Lords Sitting of 16 May 1905

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for the Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Company Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill. And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Worcestershire County Council (Bridges) Bill ought to be dispensed with. Read, and agreed to.
  Earl of Stamford's Cheshire Estate Bill [H.L.]. Judges' Report received; Bill presented, and read 1a.
  Great Eastern Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
  Loughborough Corporation Bill; Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill; Leven's Patent Bill [H.L.]; Wrexham Gas Bill; Weaver Navigation Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
  Weybridge and Walton-upon-Thames Electric Supply Bill; Chelsea Electricity Supply Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
  Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 3rd of March and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
  London United Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  Commercial Union Assurance Bill [H.L.]; Mortgage Insurance Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Truro Water Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour
  406
  Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order).
  Gamble's Divorce Bill [H.L.]; Lautour's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Polling Districts (County Councils) Bill [H.L.]; Polling Arrangements (Parliamentary Boroughs) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order), Bills reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Friday next.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSED HOUSES.
  Petitions for early closing of: of Vestry meeting of St. Marks, Barrow-in-Furness; Gosport Congregational Young People's Society of Christian Endeavour; Balham and Upper Tooting Branch of the Women's Total Abstinence Union. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (HOURS OF CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of the National Temperance Federation; Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Good Templars; Anglo-Indian Temperance Association; Executive Committee of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Temperance Association; Vestry meeting of St. Mark's, Barrow-in-Furness. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the One hundred and thirty-sixth Volume of the Journals (4th Edward VII., 1904), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding Volumes of the Journals have been delivered.
  CEYLON.
  Papers relating to the education of immigrant Tamil coolie children employed on estates. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That they have added the Lord Newton to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee, to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 74.)

  TRANSVAAL (CHINESE LABOUR.)
  *LORD COLERIDGE*LORD COLERIDGE rose to call attention to the importation of Chinese indentured labourers into the Transvaal, and to the conditions under which they are being imported into and are living in the Transvaal, and to the declarations of His Majesty's Ministers on the subject, and to move for Papers. He said: My Lords, I move the Resolution which stands in my name for the purpose of eliciting from the noble Duke who represents the Colonial Service in this House further information on various points than the official documents disclose. I am quite sure that, trusting as I do to the courtesy of the noble Duke, which I can assure him is appreciated by us, he will not refuse me the information I desire. I think the time has now come for reviewing the situation. The last time this subject was debated in this House the policy which the noble Duke represents had been talked of but had not been carried into effect. We have now had very nearly a year's working of an experiment which is undoubtedly a novel experiment, and, as some of us think, a disastrous experiment. We in this country are solely responsible for that experiment. The Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies are Crown colonies, and it is while they are Crown colonies that this novel departure from ancient policy has been put in force. The people inhabiting those colonies have never been, consulted, and therefore it is true to say that we are solely responsible for the experiment, and that upon our
  408
  shoulders must rest either the blame or the credit that attaches to the policy.
  It was undoubtedly the very irony of fate that discovered the richest goldfield in the world within the borders of what was a pastural Republic. Men flocked from all parts of the globe intent upon wealth, and upon wealth only, and in so far as they added to the taxable resources of the country they were welcome, but in so far as they threatened to upset the existing political state of affairs, or to set up in that country anything in the nature of an Imperium in imperio, they were greeted with jealousy, with alarm, and subsequently with hostility, and we know how out of this state of things the war grew up. We are perhaps too near the time to finally decide as to the blame or credit, as to who was right or who was wrong in that most regrettable controversy. We know also how the annexation of the new country naturally and almost irresistibly grew out of its conquest, and we know also what loss of life and treasure we sustained in the course of that war, and the annexation which was the result of it.
  We were told, and we hoped, that when the war was over the scars which were open would rapidly heal. The country is now ours. Two new colonies have been added to the Empire, and we have had to start these colonies upon their new career. A great chance lay before us. We send forth each year from this country tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of emigrants to other lands, and emigrants who are of the most enterprising character. America absorbs a great quantity, and I confess I rather grudge them to America. Canada absorbs a number; Australia is already jealous of the influx of immigrants, and bids fair to stop the flow altogether; and the greater portion of the British Empire apart from these countries consists of lands under tropical suns, where Englishmen cannot make a permanent home, and where, after all, they must be more or less transitory settlers. But South Africa remains, consisting of vast territories, full of the combined possibilities of agricultural as well as of mineral wealth, and a country where emigrants from these shores might settle and find a home under the British

  409
  flag. Golden visions were dangled before the electors when their votes were desired as to the prospects which lay before us in the future. My Lords, have those prospects been realised? Is there the slightest hope of their realisation?
  In our view a prosperous colony in a temperate climate means something that will be not only an addition to, but really a strength and a buttress to the Empire. It means a place where emigrants can find a home which they can permanently inhabit, and where they can build up on the old lines of British self-government a daughter colony, looking with regard and affection to the mother country. That is our idea of a colony in a temperate zone. Is that the kind of colony that we are building up in South Africa? The colony we are building up in South Africa is a colony founded in the twentieth century, yet founded upon the old Roman pattern. The wealth we see in the hands of a few. We remember Lord Milner's celebrated saying—
  "We do not want a white proletariat."
  The close ring is becoming ever closer day by day and month by month, and ever grasping within its clutches more and more of the natural industries of that country. The Government is now in the hands of a huge trust, which is obtaining vast wealth by servile labour, and the members of which care nothing for the country from which this wealth is derived except as a means of deriving wealth. Labour is done increasingly, not by British citizens but by aliens—aliens imported under contracts which would be illegal if entered into in this country, and aliens to whom is denied every civic right. The wealth extracted is sent out of the country never to return, and is derived not from the ever-productive powers of nature, which are always being renewed, but from a draining and impoverishing of the capital wealth of the country. The speed with which that gold can be extracted is the sole object of the mineowners.
  The Chinaman is now the cheap extracting power, the kind of human pump which is to suck out from the bowels of the earth the natural wealth of the soil in the speediest possible time, and we see how this is gradually growing. The first step was the formation of the Witwatersrand
  410
  Native Labour Association, the Chamber of Mines under an alias, and the first act of that association was to stamp out all independent contracting of Kaffir labour. It placed all recruiting of Kaffir labour in the hands of the trust; it prevented Kaffirs from choosing the mine at which they would work—they must accept the alternative of working in what was perhaps the deadliest mine in the Transvaal, or of refusing to have their labour accepted at all. Then there was the fearful mortality in the mines, enough of itself to deter black labour, a mortality which was remediable because it has, in fact, very largely been remedied. We next had the lowering of Kaffir wages by 50 per cent. Were these things not enough of themselves to deter Kaffirs from seeking freely and spontaneously the labour that was offered to them? I do not hesitate, my Lords, to say that the combination of these circumstances produced what was the desired effect—namely, an artificial scarcity of black labour, and that artificial scarcity had to be proved before a case for the importation of the Chinaman could be accepted. Then we had the appointment of the Labour Commission—a Commission consisting of ten persons, eight of whom were publicly committed to the introduction of Asiatic labour, who were bidden to say whether or not this scarcity existed, but were forbidden to enter into what was in the minds of all—whether it was proper or desirable to introduce Chinese labour. Then we had repeated statements by Lord Milner that the colony was in favour of the importation of the Chinese, although a referendum, which was the only means of ascertaining that opinion, was refused. The objection taken by the Colonial Secretary to the referendum was a strange one. He said such an expedient was unknown in any part of the British Empire, forgetting apparently that it has been put in practice in South Australia, in New Zealand, in New South Wales, and, only the other day, to decide upon the important question of the Australian Commonwealth. The objection taken by Lord Milner was on another ground. He said the urgency of the question was so great that he could not wait for a

