CHINESE LABOUR. (Hansard, 28 June 1904)

§ LORD COLERIDGE
My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Chinese labourer hitherto imported into South Africa has been imported under conditions which entitle such labourer to demand, under Regulation 33 of the Ordinance, or otherwise, that either his wife or his child, or children, shall at any time be imported at the expense of the importer, or at all. This question has to do with a pledge given by Mr. Lyttelton in another place that the labourers should be entitled to have their wives and children imported to South Africa at the importer's expense. In the telegram of 24th February which was received by the Colonial Secretary from Lord Milner it was stated that the regulations would provide that any coolie wishing to bring his wife and family could so, or if, on arrival in South Africa, he wished them brought over every facility would be given for their conveyance from China at the importer's expense. After that telegram had been received, and after Mr. Lyttelton had stated on 9th March that he was prepared to sanction the Ordinance on the assurance that Regulation 33 had been so altered as to impose the cost of introducing the wives and families following labourers upon the employer, Lord Milner appears to have interviewed the mine-owners, with the result that on 10th March he telegraphed to the Colonial Secretary to say that he had seen the mining people and that they were ready to bear the expense of transporting the wives and families following the labourers, provided that married labourers registered the names and addresses before leaving China. "Regulation No. 33 will, "said Lord Milner, "accordingly be altered in this way if you concur. "The Colonial Secretary did concur. The regulation was thereupon altered, and in the 33rd clause of the regulations the noble Duke will see that that proviso is inserted. We have been told by the noble Duke that the first instalment of Chinese labourers have arrived in the Transvaal without their wives or families. What I desire to ask the noble Duke is this, whether or not any of these labourers, and, if so, how slimy, have registered the names of Aires or children before signing the 1386 contract, because the noble Duke will thoroughly understand that, if they have not done so, they cannot in future import their wives and families. If none of them have registered, it would seem as though instructions had been given to the recruiters not to engage any man who did attempt to so register. By that simple process a very easy means might occur of evading very beneficent provisions in the regulations which were demanded by public opinion.

§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH)
My Lords, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord need have any fear that such a course of action as he has suggested has been carried out by the recruiters in China. I see not the slightest evidence in support of his view, which was that the recruiters in China had been instructed to recruit those men only who were unmarried.

§ LORD COLERIDGE
I beg the noble Duke's pardon. I did not state that. I said that if the fact was that no registration had taken place it would lend colour to that view. I have not suggested that until I know the facts.

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
I do not think the noble and learned Lord has any reason to suppose that registration has not taken place.

§ LORD COLERIDGE
I want to know.

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
The noble and learned Lord is perfectly aware that, according to the terms of the contract, those men who are anxious to take their wives with them to South Africa have to register the names of their wives. That is stated definitely in the terms of the contract and in the regulations, as I reminded the noble and learned Lord the other day. We have received a telegram from the Governor of Hong-Kong which runs as follows— The emigrants were made thoroughly aware of the provisions for taking out families and special accommodation on board was ready; but none took advantage of the privilege. It is impossible to say how many may send for their families later on, which they are encouraged to do. 1387 It seems to me incredible that the Governor of Hong-Kong would send such a telegram as that unless he had assured himself that all the provisions contained in this Ordinance had been thoroughly explained to the emigrants, and he particularly says that none of them took a vantage of the privilege, by which I presume he means the privilege of taking their wives with them to South Africa. There is no suggestion in that telegram that they have not registered the names of their wives, and that if they send for them at some future date they are not entitled to have them sent over. The noble and learned Lord appears to be under some misapprehension. He is under the impression that some subtle influence is at work to prevent the Chinamen from taking their wives' to South Africa. Nothing is really further from the thoughts either of the Transvaal authorities or of the authorities at Hong-Kong. There are laid down definitely in the Blue-book the terms of the Ordinance on which the Chinamen go to South Africa, and we have no reason to suppose that they have not registered the names of their wives in the event of their wishing to send for them at some subsequent date. Because the Chinamen have not taken their wives with them it is not fair to assume that no form of registration has taken place. If the noble and learned Lord is really seriously concerned upon this point, I will see that a telegram is sent to the Governor of Hong-Kong to ascertain whether any Chinamen did register the names of their wives. If I fulfil that pledge I trust we shall be able to remove those feelings of doubt which I fear at the present time fill the noble and learned Lord's mind.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
My Lords, the noble Duke has stated that he hardly considered the Question put to him by my noble and learned friend quite fair. Honestly speaking, our opinion is—and I am sure the noble Duke will forgive me for stating it,—that this side of the House has hardly been fairly treated in this matter. The subject is tabooed in the other House of Parliament. No mention can be made of it there, and when the subject is raised in your Lordships' House we are met either with a plea that the thing s done and is over, or it is treated as a 1388 matter of indifference, or else there is a plea of ignorance. Last week it was officially stated that the death rate in the mines was seventy-one per thousand, and it was also officially stated that flogging was universal there at the present moment.

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
Who by?

§ EARL CARRINGTON
The noble Duke-told us himself that when he was out there he invariably carried a sjambok himself.

