§ Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he will state the number of Kaffirs at present employed on or in the Witwatersrand mines; the terms and period of the contract under which they are employed; the rates of wages and how paid, daily, weekly, or monthly; the usual hours of labour; if he will say if they are free to go and come after their day's labour is completed as are free white workmen, or if they are housed within the precincts of the mines and confined there and only permitted to leave the premises when provided with a pass; and in what respect, if any, these conditions differ from those under which the imported Chinese labourers were employed at the same mines?
§ Colonel SEELYThe number of native labourers on the Witwatersrand gold mines in January last was 163,301—no later official figures are available. As regards the remainder of my hon. Friend's question, I regret that I can add nothing to the answer which I gave him on 23rd March.
§ Mr. W. THORNEAre we to understand that in all material respects there is no difference between the Kaffirs and the Chinese; that the conditions under which the Kaffirs work are analogous to the slavery under which the Chinese worked?
§ Colonel SEELYNo, Sir. I gave a full answer to this question a short time ago in this House, and I do not think the House would wish me to again raise this controversy. I may say that the Chinese were under special laws, they were a group of outlaws in the midst of a bitterly hostile population, and were protected by a special police force.
Sir GILBERT PARKERMay I ask whether it is not the case that the natives are obliged to carry passes whenever they leave the compounds where they are confined at night?
§ Colonel SEELYThe natives are under the ordinary law of the Colony. The Chinese were in a position of outlaws, and were described by the Lord Chancellor in another place as semi-slaves. I simply cannot understand how any hon. Gentleman can fail to see a distinction so vital which evoked protests from almost the whole of the civilised world.
Sir GILBERT PARKERDoes the right hon. Gentleman see no difference between the special regulations or ordinance which 1052 compelled a Chinaman to carry a pass or label and the regulations under which a native under the ordinary law carries a pass or label?
§ Colonel SEELYYes, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman himself had been in South Africa at the time the Chinese were there—
§ Colonel SEELYAnd had been so incautious as to give an escaped Chinaman a crust of bread he would have found himself in gaol.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has not overlooked the point of the question, whether tin question does not refer to the terms and conditions of employment, and whether these are not identical in the case of the natives and the Chinese?
§ Colonel SEELYNo, Sir; they are wholly different.
§ Mr. FELLMay I ask whether the conditions, under the law now prevailing in the Transvaal, although it is the ordinary law, are not more severe and more onerous than in the case of the Chinese?
§ Colonel SEELYNo, Sir. The exact contrary is, of course, the case. Can it be conceived that the whole of our Colonies and almost everyone else, with the exception of hon. Gentlemen opposite, would have protested so bitterly against the system, if what the hon. Gentleman suggests had a shadow of foundation?
§ Mr. MARKHAMAre we to understand that with regard to passes the conditions are the same on the Rand and the Witwatersrand and in other parts of the Transvaal?
§ Colonel SEELYI said nothing of the kind, and if my hon. Friend refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see I did not.
§ Lord A. THYNNEAre we to understand that there are special laws for natives on the Rand which do not apply to natives in other parts of the Transvaal?
§ Colonel SEELYNo, Sir. There is no special law. They are all under the ordinary law. The different Regulations are open to the hon. Gentleman to consult, and I believe he knows the country and can judge for himself—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis controversy had better be resumed hereafter.