  411
  referendum, because it would take six months, whereas at that very time a census of the colony was taken which only took seven weeks. These were, of course, only palpable excuses, and nothing more than excuses, to prevent the opinion of the colony being taken. These are the salient facts surrounding the importation of the Chinaman into South Africa. By June last year the Chinamen began to arrive. Exertions had been made by the Colonial Secretary—very laudable exertions—to impose conditions on the importers in favour of the labourer, conditions that were nearly always successfully resisted by Lord Milner, representing the policy of the mineowners.
  Now I come to direct the attention of the House to certain declarations and statements made by His Majesty's Government, and to ask the noble Duke whether he conscientiously thinks those declarations and pledges have been fulfilled. The first important question was the question of wages. On March 21st, 1904, Mr. Lyttelton, after stating that the average Kaffir wage was 50s. for thirty days work, made this statement in the House of Commons—
  "Chinamen would receive in the Transvaal at least 2s. a day. I stand here and give the House my assurance that the Chinese will receive at least the amount I have specified."
  That is 60s. for thirty days work. Mr. Lyttelton proposed, but Lord Milner and the mineowners very briefly disposed of that. Lord Milner insisted upon a minimum of 1s. a day instead of 2s., and then made this statement—
  "He finally promised that if within six months the average pay was not 50s. for thirty days work the minimum should be raised from 1s. to 1s. 6d. per day."
  So that while the 2s. a day disappeared 1s. 6d. a day took its place. Are the Chinese now receiving the minimum of 1s. 6d. a day? On February 13th of this year, Mr. Evans, the Superintendent of the Foreign Labour Department in Johannesburg, reported that a certain number, not specified, were working at 1s. per day, and on April 8th last he reported that there had not been time to compute the rate of wages paid, but it appeared to be under 50s. Are the Government going to insist on the terms of Lord Milner's and Mr. Lyttelton's
  412
  pledges being fulfilled—namely, that in each case where the average pay does not, in six months, reach 50s. for thirty days work, the day's pay shall not be less than 1s. 6d.? I think I am entitled to put that Question to the noble Duke, and to ask him, if that has not been done, to take steps to enforce it.
  The next declaration made with regard to the Chinese was that they should have ample access to the Courts of the country for the redress of grievances. The Chinese Government, to their credit, insisted upon this being made part of the bond, and in the Anglo-Chinese Convention the following words occur—
  "The emigrant shall have free access to the Courts of justice to obtain redress for injuries to his person or property."
  And on March 10th, 1904, Mr. Lyttelton used these words—
  "The Chinese labourers have the same right of access to Courts as all other subjects in His Majesty's dominions."
  That was Mr. Lyttelton's pledge. Has that pledge been fulfilled? As a matter of fact, the Chinaman has no right of access to the Courts in any case except by leave of an inspector. Would the noble Duke, if he went to China and was told he had free access to the Courts of China for redress of any grievances that he might have there, consider that he had free access if he could only go to these Courts by the leave and licence of a Chinese official? Though I am not putting the civilisation of the Chinese on a par with our civilisation, yet in the eye of the Chinaman the official inspector is a foreigner just as much as in the eye of the noble Duke the Chinese official in China would be. Surely unfettered access to a Court of justice is one of the privileges of all who live under British rule, and I ask the noble Duke candidly whether he will not admit that unfettered access to a Court of justice is an essential part of the life of a Chinaman under the British flag, and an essential part of any Ordinance? And yet on April 13th Mr. Lyttelton, at Stratford, said this—
  "For nearly half a century a similar system had been on the Statute-book of the Colonies, and the British Guiana Ordinance, embodying every essential element of the Transvaal Ordinance, had been sanctioned by the Government of which Lord Rosebery was Prime Minister and Lord Ripon Colonial Secretary."
  Mr. Lyttelton Mr. Lyttelton forgot to mention that in the terms of the British Guiana Ordinance there is no interposition, of any official between the labourer and the Court of justice, and it is no answer if the noble Duke says to me that he knows of no complaint having been refused. That is not the point I urge. I have not got any concrete instance to place before the noble Duke of complaints having been refused, but I think it is very likely that complaints may have been made and not understood. But that is not my point. My point is that it was declared that free and unfettered access should be had. The right of a subject to have free and unfettered access to a Court of justice is part of our common law system, but that is refused to the Chinese labourer, as he can only secure access to the Court through the medium of a foreign official.
  I approach now a more disagreeable task. Mr. Lyttelton declared, when there was some point made by the Chinese Government as to the Chinese labourer being exempt from flogging, that there was no power under the Ordinance to impose flogging upon any Chinaman. I should like to know what was the object of introducing into the Transvaal in the month of July, labourers having begun to arrive in June, an Ordinance enlarging the power of the resident magistrate to administer flogging. Was the law not adequate up to that time? Were there offences which could not be met without this extra penalty? What was the meaning of introducing a fresh law, enlarging the powers of administering flogging? I should like the noble Duke to answer that Question. By Ordinance No. 26 of 1904, which was assented to on July 28th, and has been put in practice, power was extended to the resident magistrate to order flogging in cases where the conviction was a first conviction of robbery, in cases of any statutory offence for which flogging could only be given for a second conviction, in cases of assaults of an aggravated character, or with intent to do serious bodily harm, or intent to commit any offence. So that, according to this law, if a Chinaman hustled his neighbour in an attempt to escape from his compound he would be guilty of an assault with intent to
  414
  commit an offence, for which he could be given twenty-five lashes. It may be said that the occasion has never arisen, but I ask the noble Duke why this Ordinance was passed, and whether it has been put in practice. I ask him further, is there a case in which it has been imposed upon a white man, and immediately upon appeal to higher authorities the judgment of the resident magistrate has been reversed on the ground that the Act was never intended to apply to white men?
  We know there have been riots, and we know that this Ordinance has been put into force, and that Chinamen have been flogged under it. We had a case yesterday—I do not vouch for it, but it was in the papers—which, if true, shows a most regrettable state of things in the compounds. The noble Duke, I have no doubt, must have read the letter. It may be exaggerated and absolutely unfounded, but at any rate it is worth the noble Lord's attention, and ought to be investigated. It is stated in this letter that Chinamen, if they refuse to go to work, are tied up by their pigtails to poles so that their heels are off the ground, and then lashed with canes, by the orders of the compound managers, at the hands of the Chinese police. I hope it is not true, but at any rate it is vouched for on authority, and I hope the noble Duke will make inquiries and ascertain the truth or otherwise of it.
  I pass from this to another unpleasant subject, and that is the importation of the women. On Februrary 16th, 1904, the Colonial Secretary used these words—
  "We were advised in this matter by men of the most experience in the whole Empire on the subject of Chinese labour. We were advised that the coolies would not go without their women folk. Manifestly it would be wrong that they should go without their women folk."
  Does the noble Duke agree with that language? I am sure he must agree with it.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): The noble and learned Lord has not read the context of the Colonial Secretary's statement.
  *LORD COLERIDGE: I think the next sentence was to this effect, that they should have the opportunity of bringing their wives if they pleased. I think that was the substance of it.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am alluding to the earlier part of the quotation the noble and learned Lord made.
  *LORD COLERIDGE: The Colonial Secretary stated—
  "Manifestly it would be wrong that they should go without their women folk."
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: "If they were desirous of taking them with them."
  *LORD COLERIDGE: I do not think that was the exact language, but it does not affect what I am saying, that whether they wanted to bring their wives with them or not it was manifestly wrong that they should go without them. Noble Lords may think it a matter of ridicule, but I can assure the House that in every other Ordinance for the last sixty years which has been sanctioned by the Government provisions have been made for the compulsory bringing over of a portion of the women belonging to the indentured labourers. The last information I have with regard to this was given by the Colonial Secretary on January 10th this year. It was that 4,000 wives were registered at Chingwangtao and 895 at Hong-Kong but only two women and twelve children had actually been brought over. I appeal to the most rev. Primate on this matter. In March of this year, the most rev. Primate said—
  "Show me that it clearly brings about or implies the encouragement of immorality in the sense in which we ordinarily use the word, and I am almost ashamed to say anything so obvious, I should not call the so-called necessity worth a single moment's consideration. In such a case there could be but one answer given by any honest man, 'the thing is wrong, and, please God, it shall not take place.'''
  What the most rev. Primate apprehended, according to the last official returns, has taken place, and I appeal to him to make his words good in the course of this debate. The way this is met is most astonishing. On the one hand we are told that the Chinaman is well fed,
  416
  and lightly worked, and then in the next breath Mr. Lyttelton tells the House of Commons that the work is so steady and the diet so frugal that all the passions of mankind seem to be obliterated in the Chinese. I hope the noble Duke will either explain the figures or give us some assurance that the Government intend to remedy what obviously is a dreadful state of things.
  The Blue-book is full of riots and disturbances, made light of by the foreign labour superintendent. If you want the type of the official mind you have it disclosed glaringly in Mr. Evans; and when we find men wrapped in contemplation of the happiness of the Chinese under their new conditions, we ask why there are 300 desertions (equal to eighty per 1,000 per annum) from these happy compounds in three months. I think we can read between the lines as to what is going on.
  The last point I want to urge on the noble Duke is the question of white labour. To utilise as much white labour as possible would be the object, I should have thought, of every Britisher. The Government's policy seems to be that of the mineowner, or rather to serve that of the mineowner —to get labour as cheaply as possible, and, above all, to keep out the white man for fear he should grow independent. Mr. Lyttelton, speaking at Exeter on May 5th, said—
  "The result of the introduction of Chinamen has been that 3,000 white men are employed on the mines in addition to those that were employed before the introduction of that labour, and the result is that in round figures £500,000 has been received by British artisans."
  That is a completely misleading statement. I say, and I think I shall show, that the employment of Chinese has led to a decrease in the amount of white labour employed. Take the year from June, 1903, to June, 1904. The proportion of white men to Kaffirs during those twelve months remained practically stationary, at one in six in round figures. On March 31st, 1905, which is the date of the last Return we have, there were 105,184 Kaffirs working in the mines, and at the proportion of one-sixth there would have been 17,530 white men. But the number of white men employed at that date was only 16,235. Following

