§ MR. ROSE (Cambridgeshire, New-market)To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information to explain 68 the reason why the mining costs of the leading West Australian mines employing only white labour have been reduced to, from 17s. to 25s. a ton including development, the lowest daily wage for unskilled abour being 10s. 6d., rising to 18s. 6d. for skilled men; and is he aware that the working cost of sixty-five of the principal mines in South Africa for December amounted to 22s. 7½d. per ton.
(Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am not in a position to confirm in detail from official statistics the figures as to Western Australian mining, given in the hon. Member's Question. I understand that the average working costs in Western Australia are in excess of 22s. 7½d. per ton, but I notice that the working costs of the Great Fingall Mine are 22s. 7d. for 1905. With regard to the Transvaal mines, it is stated in the Mines Department Report, published in Cd. 2819 (see p. 1671), that the costs of the Rand Mines, Limited, and their working subsidiary companies, for the six months I ended 30th June 1905, were 22s. 8d. It must be remembered, however, that the value of the Witwatersrand mines arises less from the richness of the ore than from the extent and regularity of the reef. The average ore value per ton is 70s. in Western Australia, and about 36s. in the Transvaal, and the conditions governing working expenses differ widely in the two Colonies, and it will, there-fore, be realised that it is difficult to draw from Western Australian experience deductions which can safely be applied to the Transvaal.