who was one of the four who opposed the introduction of Chinese labour, ventured to quote in that Assembly that General Botha was against the introduction of Chinese labour, and that he spoke representatively on behalf of the Boers. That was what Mr. Hull said at that very debate. How did General Botha receive it? He repudiated Mr. Hull's authority to make any such statement.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

Or any statement at all.

* MR. LYTTELTON

My hon. friend is quite right. I will not push this too far. He repudiated Mr. Hull's authority to make any statement on his behalf. The point is not that which the hon. Member for Camberwell thought I had in my mind. All I seek to establish by that fact is that at that time General Botha knew perfectly well that there were people debating this question; are the Boers or not in favour of this Chinese labour? He would not allow anybody to pledge their word on his behalf.

* MAJOR SEELY

Let him speak for himself.

* MR. LYTTELTON

My hon. and gallant friend says "Let him speak for himself." Yes, but when would have been the proper time to have spoken? Why, then, Sir. And is my hon. and gallant friend so innocent as to suppose that if it had been true that General Botha had the right to speak for the Boer population, and if he would not have been repudiated had he done so then, that he would not then and there have contradicted him. General Botha, knowing that statements were being made on 28th December or thereabouts that the Boers were against this measure, would not allow any statement to be made on his or their behalf at all. He lies by for six weeks, and then, when the whole thing is settled; when the resolution has been passed, the first reading, the second reading, and then the third reading; when no less than six weeks had passed, in which if it had been the fact that he represented the Boers in this matter, and that they were opposed to it, he would have had abundant opportunity of making statements to that effect; then he makes this protest. Having had many opportunities of studying a good many of the Boers' characteristics at first hand, I say that they would be the first to despise you if you were taken in by a device so palpable. The mover of this Amendment would not find me amenable to that kind of manœuvre. I mean the manœuvre of suppressing your opinions and those whom you say you represent when the matter is before the proper and constitutional authority and then, when the final stage of the Ordinance has been passed, writing a letter contrary to all the facts which had reached me.

MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

On 6th January in a Dutch paper is an interview with General Botha, in which he expressed his opinion as being strongly anti-Chinese. That is in your own Papers presented to-day.

* MR. LYTTELTON

At an interview. That interview was not made public for some time afterwards, and no communication was made of this view to the Government, so far as I am aware. What is the situation then? We are asked by my hon. and gallant friend, who understands these matters so well, that when full opportunity has been given to the Boer leaders to express themselves in a constitutional way, and when that opportunity has long gone past, and the Legislative Council have passed the Ordinance, to yield to a belated and unconvincing demand made at the last moment, when everything else had failed. But who are the Boer leaders, and what title have their views upon this question to prevail upon the views of hon. Members opposite? Do they think that anybody speaks from an eminence on this subject when be is in favour of dealing with the shortage of labour in the Transvaal by the expedient of forced labour? Do they think that anybody whose opinion is of much weight in this matter wishes to deal with this difficulty by the expedient of breaking up the native locations, and forcing the natives of Africa into the mines, or on to the farms by such methods? Now let us investigate for a moment the pretensions of these gentlemen on this point. I am not blaming them for having their views, but I do blame hon. Gentlemen opposite for regarding them as great authorities upon this topic to whom we ought to defer. General Botha is of opinion that there is a great shortage of labour on the farms, and the method which he suggests in his evidence before the Commission is that you should break up the native locations and enforce squatters law. General Delarey does not go so far, but General Cronje and several others whom I can quote if necessary, gave evidence before the Labour Commission complaining of the shortage of labour on their own farms, and suggesting the expedient of enforcing squatters law (which prevents any natives beyond five families ever settling on a farm), of breaking up the native locations or native reserves, like Basutoland, and of driving them out of the land which belongs to them—in order to do what? To serve them on their farms. This is a matter which I can assure the House is very relevant at this time. If instead of bringing Chinamen, who come voluntarily, who earn far better wages than they would in their own country, under circumstances which I shall detail to the House in a moment, if instead of bringing these tough members of an old and tough civilisation to do this work, which we believe they are anxious and willing to do, you are to take—and I know nobody who would be more averse to this than hon. Members opposite—if you are to take the Boer population by their leaders as desirous of breaking up the native locations, of forcing the natives into the mines, of driving them off the land that was theirs, then I say that you have the Boer leaders in a position which is intolerable to Members of this House and, I believe, to anybody who rightly regards the native populations of Africa.