  417
  that proportion, if the Chinese had not arrived we should have had at least 1,300 or 1,400 more white men employed than there are now. In addition to that there are over 34,000 Chinese employed not represented by a single white man, and Lord Milner does not hold out any hope that the proportion of white men to coloured labourers will in future be greater than one in fourteen.
  Just see what that means. The Report of the Labour Commission stated that without allowing for any expansion of the mines the mineowners wanted at once 197,644 labourers, and if the finding of the Commission is correct—that there is no adequate supply of labour in Central and Southern Africa to meet these requirements—we may expect that the difference will be made up of Chinamen, and that means, to make up this deficiency alone, an addition of 67,000 odd more Chinamen; so that, according to these figures, to meet present requirements alone you will have working in the mines over 100,000 Chinese indentured labourers. And if we are to believe the statement of the Commission that they would want in five years 196,000 more, we are faced with the prospect of having something like 300,000 Chinese indentured labourers working in the mines under the Transvaal Ordinance. Considering that the total white adult population, British and Boer combined, of that country is less than 100,000, this is a prospect which I should think even the noble Duke would regard with some apprehension. It was urged, in support of the contention that Chinamen were a valuable aid to civilisation, that their presence would lead to the development of subsidiary industries, and glowing pictures were painted by Lord Milner and others of the number of industries that would be started owing to the influx of this vast amount of servile labour. I never could understand how that could be the case, because the dividends were all to go to Europe and the wages apparently were all to go to China. It was said, "Oh, but there is the feeding." I am told, and there again the noble Duke may confirm my statement, that this great trust of mineowners is going itself to undertake the feeding of the Chinamen, and that in the centre of Johannesburg
  418
  vast works are now being erected for the purpose of grasping—from a business point of view no doubt it is quite right—the profits which would naturally flow therefrom. If this be so, where will all the subsidiary industries come in?
  In 1903—I am now speaking from official documents—the amount of gold got from the Transvaal was £12,500,000 in round figures. In 1904, including seven months of Chinese labour, there were over £16,000,000 taken out—an increase in gold extraction of, to give the exact figures, £3,465,561. Therefore the mineowners and the shareholders got £3,500,000 more in 1904 than in 1903, greatly no doubt by reason of the employment of Chinese labour. How did that help the Transvaal? If these subsidiary industries are to grow up and develop the country, you would imagine some sign of it in the Revenue Returns. The figures have been given from July to February, 1903–4, and from July to February, 1904–5, the first a period when there were no Chinese, and the second a period covering the Chinese. What do we find? From July to February, 1903–4, the revenue was £2,848,887; and the revenue from July to February, 1904–5, when there were £3,500,000 more being dug out, was only £2,638,001, a decrease in actual revenue of over £210,000. Does that not establish what we have always said on this side of the House, that this is a curse to the country? You are by means of this labour taking out the wealth of the country; you are not planting the country with British colonists; you are increasing the dividends to the mineowners and the shareholders, and you are actually at the same moment impoverishing the country from which the gold is extracted. These are figures with which the noble Duke ought to deal.
  Now we are to have a new Constitution, which seems to me to be a very timid, half-hearted kind of thing. By apportioning electoral areas according to the number of adult males instead of according to population, what do you do? You simply place the majority in the hands of the mining interest. Men who are not subservient to, or who are not employed by, the mining trust had better pack up their traps and leave

