HC Deb 03 March 1904 vol 131 cc55-6
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ordinance for the introduction of indentured Chinese labour into the Transvaal introduced into the legislative Council, and which passed its Second Beading, contained a proviso †See (4) Debate, cxxx. 977. (to Section 10) that no transfer of the contract of employment should be valid until the superintendent had satisfied himself that the labourer had given his consent thereto; whether this proviso was deleted during the passage of the Ordinance through Committee; on whose Motion these words were deleted, and I whether the Attorney-General and the official members supported the Motion for their deletion; whether Lord Milner gave, or whether the Secretary of State asked for, any explanation of the omission of these words.


I think it best to refer the hon. Member to the further Papers which are to be published this afternoon, which will furnish a reply to all his Questions.


I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision has he made, and on what date did he make it, to secure that the transfer of the indentured Chinese labourer to another employer must be with the consent of the labourer himself; whether he will lay upon the Table any correspondence that he has had with Lord Milner with reference to this point; whether this security for the labourer will be inserted in the Ordinance itself or merely carried out by administrative regulations which are liable to be revoked at any time at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor.


I have to refer the hon. Member to the Papers published to-day. The security will be provided by regulations. Obviously no alteration; on such a point would take place without communication with the Secretary of State.