It is said that we ought not to have been satisfied with this long and deliberate ascertainment through a constitutional method of the opinions of the Transvaal people. It is said that we ought to have a referendum. I cannot argue everything twice over, so I must ask the House to assume in my favour that it was established upon undoubted authority that this problem was a very urgent problem—that the necessity of going forward wag an urgent and vital necessity in the economic condition of the country. I will tell the House why in a sentence. The mines are 30,000 natives short of the number employed in the pre-war period. We are told that we ought to have a referendum on this matter. Such an expedient is absolutely unknown in any portion of the British Empire. It is absolutely without precedent, and it would raise in all the Crown Colonies questions of the most difficult nature. But there is a more serious objection than any of these. At a moment when we are more than ever anxious to do everything we can to bind together the two peoples — Boer and British—it would raise questions about the franchise which I think anybody who wished these two peoples to live together in peace and harmony would regard as most undesirable at the present moment. Of course, although this does not seem to be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it would take a long time to settle these questions in the first instance. Say it took two or three months to settle and adjust the various claims which the Boers would desire to have represented. How long would it take to form a register when you had settled these questions? I am advised by Lord Milner that it would take at least six months to form that register. Lord Milner is an authority on these things, and I assure hon. Members opposite that he is probably within the mark, because it took six months to form the register of the Johannesburg municipality, which is a much more limited area, and the population of which gave every assistance. Therefore we have at least nine months, and probably twelve months, before this referendum could be taken. Then what is the question to be? That is not a very easy thing to settle, moreover, as I can assure the House after the experience we have had of the Boers there is not much encouragement to think that we should get their real opinion even if we had a referendum. I therefore pass that by as really out of the question.

Now, Sir, I think it was admitted by the mover of this Amendment that blacks cannot do the work. We have heard almost ad nauseam of the endeavours which have been made to procure their assistance.

* MR. HERBERT SAMUEL

I said that I would not enter into that question.

* MR. LYTTELTON

I will not commit the hon. Member to that opinion, but I do not think there is much dispute about it on the part of those who have studied the question. I do not found myself entirely upon the Bloemfontein Conference, or upon the Report of the Commission which followed, or upon the votes of the Legislative Council, but what I do ask the House to consider is this. Does not the thing speak for itself? If you had no evidence by the Commission, no evidence by the Legislative Council, no evidence by the Bloemfontein Conference—even then does not the thing speak for itself? The mine-owners have been all over Africa endeavouring to secure African labour. They have been, through the Colonial Office to West Africa, through the Foreign Office to Central Africa and Uganda, through the German Foreign Office to East Africa, and they have been as far as Morocco and Liberia, but, chiefly through the opposition of the various Governments concerned, they have not been able to obtain the labour they require. I do not blame the Governments; they do not think they have sufficient population to spare for this work. But what I do ask the House to believe is that an honest and strenuous endeavour has been made to get labour from Africa itself. The correspondence in the Blue-book will show that in a moment. Notwithstanding these strenuous and persistent efforts you have the fact that, although there is an equipment of machinery adequate to produce 60 per cent. more than in the pre-war period, you are actually 30.000 natives short in the mines compared with the number previously employed. More than that, you have also the circumstance that in Johannesburg itself the municipality were unable to obtain 1,000 natives to do the necessary municipal work. There are the facts; they speak for themselves; they cannot be contradicted. The reasons for these facts are principally that the war itself made a great disturbance; you have had very large works of reconstruction in the Transvaal, you have had the making of railways, the construction of docks, Cape Colony, irrigation works, the work of rebuilding the farms and the necessary construction of work to make good the waste of the war. If that be the case, and nobody can deny that it is, you have an absolutely certain cause of the shortage in African labour, and an absolutely certain and recognised effect in the shortage in the mines, and even in the Johannesburg municipality.

I am afraid I have detained the House at considerable length, but this is a very serious matter, and I wish to give hon. Members all the information I can. The blacks cannot be found to do this work. I affirm most strongly that the whites will not do it. Let me say, in connection with what has been stated by the seconder of the Amendment, that New Zealand and Australia are the only self-governing Colonies which have protested against the introduction of Chinese labour. [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: The Cape.]

* MR. LYTTELTON

Yes, I was wrong there is the Cape, that is a self-governing colony. I entirely agree that their opinions ought to be, and they have been, respectfully weighed by me; but they are not conclusive upon this matter, though they are entitled to every consideration. What is the opinion of Canada on this subject? Have all the dreadful consequences which my hon. and gallant friend portrayed exhibited themselves in British Columbia? Why, the Chinese were an absolute necessity. As in this case, I believe the necessity was temporary, and needed to give a basis to an industry which when formed the outside labour could be dispensed with. In Africa you want to underpin a temporary structure, and afterwards to fill in the foundations from the ordinary source of supply. Though the opinion of Australia ought to be respected, I think it was under some delusion as to the problem presented that the opinion was arrived at. Australia and New Zealand are white communities, and I have a good deal of sympathy with the desire to keep them pure white men's countries, but the problem is entirely different in South Africa. In Australia you have a standard of labour and the level is set by white men, but in Africa, where you have blacks in the majority of the population, it is inevitable that the standard is set by black labour; and the opinion I have formed from the facts is that where you have Kaffirs doing practically all the unskilled work of the colony, you may despair of ever getting white men from this country to compete with the unskilled labour of the Kaffir in his own country. I may challenge any Member who may follow me in this debate to give a single instance, except where it has been tried experimentally, of black and white men working side by side in South Africa. As Sir Charles Pearson wrote in 1895— When the Kaffir does the unskilled labour, the British race begin to consider all labour but that of the highest kind dishonourable. We may consider this an unfortunate fact, but I would ask the hon. Member for Battersea, who can speak from experience in Africa and knowledge of the working classes, does he believe that a decent working man would emigrate from this country, not to better himself, not to place himself in a different class to that in which he is in this country, but to do unskilled work in competition with Kaffirs? I say the feeling against it is universal, and I can say so from knowledge derived not only from people connected with the mines, but from our own soldiers and others. Not even the poorer Dutch will do Kaffir work for any time, though they might for a little while at three times the pay a Kaffir would receive. Even then, they would come to their employer and say— "Our self-respect has been degraded by doing this work which it is customary to leave to black men." It was the same thing with disbanded troopers in distress, and even with navvies. A thousand navvies were sent out for railway work, men who had been employed before on Government construction work, and they were obviously skilled workmen, for when they were put on piecework they multiplied their cubic feet of production from two to eight. If they had worked at that pressure all the time, though it would have been far from being economical, the result would have been less deplorable than it was. The men became disgusted at doing work to which the feeling of the white inhabitants was opposed; they were influenced by their surroundings; they grew sulky and discontented, and were brought home after being there seven months, because to have kept them there for five months more would have cost the Government an extra £40,000. I ask any Member? interested in emigration—Would any working man ever leave this country for the purpose of doing unskilled work?