  419
  the Transvaal. I have no doubt that those who authorised this thought it a very ingenious and clever device for securing a decision from the new Government in favour of the Chinese policy. Any permanent element represented by the married man with a family who means to stay is subordinated entirely to the transient unmarried man who derives his livelihood from the employment of the mineowners and may be trusted not to disregard their wishes. I ask the noble Duke, Is this the last word of the great Conservative Party, who talk so much about Imperial greatness? Is this the last word in Empire-building? If this is to be the policy of the future it means this, that one great Party in the State has lost all its old faith, the faith in the civic principles on which this Empire was founded, and regards the cheap and rapid extraction of wealth from a country, and not its permanent welfare and the permanent welfare of its inhabitants, as the best test of a successful colonial administration. I stand by the old way. I believe in the old idea of Empire, and it is because I profoundly disagree with the Government's policy that I have brought forward the Motion which stands in my name.
  Moved, that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the importation of Chinese indentured labourers into the Transvaal, and to the conditions under which they are being imported into and are living in the Transvaal.—(The Lord Coleridge.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has in the course of his remarks addressed to me a series of Questions, and in my observations in reply to him I will endeavour to answer some of them. He was courteous enough to say that I had, in previous debates in your Lordships' House, done my best to reply to those Questions which he had put to me, and I will attempt to do the same this afternoon. I fear, however, that I cannot follow the noble and learned Lord in his comments upon the new Constitution which the Transvaal may shortly receive. I think that that is such a vast subject that it might
  420
  profitably be debated on an occasion by itself. Anyway, I do not propose to intermingle the consideration of that question with the question which is before the House this evening—the result of the immigration of Chinese into South Africa. The noble and learned Lord prefaced his remarks by the old assertions as to whether the Transvaal was in favour of receiving the Chinese or not, and he twitted His Majesty's Government yet again for not having had a referendum. I cannot help thinking that these matters were thoroughly discussed last session. They were debated at frequent intervals, and your Lordships formed your own opinion on the policy of the Government and recorded it in due form. I do not think I need follow my noble and learned friend in further discussion upon those particular points. Nor do I propose to follow him in his description of the position of the Transvaal as it appears to him to-day. The only comment which I should desire to repudiate on behalf of the Colonial Office and His Majesty's Government is the statement which he made, that in his opinion the colonists in South Africa care only for themselves and have not in any way the welfare or the interest of the country at heart. I cannot help feeling that that is a remark which is not likely to cement the good feeling between this country and those who reside in the Transvaal, and His Majesty's Government cannot share that opinion.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I beg the noble Duke's pardon. I did not say the colonists at large. I said the particular mineowners engaged in extracting the wealth.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: But they are members of the British Empire. The noble and learned Lord proceeded to discuss the question of the mortality among the Kaffirs, and admitted that there was a great reduction in the mortality, which is a matter of satisfaction to me, and equally a matter of satisfaction to His Majesty's Government. I think he might have been sufficiently generous to admit that it is largely due to the action of His Majesty's Government in taking the greatest precautions—precautions which I admit noble Lords

  421
  opposite expressed their desire that we should put in force—that we have been enabled to reduce the mortality of the Kaffirs from seventy per 1,000 to something like forty per 1,000. The noble and learned Lord went on to deal with the question of the proportion of white labour to coloured labour, and tried to argue, from the fact that whereas a year or two ago the proportion of white skilled labour to coloured unskilled labour was one in six and to-day it may be one in eight, that consequently the increase of white men was not really apparent. What does Lord Milner say on this matter? Lord Milner says that the ratio which existed prior to the war is now being gradually attained to, and it is probable that it will be exceeded. He says, it is true, as quoted by the noble and learned Lord, that the ratio in certain conditions may amount to one in fourteen; but the noble and learned Lord omitted to add what was the whole point of Lord Milner's observations, that this could only be obtained if there was an unlimited supply of skilled white labour and of unskilled coloured labour.
  I understand that the noble and learned Lord measures the prosperity of South Africa and of the mines there largely by the ratio between the white skilled workmen and the coloured unskilled labourers. I venture to think that that is not altogether a very correct form of reasoning. Imagine an industry in a great commercial centre in this country. During a time of depression and great stress the services of the least skilled artisans in that industry would be dispensed with, and only the skilled labourers who were concerned in the management and administration of that industry would be maintained. Under these conditions it is obvious that the ratio between the skilled artisans and the unskilled workmen would be very high; but when the industry was again in a prosperous condition the unskilled artisans would be re-employed, and consequently the ratio between skilled artisans and unskilled would decline. I recisely similar conditions exist in South Africa. There is an irreducible minimum of white skilled labour below which it is impossible to fall if the mines are to be worked in a proper way. In
  422
  the days of the dearth of unskilled labour the number of men connected with the management could not possibly be reduced, and though unskilled labour was getting less and less, yet the white skilled labour had to be maintained to manage and conduct the mines. In those circumstances the number of white men to the coloured, of course, was very high, and this condition of affairs was exaggerated by the fact that unskilled white labour had to be employed in order to make good the deficiency in the unskilled coloured labour. The result was that the ratio between whites and coloured unskilled labourers was obviously high, but the moment the supply of labour became abundant, owing to the immigration of indentured labourers from China, the margin had to be made good, and consequently the ratio between white and coloured exhibited a decline. I do not think that the test which the noble and learned Lord has put forward this afternoon is either an accurate test or one to which a great deal of importance should be attached.
  His Majesty's Government rely upon this fact, a fact which the noble and learned Lord cannot get over, that to-day there are 3,000 more white men employed in the mines in South Africa than there were prior to the advent of the Chinese. I would remind the noble and learned Lord still further, that he will see in a Parliamentary Paper that before the advent of the Chinese immigration of artisans in other phases of life was at its lowest ebb, but ever since the importation of Chinese this immigration has increased week by week and month by month. I do not think it was suggested by the noble and learned Lord that these 3,000 extra white men on the mines were employed entirely for the purpose of building the compounds. I remember that in a previous debate the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, Lord Monkswell, raised that point, and I daresay he would be glad if I took this opportunity of telling him the exact condition of affairs. Out of the twenty-seven mines employing Chinese, five mines erected their compounds by outside contractors, and in the construction of the compounds at the other twenty-two mines 1,100 whites were employed. Four hundred and

  423
  thirty-five have been absorbed in the permanent staff and distributed on the mines, and one-half of the remainder are employed in other industries. Therefore, we see that there are only about 300 men out of these 3,000 who can be directly accounted for as working on the building of the compounds. I think that disposes altogether of the contention that these extra white men were really only employed for the purpose of erecting the compounds. The noble and learned Lord did not raise the question of machine as against hand-drills, and I will, therefore, not dwell upon it, although it is a matter upon which much has been said by members of the Party to which the noble and learned Lord belongs. The noble and learned Lord suggested that these Chinamen could not get redress if ill-treated, and had no means of putting their views before a Court of law.
  LORD COLERIDGE: Except through an inspector.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The noble and learned Lord will see it stated in a Parliamentary Paper published in August of last year, that every labourer shall be entitled to proceed to the offices of the superintendent for the purpose of making complaint against his employer, or to enable him to have access to a Court of law in order to obtain redress for injury to his person or property, or in order to attend as a party to or witness in civil or criminal proceedings in such Court. I think that provision meets the case which has been raised by the noble and learned Lord. If he wishes to examine this matter still more closely he will see further comments on the point on pages 86 and 87. I would remind the noble and learned Lord that the Protector of Chinese is there for the purpose of receiving any complaints from the Chinamen and helping them in any reasonable complaint that they may bring forward against the treatment received from their employers.
  Then the noble and learned Lord proceeded to comment upon the system under which the wages are paid by the mineowners. He alluded to the fact that the Secretary of State had stated in the House of Commons that the Chinese
  424
  might receive 2s. a day. That statement was made before this matter had been definitely decided upon. Noble Lords opposite smile. It was made before the minimum charge had been decided upon by Lord Milner. We naturally consulted Lord Milner upon this point. We considered his opinion of the highest value, and it was finally decided that the Chinamen were to receive a minimum wage of 1s. a day. That was done in conformity with our policy that the Chinaman was not to supplant, but supplement, the Kaffir, and in order to ensure that policy being successfully effected it was essential that the Chinaman should have a wage which was not much lower than that received by the Kaffir.
  The system of wages is carefully explained in the form of contract of service, Clause 6 on page 10 in Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 2183] gives it fully. Clause 6 is the important clause, and the noble and learned Lord will see there that the Chinaman is entitled to a minimum wage of 1s. for every day of ten hours, or a labourer may do piecework and receive the same wages instead of working for the ten hours if he and his employer are prepared to make those terms between themselves. Payment is made to the labourers in the forty-seven different occupations which they may undertake at rates varying from 1s. to 2s. 6d. per day; and the clause further provides that at the expiration of six months, if the labourers in any particular mine have not been earning on an average 50s. a month, than the minimum wage shall be increased from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a day. It was expected by those who were competent to judge that the lazy men would not earn 1s. a day, but that those engaged in piecework would earn that amount, and that those who were engaged in the forty-seven different occupations would be able to earn something over 1s. a day. It was expected that the average wage which these men would earn in the mines for a period of six mouths would approximate to 50s. a month. It is too early yet to say for certain whether this average wage has been earned or not. We have not received information of an authoritative character yet on the subject, but it is perfectly clear from Clause 6 that if they

