HC Deb 26 April 1906 vol 156 cc21-3
* MR. MACKARNESS

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what measures have actually been taken and put into force by the Transvaal authorities to give effect to the intention of the Government to give the Chinese coolies working in the mines, who had a genuine and honest wish to go home, the power to do so, and to do away with the unusual and illegal practice of allowing trials of the Chinese to be conducted in the mines without any recourse to the ordinary Courts.

MR. CHURCHILL

In reply to the first part of the Question, it is a matter of regret to the Secretary of State that he should still be unable to make a final statement on this matter. Affairs of considerable importance and urgency have required Lord Selborne's presence in Bechuanaland, and his personal in fluence and authority are most desirable in the full and satisfactory settlement of a question so complicated and difficult. Every effort is being made by the Secretary of State to fulfil the pledges given to Parliament with the utmost expedition; and I must ask my hon. friend and the House for an extension of their patience and confidence. In reply to the second part of the Question, the extent of the Witwatersrand reef and the scattered distribution of mining estates along it would oppose practical difficulties of an insuperable character to any system of trying Chinese coolies accused of minor offences in the ordinary Courts of the Colony. Serious offences are in all cases so tried. The Inspectors' Courts will, however, be outside the mining compounds. Buildings have been in some cases already prepared and will be in all cases prepared for that special purpose. Free access has been secured to all persons wishing to attend any session of these Courts, and notices to that effect have been posted outside each court. It is clearly in the interests of the coolies that they should be tried by the Mining Inspectors who are Government officers of good personal qualifications, and who are familiar with Chinese customs and with the Chinese language.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

asked whether it was not the case that minor offences had been tried in buildings outside the mine premises for quite eight or nine months past.

MR. CHURCHILL

said he believed that that was so in a considerable proportion of mining estates on the Witwatersrand reef. It was proposed to insist on that in respect of all the other mining estates.

* MR. MACKARNESS

asked whether the coolies were tried in this manner with the sanction of the Chinese Government.

MR. CHURCHILL

If my hon. friend desires to suggest by that Question that the procedure is illegal and a violation of the Convention, I believe there is no foundation for such a suggestion. I believe the procedure is entirely legal and entirely in accordance with the Convention.

AN HON. MEMBER

Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the distinction that separates a minor from a major offence?

MR. CHURCHILL

The powers of the mining inspectors, who have magisterial functions delegated to them, are limited to the imposition of a fine up to the maximum of £75—;a very heavy fine, no doubt—;and of sentences not exceeding six months imprisonment. All offences which would require more severe penalties would, naturally, be excluded from the purview of these magistrates, but the instructions which the mining inspectors have received lead them still further to transfer all sentences of a serious character, even though they might be dealt with within these limits, to the ordinary regular Courts.

MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)

asked whether the hon. Gentleman could confidently assure the House that these inspectors were thoroughly acquainted with the Chinese language.

MR. CHURCHILL

I think that is the principal qualification for their appointment.

* MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on Trent)

asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was possible to name a date when these instructions would be published. Nearly two months had elapsed since this statement and pledge was made in the House, and evidently nothing had been done.

MR. CHURCHILL

said the hon. Gentleman was not right in saying that nothing had been done. He recognised that the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Gentleman, was entitled to press the Government for a definite decision on the matter, and it was his earnest hope to be able to announce that decision without unnecessary or undue delay.