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

Of course he would.

* MR. LYTTELTON

I ask as a matter of fact—Is there any considerable stream of emigration from this country except with the hope of rising in the world? Look at the nature of the case. Men leave their homes, their kith and kin, and the enjoyments to which they have been accustomed. I venture to say that the only chance of ever getting white labour into the South African mines is first to fill up, if you can, your farming population and your skilled labour at the mines, and then in the future, as they prosper and multiply, possibly then, in time, you may overcome the deep-seated repugnance of white men to compete with black. The only experiment there has been was made by Mr. Creswell, of whom I wish to speak with the greatest respect. He is entitled to full measure of praise for his experiment. He made it in opposition to the whole experience of mining experts, who, I admit, may have been biassed, as men are biassed in matters affecting their own interests. But I think it is a very strange case when every engineer of the Rand is of an opinion contrary to that of the gentleman who made the experiment, and we have the known facts with which I have troubled the House. But I have here a letter, an extract from which I will read, and it throws considerable light on the white labour experiment. Mr. William Mather, late general secretary to the Transvaal Mining Association, replying to Mr. Creswell's statement on the subject, says — After the close of the war Lord Kitchener gave his consent to the employment of ex-Regulars and Irregulars in the mines, and an arrangement was come to with the Chamber of Mines that they should be paid at the rate of 5s. a day all found that being the standard rate of pay of Irregulars in the field. On all the mines except the Village Main Reef this arrangement was adhered to. Mr. Ore-well did not observe the conditions; he only paid the men 5s. a day, refusing to pay £6 5s. per month for board and lodging, and also an additional 22s. for bedding. the letter goes on to say— The matter was taken up by the Transvaal Mining Association, and a number of summonses were issued against Mr. Creswell and orders obtained for the payment for board and lodging, so that, instead of the cost of the unskilled white man being 5s. a day it was actually 10s., as against 54s. a month and board and lodging amounting to 20s. paid to the native, giving the native £3 19s. a month, as against £12 15s. a month paid to the unskilled labour. This is a matter of considerable interest in relation to this experiment, which, after all, was carried out on a small scale and under peculiar conditions on the Rand. Now if we ask for white men to come in —and I invite the attention of Labour Members to this —the result of bringing in unskilled white labour is not necessarily the employment of more British labour; there may be labourers of other nationalities, and the effect would be, not to increase British employment on the Rand, but to diminish it and to reduce the wages paid for it. Of course, it is perfectly clear that, if you introduce these foreigners in competition with British labour, inasmuch as their standard is much lower than the British one, the effect would be to lower the standard of wage. I was interested to see a statement made by the Rand correspondent of the official organ of the Labour Party of which, I think, we shall hear a good deal, or at any rate, of the body which the paper represents. I find in the Labour Leader of 16th January, a letter from its Rand correspondent containing a criticism of this proposal to introduce whites to do unskilled work. I am aware that view has not prevailed with the Labour representation itself, and I am aware that a resolution has been passed against it. I have mentioned it as showing that the Rand correspondent of the Labour Party gives that view. I find also it is echoed by another paper which has some considerable weight and knowledge.