  425
  have not earned 50s. on an average per month, then they will receive a minimum wage of 1s. 6d. a day. The main objects which the Government were anxious to secure were that the Chinaman should receive in the first instance a minimum wage, and that the wage should be one which would not in any way undercut the rate at which the Kaffir was paid. That these objects have undoubtedly been attained is evident from the fact that the Kaffirs employed on the mines to-day are more numerous than before the arrival of the Chinese, and, so far as I am aware, they are earning as good wages as they did before the Chinese came.
  I turn to the question of the riots. The noble and learned Lord reminded us that there had been 300 desertions on the part of the Chinese from the compounds. The accurate number is 251, but that is not material. The term "desertion," as I understand it, is a most misleading one. All that desertion means in this case is that the Chinaman has wilfully left his premises without taking the trouble to apply for a permit. It does not mean that he has escaped from the compound and run off to the veldt and had to be brought back. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate the importance of the Chinaman not being allowed to leave the premises of the compound without a permit, and if he will not take the trouble to get a permit it is clear that he must be punished for this neglect. That accounts for the figure of 251 desertions.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I gave the figure as 300; the exact figure is 299.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I will not quarrel with the noble and learned Lord. He may be right, but the point is not important. If he will turn to the end of this Parliamentary Paper, page 120, he will see there an account of the desertions of Kaffirs. Over 8,000 Kaffirs deserted during the year 1903, as compared now with only 300 Chinese. The noble and learned Lord offered no criticism against the administration of affairs at the mines because 8,000 Kaffirs chose to desert, but he makes the greatest point he
  426
  possibly can of the fact that there have been 300 desertions among the Chinese.
  LORD COLERIDGE: The 300 desertions were during three months: that would be at that rate 1,200 in the year.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: That may or may not be the case; but, if the noble Lord attaches so much importance to desertion, I think he ought to have selected the case of the Kaffirs instead of that of the Chinese.
  The noble and learned Lord asked for information with regard to flogging. If he will examine this Blue-book carefully he will see that there have been only five cases of flogging as a result of these riots. He further asked how this flogging was administered and who was entitled to give it. If he will turn to page 41 he will see this statement, made by Lord Milner—
  "By the law of the colony no sentence of whipping imposed by a magistrate can be carried out till the record is sent to and sentence confirmed by a Judge of the Supreme Court."
  I think that is sufficient protection to ensure that no improper or exaggerated form of whipping is given to the Chinese. I do not think I need say anything more with regard to riots. The noble and learned Lord did not, I am glad to say, attach too great importance to them. There have been a certain number of riots, but few of them have been very important. One took place at the Randfontein Mine; it arose over the question of the average wage, and that was a dispute between the Chinese and the mine managers. So far as we are aware, all questions of difference and dispute have now been arranged, and we do not anticipate that there will be any further trouble. The noble and learned Lord will see that these riots are becoming fewer in number. During the last seven months of the year 1904 there were seven riots; this year there have only been four riots, although there are a greater number of Chinese in the mines now than last year. I think Mr. Evans's prophecy is a right and proper one, that the longer the Chinese are there and the more there are of them

  427
  in the district the fewer will be the riots or disturbances among them.
  I think I have dealt with the majority, or at any rate with the most important of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord. I should like to refer for one moment to the condition of life in the compounds. What does Mr. Evans say on this matter? It is fully set forth in his long statement contained in this Blue-book. He says the accommodation for the Chinese is excellent, the rooms are built of brick, the places are well ventilated, the drains are excellent, there is electric light for heating, there are most admirable bathing-houses, and in some compounds there are dining halls which will hold as many as 500 Chinamen. The compounds are not prisons. The gate of the compound is open all day, and the Chinaman has the right to go in and out just as he thinks fit. The hospitals are admirable, and there are Chinese doctors as well as, if necessary, a European doctor. Inspectors are constantly visiting the compounds. The freedom of the men is commented upon. They are allowed to go from one compound to another and exchange views with their friends in the neighbouring mines, and if they have any point of view which they wish to put to a friend in the neighbourhood they are capable of doing so. Mr. Evans concludes his report—
  "The experiment has been an undoubted success, and will be more so from day to day if the present condition of fair treatment and honest supervision is thoroughly maintained."
  But Mr. Evans is not the only authority I can quote to substantiate the statement that the Chinese are properly treated in the compounds. The noble and learned Lord and noble Lords opposite will not attach the same importance that we do to the opinion of Mr. Evans, but I may say, in parenthesis, that Mr. Evans has for twenty years been in close touch with the Chinese in the Straits Settlements. His opinion is one based upon long experience, and I think we are entitled to give to it every consideration. But I prefer to quote other opinions. I have the opinions of public men who have visited the compounds themselves.
  428
  I notice that Sir Gilbert Parker, who visited the compounds, told the House of Commons that the Chinese had as comfortable quarters as anyone in the House; and Mr. Worsley-Taylor spoke upon the admirable system of the compounds, how well the men were looked after in them, and said he was thoroughly satisfied with the treatment they received. The Secretary of State, when he pointed out the great value of this testimony of two Members of Parliament who had visited the compounds for themselves, was interrupted by the Opposition, not by denials, not by expressions of disapproval, but by expressions of disappointed and reluctant agreement. I now turn to one other authority, whose opinion cannot be ignored, an authority to whom noble Lords opposite, I know, will attach the greatest importance and consideration. I allude to the opinion of a no less distinguished individual than Mr. Burt, the Member for Morpeth. What did Mr. Burt say? When he was interviewed upon the question of the treatment of the Chinese in South Africa, he said—
  "I must add that I have inspected the compounds, kitchens, dining-halls, and all arrangements for the hospitals, and, having seen the food supplied to them, I do not think that with regard to the food and treatment there can be any reasonable complaint."
  He went on to add that in his opinion the Chinese were treated even better than the Kaffirs themselves. These are the views of gentlemen in public positions having very different political opinions, and yet you will note that there is absolutely unanimous agreement upon this one question of the treatment of the Chinese in the compounds.
  I do not wish to be too controversial upon this matter, but I cannot help being reminded that this treatment of the Chinese, substantiated as it is by various authorities, differs very much from these prophecies which noble Lords opposite made when we debated this question last session. What did noble Lords say at that time? The noble Marquess opposite termed the conditions under which the Chinese would be employed "semi-slavery," and he called them prisoners. The noble Lord beside him, Lord Carrington, ventured to describe to