§ THE DUKE OP MARLBOROUGH
I said that when I was out in South Africa three or four years ago, during the war and just after the Boer Government had ceased to exist, most people carried a sjambok. It was the custom to do so, but I did not include myself in the number.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
It has also, been officially stated in the Blue-book that the overseers and native police in the mines all carry this weapon, and that whips were applied to the backs of the natives in the mines in the presence of the members of Mr. Brownlee's Commission which was sent out to examine into the treatment of the natives. The native headmen stated that the treatment of the natives in the mines was worse than in the days of the Boers. That appears in the Blue-book. And when this horrible disease, beri-beri, broke out, what did the Government say? They said they knew nothing-about it, but would telegraph out, and then I see it stated that the Colonial Secretary did telegraph. But the telegram was not sent for twenty-four hours, and up to the present time there is no-information presented on the subject to Parliament. To-day my noble and learned friend has shown conclusively the change there has been in the policy of His Majesty's Government on the subject of the wives and families accompanying the Asiatics. On 21st March the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking in your Lordships' House, said— Has the House of Lords noticed how these pledges given by the Government have been fulfilled? Regulation No. 33 of the Ordinance 1389 says that every labourer shall be entitled to be accompanied by his wife and children, and if the labourer chooses to leave them behind until be sees the conditions under which he has to work in South Africa, he then is entitled to require his employer to introduce them at his the employer's) expense; and, if the employer Refuses, the labourer can cancel his contract and return to China at the expense of the employer; provision is made to this effect in the contract. That seems to have satisfied the most rev. Primate. Now, the whole thing is changed. On 9th March, as my noble friend has told the House, the Colonial Secretary was prepared to sanction the Ordinance, and on 10th March—a fortnight before this statement was made in your Lordships' House by the First Lord of the Admiralty—Lord Milner sees the mining people, and they demand the insertion of a clause that such wives only shall be imported as are registered before the labourers leave China. On that my noble and learned friend asks this pertinent question: Have any of these men registered their wives? The noble Duke replied that he did not know, but that he would telegraph to Hong-Kong and find out. I honestly think that this is hardly the way in which to treat a question of this importance. The noble Duke may smile, but this is really a question of the greatest possible importance. If Ministers of the Crown treat public opinion on Colonial and Imperial questions in this manner, is it to be wondered at that the electors, whenever they get a chance, show a marked disinclination to support Ministerial candidates?

§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH
My Lords, I really think that in this matter His Majesty's Government deserve some sympathy. We are aware that Lord Milner, with his usual felicity of language, took occasion to say that he did not care two pence about public opinion in this country, and, as we know from what recently took place in the House of Commons, he does not even deign to answer the telegrams of the Colonial Secretary. Therefore I do feel that His Majesty's Government are placed in a difficult position, because, unless Questions are constantly put to them from these Benches, they are not in a position—whether assumed or not, I cannot say—of knowing anything about 1390 these matters. There is no doubt that the complexion of matters has been very much changed. We were told that every facility would be afforded to these Chinamen to take their wives and families to South Africa, or to send for them after they had reached the Transvaal. Since then Lord Milner, acting under influences unknown to me, has, I must confess, considerably diminished the value of that provision. I am bound to say that I feel very much as I felt when listening to the speech of the most rev. Primate, that we are dealing with the matter in a very insincere manner and with very insincere language. After all is said and done, these men are to be employed in order to obtain cheap labour, and therefore it; is not very difficult to suppose that the gentlemen who are to hire the Chinese labourers would say that they would only engage those men who were single, because otherwise they would be put to very considerable expense. Unless it is a question of expense it would be very difficult to make any sort of justification for the introduction of Chinamen at all. I hope we shall hear some expression of opinion from the most rev. Primate to-night. To do him justice the most rev. Primate did appreciate the very serious and grave moral evil which must result from herding these people together in compounds. He spoke with considerable force. His language was forcible; I wish his conduct had been forcible.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but we are now getting into the former debate, which is absolutely irregular.

§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH
I do not know how far it is in order for any noble Lord to speak after the noble and learned Lord who asked the Question; it is difficult to know what are the Rules of Order in your Lordships' house. I was endeavouring to put what seemed to me to be the material points, and before sitting down I would renew my appeal to the most rev. Primate to urge upon the Government the importance of this matter. I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend beside me has not exaggerated the depth of feeling which exists on this subject in the country.

THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD
My Lords, I hope I may venture, by way of supplement to the Question which has been put by the noble and learned Lord opposite, to ask whether the attention of the noble Duke has been drawn to the form of contract which, I understand, has been signed by the labourers recruited in Shan-tung and elsewhere. I hold in my hand an English translation of the contract, or advertisements, as it appeared in the North China Daily News. It has been sent to me by a gentleman of repute, who says he has himself compared it with the original Chinese document, and that, if anything, the Chinese is against the interests of the labourer more than the English translation. This contract enumerates many things. It states that the labourer agrees to proceed to the Transvaal; that his engagement is for three years; that the journey takes so long; that the employer will transport the labourer free of cost, according to all the requirements of the British laws dealing with the matter; that the employer will also transport, free of charge, a reasonable quantity of clothes and such other private effects as may be necessary; that on arrival in the Transvaal the labourer will be provided with housing, food, and medical attendance, and so on; that the food will be of such a kind, and that at the expiration of the engagement the employer will transport the labourer, free of charge by land and sea, to the place where the contract was made. But there is no word in the form of contract with reference to the wives and children of the indentured labourers. Moreover, the reference to the conditions of labour is very superficial. The labourer is told that he will be engaged for three years to work on the gold mines, but there is nothing to draw his attention to the fact that he will have to work ten hours a day in the deep-level mines, that he will be kept in a compound from which he will not be allowed to stray, even on his holidays, and that he will have no opportunities of bettering his position. I feel that it is reasonable to ask the noble Duke if his attention has been drawn to this form of contract, and whether he thinks it is in accordance with what we had understood was to be the spirit of the Ordinance.

§ THE DUKE OP MARLBOROUGH
My Lords, if the right rev. Prelate will put down a Question upon the point he has raised and upon which he wishes to elicit information from His Majesty's Government, I shall, of course, feel it my duty to reply to it.

THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD
I had no intention of bringing the matter up this afternoon. I did so as the question had been so prominently brought forward. I will, if the noble Duke wishes, bring the matter forward on a future occasion.

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
I think the right rev. Prelate will find an answer to a great many of the points he has raised in the Transvaal Labour Importation Ordinance. The terms of the contract are fully explained there, and if the right rev. Prelate will study it for a few moments a great many of the points he is not quite certain about will be cleared up. I should like to say one or two words in reply to the noble Earl opposite. I will not enter into his explanation of my speech the other night and his interpretation of my view, but I must confess that they were not altogether accurate. His view as to Mr. Brownlee's Commission is not altogether according to facts, and if the noble Earl will carefully read through the Report of that Commission he will see that the headmen under Mr. Brownlee were not unanimous in the opinion they gave. The noble Earl seemed to think that His Majesty's Government had treated lightly the views expressed by him and by the noble and learned Lord opposite. I can assure him that he is wrong in that supposition. I have always, to the best of my ability, paid great attention to the views of noble Lords opposite, and we fully recognise that it is the full right of every noble Lord in this House to offer criticisms on the action taken in this matter. But, after all, these coolies only started from China a fortnight or three weeks ago; and is it reasonable to expect His Majesty's Government, at a moment's notice, to say how many wives have been registered at the port of embarkation? As I have told the noble Earl, we are prepared to telegraph at once to ascertain the information he requires, and, in view of the position, I 1393 think the noble Earl's remarks on the attitude, both of myself and of the colleagues with whom I have the honour to serve, has been rather unfair and too severe.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OP CANTERBURY
My Lords, with the indulgence of the House I should like to reply to the noble Earl opposite, Lord Portsmouth. I should not have intervened to-night if he had not put a Question to me, but what the Question exactly was I did not fully grasp.

§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH
I asked this—Is the most rev. Primate satisfied with the condition of things now?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
May I raise a point of order? Lord Coleridge put down a notice to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies a Question in regard to Chinese labour. The most rev. Primate is not the Under-Secretary for the Colonies or a member of the Government, and I put it to your Lordships whether it is in order for any individual Peer in this House to ask another Peer for his opinion in reward to a Question put to His Majesty's Government, and to refer back to speeches made in a previous debate. Nothing can be more disorderly, and I do appeal to your Lord ships to consider whether this kind of thing will conduce to the dignity of our debates.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My only anxiety is lest it should be supposed that I have the slightest objection to answer any Question put before me in a form in which I can understand it. But a general Question as to whether the position of affairs strikes me as satisfactory seems to me to be one which I ought not to be thus suddenly and peremptorily called upon to answer. I said before, and I say again, that I personally disliked from the first the conditions which were laid down in this matter, and had I been in the Transvaal I should, in all probability, have voted against them; but I did not believe that people generally in this country, or even in this House, had sufficient information to justify us in upsetting what I believed to be the deliberate opinion of the best and wisest local authorities on the subject.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I must say that I should have interfered several times when some observations were made which appeared to me to have reference to a personal question, but, of course, I have no greater, though I have no less, a right than any Member of your Lordships House to call attention to a breach of order, and your Lordships are very indulgent in these matters. But at last I did interfere, to point out that nothing could be more irregular than to re-discuss a debate which had taken place on a previous occasion.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
Of course, the authority of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack is great, but I wish to point out that, as a matter of order, he has no more right to call anybody to order than any other, even the youngest, Peer in the House.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
No; but I have the right to protest.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
If the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack has no right to call a Peer to order, he has exactly the same right as any other Peer to call attention to the Orders of the House, and that was what I understood him to do.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
That is all that I suggested, and I do not think that the noble Marquess can have heard what I said. I said I had no greater, but no less, a right than any other member of your Lordships' House.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
I did not deny that the noble and learned Earl had the same right.