There are only two more topics with which I shall trouble the House, but I think they are important topics. I have endeavoured to show that the economical necessity is vitally urgent, and the political necessity also. I have endeavoured to show that the opportunity of getting further natives is for the present impossible; though I hope it will soon increase. I have endeavoured to show also that the idea of getting Britons to go out from this country to compete with the blacks in the mines is a hopeless dream. I hope that I have established these propositions, but I quite recognise that hon. Members have a right to say that the burden rests on us of showing that the remedy proposed to meet a great economic difficulty — the introduction of Chinese labour—can be introduced into that country without moral taint and without presenting the aspect or the reality of slavery. It is a perfectly legitimate demand, and I trust that the House will allow me to meet it shortly, and I hope conclusively. I entirely agree that the provisions for the reception and accommodation of the wives and families of these people should be clearly made. I undertake that they shall be made. We were advised in this matter by men the most experienced in the whole Empire on the subject of Chinese labour. We were advised that the coolies would not go without their womenfolk. Manifestly it would be most wrong that they should go without their womenfolk. I undertake that if they wish to bring their wives and families they shall be allowed to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: All of them? All of them. I did not give a specific answer to a Question on this point the other day because the form of the question was—Would they all be accompanied by their wives and families if they wished it? Obviously it might be desirable for the labourers to go out in one ship and their wives and families in another. I undertake, on behalf of the Government, that all the coolies who desire to bring their wives and families shall have the opportunity to do so. If more is desired, then I undertake to fully consider and give effect to any reasonable demand made in connection with the matter. Hon. Members must remember that at present this matter is being considered by Mr. Evans, who is the representative of the Transvaal Government, and who has a life-long experience of Chinese coolies. Lord Milner had the advantage of the advice, when on the spot here, of Sir F. Swettenham, who has had thirty-three years experience of Chinese coolies in the Malay States. He has thoroughly discussed the matter with Lord Milner face to face. We have this advantage also, that we have the Chinese Government negotiating for and seeing to the rights of their labourers, so that in the first place you have a distinct undertaking that this provision shall be made for the accommodation of the families, and in the next place you have the best advice on the subject which can possibly be obtained, and, finally, you have the Chinese Government watching over the interests of their subjects.

Let it not be forgotten that this is no new thing which hon. Gentlemen seem to have opened up. I do not blame them for calling attention to it. It is quite right that they should do so. Coolies have been introduced under indentures into Natal, Trinidad, Fiji, Borneo, and British Guiana. The mover and seconder of the Amendment drew a lurid picture of the lot of these people; but, fortunately, their accounts do not conform to experience. They are drawn out of their own heads. I will make good that statement in a moment. At any rate I do not blame them for the vividness of their imagination. I do not intend to say more on the moral question than that. I honour the source from which this question was introduced. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Rochester and Worcester are men whom all who know them honour and revere, and I understand that in another place the Archbishop of Canterbury was fully satisfied with the assurances which he received from my noble friend Lord Onslow.

There is one more point, and it affects not only the Chinese but also the community into which they are going. I think hon. Gentlemen were perfectly entitled to ask that safeguards should be given by His Majesty's Government. I trust that we have done so. The next and last question is the alleged slavery or condition of slavery into which the Chinese are supposed to be projected. Let me describe briefly the precautions. An official, appointed by the Transvaal Government, and wholly independent of the mines and responsible to the Government here, is to go to China, and on that side, in China, he is to secure and warrant by his Certificate that every Chinaman who embarks upon this undertaking shall fully understand its nature and its terms; and, further, security is to be made for his comfort and sanitation during transit. He is then to be received at the port of entry to the Transvaal—which is at present intended to be Durban —by someone who is again to explain to him fully and carefully all the conditions of service. When he arrives at the mines he is no doubt to live in what is a Chinese village or location. It is considerably different from a native compound, because it is a place fitted for the reception of Asiatics, and is to be carefully prepared by those who know-Asiatic customs and habits. It is to be prepared for him by those on the spot. We have heard some ridiculous exaggerations of the compound system which obtains there already, and which, it is said, is to be applied to the Chinese also. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant friend has seen a compound. He said that this was a cruel system. It is not so. Let me compare the language of exaggeration used by hon. Members who have not seen these compounds with the language of truth and sincerity used by one who has seen them, and who is one of the most zealous workers in the humanitarian movement of this country. Canon Scott Holland, the editor of the Commonwealth, a Christian social magazine, writes that the visitor to the mines is first distressed to think that the native should have been plunged straight from his kraal into the midst of a roaring manufacturing industry. But the visitor soon observes how shrewd the native is in avoiding bad and unfair conditions, and how much profit he manages to secure from his employment— He walks off with his gold and gets him wives, and returns when he wants more to a place where he finds himself cared for. He is having no unhappy time, and his genial gaiety of heart carries him well through it. I venture to think that that paragraph) written by a man who does more in a year for humanity in this country than many of us do in a lifetime, and one who has visited the native compounds, blows into a thousand fragments the absurd pictures of life in the compounds which have been presented to us this evening. The attacks which have been made on the Transvaal Government have been unworthy and unjust. It was suggested that the mine-owners had got rid of every official of the Government who objected to the importation of the Chinese. Mr. Wybergh, who was referred to as having been got rid of because he opposed this project, was found by a Commission, long before the question of Chinese labour was raised, to have been incompetent for his office. By the kindness and forbearance of Sir Arthur Lawley he was allowed to remain in the employment of the Government for several months and then to resign on the pretext that he differed from the policy of the Government, and, after having been treated with such exceptional generosity, he thought it right to say that he had retired because of the capitalist leanings of the Government. I am sure Mr. Wybergh regrets that action now; yet his case is referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite as an instance of the manner in which the Transvaal Government swept from their path every official who wished honestly to do his duty. I do not think hon. Gentlemen are in a position to know the reasons why Mr. Creswell resigned; and as for Mr. Monypenny, the editor of the Star, he wrote in that paper—which, be it remembered, was the property of the mine-owners and the most powerful journal in the Transvaal —able and vigorous expressions of his own opposition to the policy of the mine-owners. I do not think that many newspaper proprietors in this country would allow so able a pen as that of Mr. Monypenny to be employed for months at their own expense in endeavouring to demolish their policy. I do not say that the mine-owners should be exempt from criticism, but I do say that the language which has been used about them is ungenerous and unfair. Sir George Farrar, the protagonist in behalf of the mine-owners, is a man of the highest character

* MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)

Was he one of the concoctors of the fraudulent "women and children" letter.