  429
  your Lordships what a compound was like. He said—
  "I do not know if you have seen a native compound. I have, and a more horrible sight it is impossible to conceive. Imagine a piece of ground surrounded by corrugated iron, crowded with natives, some smoking, others sitting and gambling, and others watching a dance, to say the least of it, somewhat wanting in delicacy."
  That was a gloomy and remarkable statement, and one which, will hardly compare with those testimonies I have just read to your Lordships. The Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House informed us that the Chinese were to be placed in cages, though I admit he afterwards admitted that he used the term in a figurative sense; and it was Lord Monkswell who said subsequently that if they were not placed in cages there would be Very few of them left. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches, Lord Stanmore, predicted that if the Chinese were herded together in close barracks they would escape by another way, that of suicide. As a matter of fact, only two have escaped in that way, which is, I believe, a much smaller proportion than exists by suicide in the Celestial Land itself. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, in his fervour, also said that these Chinamen were no better than animated Oriental implements. To what degree these statements have been falsified by subsequent events it is hardly necessary for me to state. We are entitled to draw our own conclusions, and I think the country will draw this conclusion, that they have been considerably misinformed as to the real facts of this case by the somewhat rash and indiscriminate comments of noble Lords opposite and the Party to which they belong.
  Noble Lords opposite are admirable critics; they criticise our policy in this House with great effect and with consummate skill, but I cannot say the same of them in their capacity of prophets, for there is no prediction which they have made which has not been totally falsified by subsequent events. They told us that the employment of white men in South Africa would be reduced by the advent of the Chinese. There are 3,000 more white men to-day in South Africa than there were before the arrival of the Chinese. They told us
  430
  that the white man would be deprived of the means of livelihood and that his wages would be reduced by the advent of the Chinese. There is now £500,000 a year spent in South Africa in wages to white men over and above the amount that was paid prior to the arrival of the Chinese. They told us that the immigration of the Chinese would oust the Kaffir from his legitimate employment. There are more Kaffirs to-day in the mines than there were previous to the arrival of the Chinese, and they are earning just as good wages as formerly. They told us that the advent of the Chinese would lower the wages both of the white man and the Kaffir; but the wages of the white man and the Kaffir are not lower than they were before the arrival of the Chinese. In the face of facts like these it is not surprising that a gentleman like Mr. Quin, who is the chief opponent of Chinese labour in South Africa, should have stated, when interviewed on the subject—
  "The Chinese are here, the Ordinance is passed, the people appear to be contented, there is no objection raised, and, as far as I am concerned, in any politics that I may take part in future the question is absolutely finished."
  On this question of Chinese labour the majority of noble Lords of this House have already formed their opinion and have recorded that opinion on several occasions, but if the noble and learned Lord opposite persists in rushing in where Mr. Burt will not venture and where Mr. Quin will not dare to tread——
  LORD COLERIDGE: Will the noble Duke say wherein I differ from Mr. Burt?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Mr. Burt says the condition of the Chinese is excellent.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I never assailed it. I never said that the Chinese were not well fed and well housed. We feed and house our horses well when we want them to work.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I certainly inferred from the noble and learned Lord's speech that he was not as satisfied as Mr. Burt was as to the treatment meted out to the Chinese. Anyway,

  431
  the noble and learned Lord has Ventured on ground which Mr. Quin declines entirely to tread; and I cannot feel that the remarks which the noble and learned Lord has made in the course of his speech this afternoon can be considered in any way as injurious to the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, after listening to the very powerful speech of my noble and learned friend behind me, and to the speech of the noble Duke who has replied on behalf of the Government, I am still more at a loss than ever to make out what possible justification His Majesty's Government have had in sanctioning this Chinese Ordinance. It would seem that there might be two justifications for it—first, the universal consensus of British and Colonial opinion in favour of it; and secondly, the fact that it would of itself ipso facto bring an enormous quantity of British white labour into South Africa and make it a white self-governing colony. But so far as I was able to follow the noble Duke I do not think he tried to prove either of those two things. He laid great stress on the fact that there were 3,000 more whites employed now than formerly, and I suppose he was justified in making a great point of that; but I would respectfully remind him that before the time of the Raid, in the early nineties, British workmen were arriving in South Africa in great numbers. I remember Mr. Cecil Rhodes saying on many occasions that if the Imperial Government would only hold their hand and not interfere with South Africa the Britishers were coming in in such large numbers every month that the country by sheer force of numbers would fall like a ripe apple into our hands. I think, therefore, that the boast that 3,000 more white men are employed on account of the influx of 36,000 rather low-class Chinese coolies is not a feather in the cap of His Majesty's Government.
  The noble Duke proceeded to call my noble and learned friend behind me to task with regard to the desertions. He said there were very few desertions of Chinese in comparison with the desertions of Kaffirs that took place previously. These are quarterly Returns after all,
  432
  and 300 desertions per quarter is 1,200 a year, and that took place when there were 14,000 Chinese in South Africa, whereas the averaged desertion of Kaffirs, when 80,000 were employed, was 8,000 a year. I am not much of an arithmetician, but I calculate that this comes out at about the same average. The noble Duke went on to quote the opinion of a certain Mr. Quin, and he rightly made a great point of the speech which that gentleman delivered, in which he said—
  "The Chinese are here….As far as I am
  concerned in politics, the question is finished."
  Lord Milner made a great point of that, and he wrote, in a dispatch—
  "Personally I am convinced that the last of all serious opposition has been spoken."
  Lord Milner quoted Mr. Quin's statement, but, unintentionally of course, left out a very important part of that speech, for Mr. Quin said—
  "Please understand that I speak for myself."
  There is a proverb that "One swallow does not make a summer," and one Mr. Quin does not make all the white people in the Transvaal pro-Chows. In considering the statement made by Lord Milner that we have heard the last of all serious opposition, we must remember the conditions under which these people live. We have had a case lately of Members of the House of Commons issuing a manifesto to their tenants, saying that they would consider it a great want of respect to them if their tenants voted against the political opinions of the landlords. What is done in England is done also, without any bad motive, I have no doubt, in the Transvaal, and after the treatment that was meted out to Mr. Moneypenny, of the Johannesburg Star, and to Mr. Creswell and others, the employees of these great companies must consider that it would be best at any rate to agree outwardly, whatever they may think inwardly, with these big houses in politics or else hold their tongues.
  The noble Duke went on to speak of the way in which the Chinese are treated. No one is more pleased, I am sure, than the noble and learned Lord who called attention to this question today to know that they are well treated, but I think some of the credit for that is

