§ * SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE (Bethnal Green, N. E.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has drawn the attention of Lord Milner to the fact that Clause 34 in the Ordinance relating to Chinese labour for the mines, relates to British Indian subjects, to whom the Ordinance itself is not applicable; and whether he will advise the Crown to veto that clause if the Transvaal Legislative Council does not take steps to abrogate it.
§ * MR. LYTTELTONI have already informed the hon. Member it is not proposed to employ British Indians in the Witwatersrand mines under the Ordinance. The clause is intended to be a 729 temporary provision pending the passing of special legislation in regard to Indian labour and to provide for the possible contingency of Indian labour being employed on the railways and other works under the control of the Government.
§ * SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREEArising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the question of British Indian labour in Africa is not at present the subject of correspondence between the Government of India and the Colonial Office, and whether it is not pre-determinating and, in fact, prejudicing one of the important points under discussion to bring British Indian labourers under the operation of the repatriation clause of the Chinese Ordinance?
§ MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)asked if the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table the communication received from the Indian Government with reference to the proposed importation of Chinese labour and the applicability of the Ordinance to British Indian subjects?
§ * MR. SPEAKERNotice must be given of that Question.