* MR. LYTTEETON

Sir George Farrar is a gallant man. He fought in the war and gained distinction in the field, and I think he and his colleagues ought to be credited with that sincerity of view with which, throughout the observations I have addressed to the House, I have endeavoured to credit their opponents.

* MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said he had never listened to a more disheartening speech. Where were all the assurances that had been given regarding the future of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony at the time of the war—a war which cost this country £250,000,000 and 20,000 lives? How did we stand at the present moment? The ex-Colonial Secretary told the House and the country only six months ago that in return for all these sacrifices the future of the Transvaal had the rosiest prospect. But now they had the present Colonial Secretary declaring that the Transvaal was on the brink of ruin. We had been told that by annexing the Transvaal we should acquire a white man's country; now we learn that, while there might be a few superior whites, the working population must be black or yellow. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary complained that they, on that side of the House, had accused him of rushing the debate. He repeated the accusation; the debate had been rushed with indecent haste, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was the best proof of that. The Colonial Secretary had told the House that he was drawing up regulations in reference to the importation and treatment of the Chinese immigrants of the most minute and far-reaching kind; but the House had been asked to discuss this important question without having these regulations before it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the position of the Chinese in their compounds, as fixed by his regulations, constituted a moral question which the House had to decide. But the House was incompetent to decide it before it had his regulations before them. Was the Ordinance to over-ride the regulations or the regulations to over-ride the Ordinance? He asked the right hon. Gentleman not to give his assent to the Ordinance until his regulations were made part of it. Then the right hon. Gentleman described the life of the Chinese immigrants in the Transvaal and said that he was going to allow them the choice of bringing their women and children there. That was contrary to the Ordinance as it stood at present. To hear the right hon. Gentleman speak of the regulations for the Chinese compounds one would have imagined that these compounds, to contain 300,000 or 400,000 Chinese, were going to be a sort of garden cities; but in his opinion they would be concentration camps of the most hideous description. The right hon. Gentleman admitted in the opening part of his speech that this was a question of right or wrong. That was the issue on which the Opposition were prepared to appeal to the House and country. They maintained that it was a question of wrong which ought to be put right. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal was that a British colony was to be overrun by Chinese, but before making such a far-reaching proposition he should have made out an overwhelming case; and he appealed to the House whether the right hon. Gentleman had made out anything of the sort.

The right hon. Gentleman had divided his observations into four or five points, and he wished to say, first of all, a few words on what the right hon. Gentleman called the constitutional question. The right hon. Gentleman said that the matter was one for the Transvaal, and not for us, to decide.

He would he inclined to agree if the Transvaal was a self-governing colony, but, even in that case, as grave Imperial interests were concerned, it would be a very serious question whether the right of veto should not be exercised. But the Transvaal was not a self-governing colony. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the late Colonial Secretary could put it into the category of a self-governing colony by merely saying that he would treat it as such. If the inhabitants of the Transvaal were competent to decide such a momentous question as this, they were fit for, and entitled to, self-government, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give them self-government at the earliest possible moment. But the Transvaal was a Crown colony, and the right hon. Gentleman was directly responsible with the House of Commons and the country for its government. He was not ashamed to say that he was not willing to take the responsibilty of deciding such a momentous question for them. If the result turned out to be disastrous, the responsibility and blame would not be on the people of the Transvaal, but on the House of Commons. Moreover, the Secretary of State for the Colonies was not giving a mere passive assent, but was making himself a very active participant in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was making himself responsible for transferring the Chinese to the Transvaal, for looking after them there, and for taking them back to China, and that was a very serious responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman argued cogently against a Referendum, but he himself thought that the only basis on which the question could be decided was to accord self-government to the colony, and let the duly elected representatives determine it. The right hon. Gentleman said, in his despatch to Lord Milner, that no direct Imperial interest was involved. On the contrary he himself said that very important Imperial interests were involved, and that the Colonies were entitled to have a voice in regard to the matter. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman gave a wrong impression in regard to the feeling at the Cape and in South Africa generally. The right hon. Gentleman said that opinion at the Bloemfontein Conference was in favour of this proposal. He stated that the conference declared that labour was insufficient, and that it recommended the introduction of Chinese labour, under restrictions. But the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the very limited and grudging terms of the Bloemfontein Conference. The conference stated that it was of opinion that the permanent settlement in South Africa of Asiatic races would be injurious and should not be permitted, but that it could agree to it only if the industrial development absolutely required the introduction of unskilled labour. That was different to what the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to discuss the question as to whether the Boers were or were not in favour of the introduction of Chinese labour. But that question could only be decided by granting self-government to the colony. On whose authority was the proposal based? It should be remembered that the Commission, on whose report practically the whole of this agitation, and the ordinance also, had been based, was specifically excluded from dealing with any of the questions as to an alternative supply of labour. On three material points—whether the cost of working could not be reduced, whether white labour could not be further employed, and whether the employment of Asiatics would be advantageous or otherwise, the Commission could not take evidence, or even express an opinion. By these terms of reference they were confined solely to the question whether there was a sufficient supply of native labour. It is true that the Commission did make some remarks on the subject of white labour. But it was quite clear from the case of Mr. Creswell and others, that there was practically no evidence forthcoming in connection with the question of the introduction of white labour.