  433
  due to the Party to which I have the honour to belong, because we have through good report and bad report done the best we could to alleviate the conditions under which these men live, and we do claim some part of the credit for the good conditions under which they live. The noble Duke took me to task with regard to a description of a compound which I gave in the course of a discussion last year, but I would remind him that the compound I was speaking of was one I saw at Kimberley in 1891. I am glad to hear that a great advance has been made, and that the compounds are not really in the horrible condition now in which they were when I visited Kimberley. The noble Duke also quoted Mr. Burt. We are extremely glad that Members of Parliament on our side of the House, as well as Sir Gilbert Parker on the other, should have visited these compounds, and be able to join in giving credit where credit is due. Mr. Burt says there is nothing to find fault with in the treatment of the Chinese as far as feeding and living is concerned—I have heard that they have everything in the world they want except dry champagne—but Mr. Burt also made another very remarkable statement. He said that though the Chinese were well treated, wherever he went he found—
  "Among working men of all trades general unabated hostility against Chinese labour."
  And he went so far as to say—and Mr. Burt is not a man who exaggerates or, as the French say, embroiders—that—
  "Even some mining Johannesburg directors (themselves strongly favourable to the Ordinance) frankly admitted it could never have been passed in any freely-elected Parliament."
  Lord Milner is right, I think, when he declares that there will not be any more serious opposition as regards Chinese labour, but I do not think the noble Duke and his friends can consider it a great feather in their cap to have educated public opinion in a Crown colony up to this pitch, and to have assisted in making the Transvaal a plutocratic community, served by cheap alien labour under conditions which never would have been sanctioned if there had been a free Parliament in the country.
  I feel so strongly upon this that I hope your Lordship will extend your indulgence
  434
  to me for another five minutes while I state what I believe is the great danger of this Chinese Ordinance. The policy may or may not be popular in South Africa, but of one thing I am perfectly certain—namely, that the recent elections all over the country have shown that the Chinese policy of His Majesty's Government is extremely unpopular, disliked, and mistrusted by the people at large in this country. What I think is more important still is the feeling of hostility towards the Chinese Ordinance which exists in the self-governing Colonies throughout the Empire. Most of the newspapers in England are in favour of the Chinese policy, and so we do not hear much of it. But perhaps I may be permitted to call the attention of your Lordships to expressions of opinion with regard to this Ordinance on the part of the Parliaments of self-governing Colonies. In Australia, in March, 1904, the Upper House without a division, and the Lower House by fifty-four votes to five, passed Resolutions declaring that they had grave objection to Chinese labour in the Transvaal when it was permitted without a referendum or responsible Government being given to the Colony. In November, 1904, in New Zealand, the Upper House without a division, and the Lower House by fifty votes to four, deeply regretted the introduction of Chinese labour without the sanction by vote of the white population or responsible Government being granted. In Cape Colony, in November, 1904, the Parliament reaffirmed its anti-Chinese Resolution of July 2nd, 1903. In Canada, except in British Columbia, the question is not an acute one, and there has not been a Resolution in the Imperial Parliament upon it; but at British Columbia the poll-tax has been raised to £100 a head for each Chinaman who goes into the country, and they have passed some anti-Japanese legislation as well, which I understand has been disallowed by the Dominion Parliament.
  What have the chief men of these colonies said on this subject? I will take a few very short quotations from their great Australian statesmen. Mr. Deakin, who is a great supporter of His Majesty's Government and of Mr.

  435
  Chamberlain's preferential tariff policy, says—
  "Why were we not told of this outcome of Chinese labour at the commencement of the struggle? We should have said, 'Keep your mines. Your cheapness is too dearly purchased. It is not to be bought by blood. No Empire can be made strong by such means.'"
  Then I take Mr. Watson, the Labour Premier, also a great supporter of Mr. Chamberlain and preferential tariffs. He
  Says—
  "We are told that Mr. Chamberlain is largely responsible for the introduction of Chinese in South Africa. Quite so. No one has protested more strongly than myself against that action, and I trust that those responsible will in the interests of the Empire meet their reward at the hands of the electors.'
  Then Mr. Hughes, late Minister for Foreign Affairs in the first Commonwealth Parliament, said—
  "Speaking as far as I am able on behalf of my constituents, I will never vote for the despatch of another contingent to take part in a war if such an Ordinance as is now proposed be carried into effect."
  This policy seemed to many of us a very dangerous one eighteen months ago, but at that time the circumstances were different. The great Empires of Britain and Russia were striving for supremacy in the Far East. Now, the whole thing is entirely changed, and it seems to me that the situation is far more dangerous now than it was eighteen months ago. Japan has developed into a first-rate Power. She will, I suppose, be sending her ambassadors to the Courts of all the great Powers of Europe, and the millions of Chinamen are bound to come under her moral and practical suasion. If there ever was a time when the Chinese question required careful and delicate handling, one would have thought it was the present, and yet this is the very time His Majesty's Government has selected to dump down into one of the nerve centres of the Empire 36,000 low-class Chinese coolies, some of whom I believe are criminals, accompanied by only two wives and six children. I ask, is this the time for the British Government to have granted to the mineowners a request which the late President Kruger himself, from the highest patriotic motives, absolutely and indignantly refused to take into consideration when it was proposed to him?
  436
  Two years ago, a statement was made which created a great sensation at the time. We were then told by Mr. Chamberlain that our great Empire was in peril. He also, in a later speech, compared the Empire to a loose bundle of sticks bound together by a thin tie of sentiment and sympathy. I do not think that was a very noble description of the British Empire, but I will not labour that point. In those two years men have been thinking over this speech, and a good many of us have come to the conclusion that if it is true that the Empire is in peril, may it not be that a great portion of that danger has been caused by the South African policy of the right hon. Gentleman himself? By the courtesy of the House, I have quoted some opinions of the different Colonial Governments, and I think I may fairly say that this Chinese question has set a match to that bundle of sticks loosely tied together which is smouldering to a dangerous extent, and which may, at any moment, burst out into a fierce flame of discontent, and all the more because this is no longer, as we were told, "an experiment"—it is a fixed policy; and in their addresses to the electors Conservative candidates openly say that they are in favour of the Chinese policy of His Majesty's Government.
  The danger seems to me to be still more acute, because we are informed on the highest authority that the present Government do not intend to submit this question to the verdict of the electors or, indeed, any other question, as long as they are supported by a majority in the House of Commons. That means, in all human probability, that the Unionist Government will remain in power for another eighteen, months. Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite cheer that statement. Is that honestly a matter for hilarity and satisfaction when you think that within eighteen months we shall be face to face with an army of over 100,000 low-class Chinese coolies in the Transvaal, which we have been told by my noble friend behind me has 1,200,000 inhabitants all told, out of which less that 300,000 are whites. What are we who detest this Ordinance, who think it is un-British, and who would work fiercely and