The right hon. Gentleman impressed on the House the urgency of this matter, and he asked hon. Members to suggest an alternative. The alternative he ventured to suggest for the Transvaal was to "go slow." There was no doubt that the Transvaal had been developed at too rapid a rate. There were two interests involved. There was the Transvaal Government and the mine-owners. The right hon. Gentleman said that the House of Commons had placed on the Transvaal a large liability, but this was the work of the Transvaal Government itself. And it now endeavoured to justify its position in regard to the debt and the financial position, and to save its reputation, by bolstering up the country through the introduction of Chinese labour. He did not deny that there was at the present moment a deficiency of labour in the Transvaal, but he did not quite understand the arguments on which the right hon. Gentleman based his case. He stated that there were less Kaffirs by 30,000 at work on the Rand than before the war. But the evidence before the Commission showed that the Kaffir was far more efficient than formerly, Lord Milner himself estimating the advantage at 30 per cent. That would not leave the deficiency of 30,003 which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Then he himself did not think that the mine-owners had done their best to prove the absolute necessity of Chinese labour by first giving all the other alternatives a proper trial. It was a most significant fact that while up to last July there was a monthly increase in the number of Kaffirs coming into the mines, that increase ceased on the appointment of the Commission. He could not think that was a mere coincidence. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that the hon. mover of the Amendment was desirous of superseding all the Kaffir labour by white labour. That was not so. What they did point out, and with truth, was, that if the mine-owners were prohibited from bringing in Chinese labour and had to avail themselves of the existing Kaffir labour or of white labour the proportion of whites to Kaffirs would be increased. The right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact that already considerable steps had been taken in that direction. Before the war the number of Kaffirs per stamp was something like sixteen. It was now, as he understood, only nine or ten. And while before the war the proportion of whites to Kaffirs was something like one in fifteen, it was now one in seven or eight. That showed that under the pressure of real necessity white labour in the mines had been increased in proportion to Kaffir labour, and he thought that it was quite certain that if that pressure were removed the proportion would unquestionably diminish instead of increasing. He did not agree that the experiments that had been made in the direction of white labour had been fair tests. It had been stated that test experiments had been tried in the direction of white labour, but all the evidence went to show that no bonâ fide attempts had been made under proper conditions. The experiments had been made with discharged soldiers who did not take kindly to the work; while in regard to Mr. Creswell's experiments he had not had time to perfect them. The matter was very much in a nutshell. The whole point was whether, in the first place, even if a deficiency of labour could be shown to exist to the extent the right hon. Gentleman attempted to show, we should be justified in introducing Chinese labour. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman had to show that there was not a considerable amount more of Kaffir labour available in South Africa, which, combined with economy of writing, machinery, and increased white labour, would not largely supply the deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman had not made out his case for the introduction of labour at all, and still less for the introduction of Chinese labour. He believed the conscience of this country and also that of the Colonies would be revolted if this Ordinance were passed and carried out. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that if a certain number of Chinese were allowed as an experiment the number would not necessarily be increased. But why should that be so. They were told that if the Chinese were not allowed to be brought in, now, the Transvaal would go to pieces, but hon. Members must remember that when, in the course of a few years, necessity arose for a further number this same argument would be used, and with far greater force than it was being used now. If they once opened the sluice the Transvaal would be deluged with this yellow flood. On political grounds he protested against the proposal. If it were agreed to, it would diminish and not increase the number of permanent British settlers. On economic grounds he could not believe that it was to the interest of the country that these mines should be too quickly developed at once and the gold exhausted. On moral grounds he objected to the introduction of Chinese into South Africa. If this Ordinance were carried out it would be a blot, on the scutcheon of England, and if the law was allowed to pass he hoped a future Government would find it possible to repeal it.

* MR. MARTIN (Worcestershire, Droitwich)

said that he approached this subject from his experience of the introduction of Chinese labour into North Borneo. He had no hesitation in saying that the Chinese who came there, when properly inspected and selected, made most excellent citizens, taking their place in the municipal government and serving on juries, which were generally composed of one-third Europeans, one-third Chinese, and one-third natives. In all the trades which they undertook he found them also excellent citizens. Of course it was not exactly the same thing in this case. North Borneo was a tropical country where white men could not work in the fields and on the tobacco lands. But the whole problem before them, so far as he could see, was whether the mines of the Transvaal could be worked by white man's labour. From the evidence which he had gathered it seemed to him that not only could they not get white men to work in the mines at all, but even if they could, they would not work with Kaffirs, any more than white men could be got to work with the negroes on the cotton plantations in America. If that were not the case there would be an end to all the trouble in England with regard to the unemployed, because they could go out there and find work. The whole gist of the question was whether or not the Europeans could work in the lowest grades of work in these mines. There seemed to have been much misapprehension in the House as to who the mine - owners were. It was true that there was one firm which controlled a large amount of interest in South Africa, but beyond that the mines were cut up into thousands of shares which were held all over England. The mining capitalists were not the people in South Africa, but the hundreds of thousands of shareholders in England and other places. So far as the mine managers were concerned they tried to act honestly by the shareholders. All these things ought to be made quite clear in the first instance, so that they might enter into this subject without predjudice. He had been told that one company had three and a half millions of capital employed at temporary interest in London waiting to be spent on machinery and other things connected with mines as soon as labour could be secured. There were many more companies in the same position, and unless sufficient labour could be secured it would be impossible to carry out the investment of this capital in the way intended. He thought it was only right, therefore, if they were putting the prosperity of the Transvaal first, that before they refused to sanction the importation of Chinese labour they should be absolutely convinced that the work in the mines of the Transvaal was white-man's labour. He did not think it was, and certainly the mover and seconder of the Amendment had not proved their case in that respect.

* DR. MACNAMARA

thought the Colonial Secretary had done General Botha an injustice by saying he had kept back until the last few days his views as to the inadvisability of introducing Chinese labour into the Transvaal. As far back as loth September, when under examination before the Labour Commission, General Botha attempted to state his views on the subject, but the Chairman of the Commission would not allow him to do so. The Legislative Council, the Colonial Secretary, and Sir George Farrar, had all rested their ease on the finding of the Labour Commission. That being so, he had naturally turned to the proceedings of that body to find the grounds on which the demand for Chinese labour was based. Would it be believed that no mention of the question was permitted before the Commission. The Chairman would not allow the subject to come up, because it was not within the terms of the reference. That was, to say the least of it, extremely curious. The Commission was appointed in July last; the agitation in favour of Chinese labour had been active for twelve months, and it was somewhat curious that the question should have been especially excluded from the scope of the inquiry. In February, Mr. Loss Skinner was sent away with a Commission to ascertain the best method of introducing Chinese labour; in April Sir George Farrar made a speech advocating the proposal; in June Lord Milner showed that he was in favour of the introduction, under proper restrictions of Asiatic labour. In the face of those facts, how was it that from an inquiry instituted in July the question was excluded. The Labour Commission referred to the scarcity of labour, but it talked round the subject in a way that was not very illuminating to persons anxious to ascertain the real reasons for the scarcity. After reading the whole of the evidence he had come to the conclusion that the Report deliberately evaded the two real issues set up by the bulk of the evidence, viz., the question of the reduction of the rate of wages (which was only incidentally mentioned in the Report), and the question of the treatment of natives (which was not mentioned at all), From the evidence it appeared that the Basutos were kicked about and treated with great indignity, and that when maimed for life no compensation whatever was given them.

* MR. SPEAKER

said he did not see how the point was relevant to the question before the House. The matter to which the hon. Member was referring was the treatment in the past of native labour in the mines. That was a different question from the importation of Chinese labour in the future.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he was endeavouring to suggest the alternative of black labour. With regard to the treatment of Zulus, all he would say was, that if the evidence was true, there had never been a greater disgrace to the Union Jack than that such things should have been done under its auspices. The House was asked to agree to the Ordinance because the Legislative Council had adopted it. In another place the hope had been expressed that the Transvaal would be allowed to settle its affairs in its own way. If the Transvaal had been a self - governing colony there would be general assent to such a proposition. But it was not, and was not likely for a long time to be a self-governing colony. He had never yet said a single syllable in disparagement of Lord Milner, but having carefully read the Reports and the correspondence, he was beginning to lose faith in the judgment and impartiality of the man at the head of affairs in South Africa. The impression conveyed to him by the despatches was that Lord Milner looked at things as he had thought they ought to be. For instance, in his despatch of 3rd January, referring to the feeling in South Africa on this question, Lord Milner stated— There is no change in the general aversion to Asiatics as permanent residents. But those who carry this aversion to the point of refusing to admit Asiatics as indentured labourers under condition of repatriation, even in the face of a proved insufficiency of other labour, are a small minority both among Boer and British. If those who objected were only "a small minority," they were an extremely nimble stage army, because on nearly every other page of the Blue-book there appeared resolutions of protest, and so forth. Lord Milner further stated— There is in every part of South Africa a number of men of unquestionable sincerity who are opposed in principle to imported labour under any circumstances. But I believe it is quite a minority, even in the Cape. That was on 3rd January, 1904. On 5th December, 1903, Dr. Jameson wrote to the Governor— In view of the fact that legislation dealing with the introduction of Asiatics into South Africa will probably be considered during the coming session of the Legislative Council of the Transvaal, and bearing in mind the resolutions opposing such introduction unanimously passed by the Legislature of this Colony, I would approach your Excellency—now that no Parliament is in existence—with the view of steps being taken so as to ensure that, should they be admitted into any neighbouring colony, under no circumstances would it be possible for any imported Asiatic to find his way into this colony. Even Dr. Jameson implored the Government not to allow any Asiatics to come into the Cape. Did this suggest that only a minority even in the Cape were against Chinese Labour? Lord Milner appeared to see things as he would like them to be. He, Dr. Macnamara, had been driven to the conclusion that this demand for Asiatic labour was the demand of financiers who were impatient, with their fingers itching to grasp the gold which was in the ground. The mover of the Amendment had replied to the suggestion that there was a financial crisis on the Rand, but there was another reason and it was that these people had got trades unionism on the brain, and they feared the solidarity of white labour, and the effect it would have, not only on labour but upon the government of the country generally. That came out in the Tarbutt letter, the Rudd letter, and the Milner reply to the White League. But they were afraid also of Chinese Trade Unionism. If they looked at the correspondence they would see how Mr. H. Ross Skinner described the customs of the Chinese in the various parts of the world. On page 79 he said— A very potent force amongst the Chinese is a system of co-operation somewhat akin to freemasonry. They understand well the power and advantage to be derived from combination. In San Francisco there are six Chinese companies or guilds, and to one or other of these the great majority of Chinese immigrants used to contribute and become members. The system is far-reaching, but in the general application exercises a wholesome influence. These guilds transact business for their members, they supervise labour contracts, receive and deposit money, or remit same to China, and generally look after and take a lively interest in the welfare of the Chinese community. Another function of theirs is to make all the necessary arrangements, when so desired, to have the bones of deceased members sent to their relatives in China. That was all right and proper, but Mr. Ross Skinner went on— Such societies, comprehensive as they are if established on the Rand, would have a very powerful bearing on the Chinese immigrants. In many ways, as in those mentioned above, they might be useful and beneficial, but their power might also become a danger. Even the poor Chinaman was not to be allowed anything in the nature of combination. Then Mr. Ross Skinner proceeds— To avoid such an emergency it is plainly desirable that all the present efforts to increase the supply of Kaffir labour should be vigorously continued with a view to balancing, as far as possible, the supply of Kaffir, Chinese, and other unskilled labourers on the mines. This principle might also be adopted in the cases of Chinese from different districts. For instance, experience points to the fact that it is unlikely that northern men would co-operate with the southern Chinese. Therefore the country was to be split up, and they had a holy dread of trades unionism even amongst the Chinese. The South African War lasted thirty-three months, it cost £250,000,000 of money, 25,000 British soldiers died, 25,000 came home permanently maimed, and quite another 25,000 women, children, and men must have died in the concentration camps, all for this, according to the Government. But so far as the people of this country were concerned it would not be for this. He was afraid that the hon. Member for Dulwich was not in the House. But it was significant that only a few hours before the declaration of the poll in Dulwich the following poster stared him in the face in Dulwich— Electors of Dulwich, beware! If any attempts are made to lead you to believe that Dr. Rutherfoord Harris is in favour of the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa, remember it is a lie. That poster was issued from the central committee rooms of the Member for Dulwich. He (the hon. Member) should watch with great interest the vote which the hon. Member for Dulwich gave on this Amendment, confidently looking for his support in the Division Lobby. The war, they were told, was not entered upon for Chinese labour, but to secure equal rights for all white men, the enfranchisement of the Uitlander, and to open up new fields of occupation for Britishers. The ex-Colonial Secretary, in a speech delivered on the 19th October, 1900, said the miners in the North of England voted Unionist at the last election, firstly, because they were patriots and Imperialists; and secondly, because the South African war was in a sense a miners' war, undertaken in order that justice might be done to the British miners in the Transvaal. At the present time there were two or three shiploads of miners out of employment coming back to this country, and the Government proposed to substitute for them Chinese. The Colonial Secretary seemed very much put about because the Ordinance for the introduction of Chinese had been termed cruel He had no hesitation in repeating that it was cruel, and he invited hon. Members opposite to look for a moment at the conditions. The Chinaman was to perform unskilled labour only. What right had they to say that? He could only serve the person to whom he was indentured, but that person might lawfully transfer him to some other person, and he could not have any property whatever in minerals or precious stones. Surely to say he must not own precious stones was a work of supererogation. Surely all the precious stones in South Africa were already labelled, "With God Almighty's compliments to Eckstein, Bernstein, Goldstein, and all the other steins." In every way the Chinaman turned he had six months in gaol staring him in the face. It would also probably be provided that they should send his bones to China when he died, and that they should supply him with cheap materials for idols for his religious observances. That was the climax of hypocrisy. They sent missionaries out to win the Chinaman from his idolatry in China and now they were going to supply him with cheap Chinese idols in South Africa. In the face of all this he could not help thinking of the British soldier. He had not many ideals. But he believed that the British flag ensured freedom, fair play, and justice for all. But what would the British soldier say when he knew that the sequel to all his suffering in South Africa was this indentured yellow slavery?

LORD ALWYNE COMPTON (Bedfordshire, Biggleswade)

He will say it is all nonsense.

* DR. MACNAMARA

said that if after this any self-respecting British soldier tore his South African medal from his breast and threw it in the gutter he would have his complete and entire support.

And, it being half-past Seven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's sitting.