  437
  honestly to stop the torrent of it, to do? To whom are we to turn? We are laughed at and our opinions are derided; the Resolutions of the different self-governing Colonies are absolutely ignored; the outlook seems hopeless. To whom are we to turn?
  I believe there is one last chance. There is only one man who is powerful enough to help us. Lord Lansdowne is one of the few living statesmen who has won his spurs in the wide world. He was Governor-General of Canada and Viceroy of India, and he holds in his hands the threads of those delicate manipulations with great Powers which men call "Foreign Affairs," to him I make my last appeal. If he can stand up in this House, which he leads with so much courtesy and ability, and tell us that he considers this Chinese Ordinance a policy that is in the best interests of the nation, a policy that is consistent with the high ideals of British prestige and statesmanship, I have nothing more to say. I have such respect for the noble Marquess that, so far as I am concerned, if he will get up and say that, he will take all the wind out of my sails. I ask him, Can he conscientiously stand up and say that my noble friend Lord Spencer, who leads the Opposition in your Lordships' House, was wrong when he wrote—
  "We should pause before we continue a policy which is the subject of such bitter contention and which has deeply stirred the moral sense of England and her Colonies."
  Lord Spencer went on to say—
  "Is it right to continue this system of indentured labour beyond the obligations of existing contracts?"
  I heard with the greatest regret the speech made by the Prime Minister at the Albert Hall when he was addressing several thousands of his supporters at the annual meeting of the Primrose League. He sneered and jeered at those who conscientiously are opposed to this Chinese Ordinance. I wish that it had happened to him to have spent six months or a year in a self-governing lony. He would then have known that eath this conscientious objection to inese labour there lies a most poetic and pathetic vein of feeling. It is not only the death knell of British labour that they fear. There are other horrors too great for me to mention in this
  438
  House. What they feel is that it must eventually be the death knell of home life. This Empire was won by sacrifice, and we are told that it can only be maintained by sacrifice. Ought we not as Englishmen to sacrifice a chance of immediate pecuniary advantage so as to meet the conscientious convictions of our brothers across the sea? Ought we not to try and justify the war by the fulfilment of those promises with which we went to war, and convince the colonists, who sent us their best and their bravest in the hour of need, that their brave soldiers who fought for the ideal of British supremacy and for the freedom of British colonisation have not fought and striven and died in vain.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not know that I can add very much to the information before your Lordships or help greatly towards the elucidation of the opinions that we should form upon this subject by saying the few words that I desire to say to-night. I have spoken on this subject four times already, and have explained to your Lordships what seemed to me to be alike its difficulties and its drawbacks, but as the noble and learned Lord who opened this discussion openly called upon me, I feel that it might seem cowardly or discourteous if I did not say a few words in reply. I have no right to expect, and I do not expect, that the view at which I have arrived upon this subject will be acceptable either to those who feel, as Lord Carrington does, that it was the bounden duty of the authorities at home to override what I believe is now admitted by almost everyone to be the general wish of the people of the Transvaal——
  EARL CARRINGTON: No.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: As the noble Lord challenges me on that point I would refer him to the pamphlet issued by Mr. Creswell, in which that gentleman seems to admit that, however deeply he may regret it, the general opinion has gone round to that side. I do not, as I say, expect that the view at which I have arrived on this subject will be acceptable to those who feel that it was the bounden

  439
  duty of the authorities at Downing Street to override the opinion of the large majority in the Transvaal, on the ground that the thing is so inherently mischievous and bad that no amount of conditions or limitations can make it anything but intolerable. Nor, again, can I expect to satisfy those who take the view that this Ordinance is an admirable plan in every respect, is good for the prosperity of the Transvaal, good for the Chinaman, and good even for the Kaffir in South Africa, and that it ought by all means to be encouraged. I share neither of those views. But I have honestly tried to get at the facts of the case so far as they are ascertainable from a perusal of the literature which has been published on the subject. I regard the matter as one in which the opinions of Lord Milner, Sir Arthur Lawley, and other high-minded and public-spirited men in the Transvaal are entitled to the fullest consideration and respect. On the other hand, it is only with the most marked limitations that I have felt it could be right for the authorities at home to give their sanction to an Ordinance which I honestly admit jars upon me whichever way I look at it, and one which it surprises me to think should have been felt to be desirable by those who initiated it.
  I tried a year ago to explain what appeared to me to be the three conditions which ought to be imposed before any sanction could properly be given by the home authorities to such an arrangement as this. The first was that there should be no fraudulent enlistment; that men should not be brought away from their homes under pretences which should turn out to have been misleading. The next was that there should be in the life lived by these men nothing in the nature of what could properly be called slavery, that there should be no intolerable conditions imposed which we should feel to be impossible and discreditable when dealing with the difficult subject of the employment by a race of a superior grade in civilisation of members of a race of inferior grade. The third condition was that there should not be, by this incursion of the Chinese into the Transvaal, any element introduced of real peril as regards the morality of the community
  440
  into which they entered. To that view I absolutely adhere.
  I have looked with the greatest care, not merely to the official reports, but also to the hostile pamphlets written against this movement, to see whether or not these conditions appear to have been violated. With regard to the first condition, I think the information which has been brought before us on both sides shows that, so far as ingenuity could devise them, safeguards of every sort have been provided against the danger of fraudulent enlistment. Moreover, it is, I think, undisputed that the regions from which immigrants are now coming are in many cases regions to which letters are going back from those who are at work, and those, therefore, who are leaving for the Transvaal, have had an opportunity of knowing what those who have preceded them think and feel about it.
  Then, with regard to the treatment of the Chinese when in the Transvaal, the question is so surounded with difficulties that I feel that the official testimony on the subject requires to be carefully checked by the utterances of those who observe the matter from a point of view hostile to the enactment as a whole. Mr. Creswell, in his pamphlet, declares that the statements as to slavery and as to the Chinese labourers being badly housed and badly treated are simply a mistake in fact, and that such allegations do harm to the cause he supports. Speaking from personal inspection, he says that the natives and Chinese in all the best mines have greater material comfort than they ever had before in their lives. That testimony can be abundantly supported from other sources, and your Lordships will remember that it comes from a man who is foremost in opposing the whole Ordinance.
  When we come, however, to the third condition, the case is different. It is one which it appears to me has been too little considered by those who were first responsible for the movement, and also, as far as the Blue-book shows, by those who are at present administering the Ordinance in the Transvaal. It is a problem full of difficulty, and I am far from saying what

  441
  ought to be done. It is strange that in a Blue-book so voluminous and thorough as this there should be not one single reference to this difficulty. Everybody believed, at first, that if the Chinaman was given the choice of taking his wife and family with him he would be likely to do so. We ought to have known better. On looking back to the controversies that took place fifty years ago about Chinese emigration to the West Indies and elsewhere, I find that it was stated by Mr. Alcock and others that the Chinese emigrant never did and never would take his wife with him. The more closely that I have inquired since into the usages of that people the more certainly does this appear to be true. It seems to me that the facilities which have been given are ample and generous, and the fact that they have not been taken advantage of shows that the Chinaman is following what is apparently the rule of his race. The fact is disquieting, and I should like to know a little more as to what it is likely to involve; for I do not feel satisfied with the testimony that has been given to us to-night to the effect that all is going right. It is impossible to judge of such a question after a few months only of the residence of these men in strange surroundings and under limitations that are likely to be relaxed in practice. That is not a sufficient criterion to enable us to judge of what may be a difficulty when this large number of men have been residents for a long time, say two years, and have been mixing with other people, for, as the Blue-book shows, they will probably be allowed after a time to have larger liberty of exit from the boundaries within which they are restrained, and, therefore, probably to mix with the native races and other people. I am not competent, and still less am I desirous, to prophesy that evil will follow; but those who have had experience of Chinese labourers elsewhere and are able to judge on the spot about present possibilities should look more closely than the Blue-book shows they have looked into such a question if we are to hope that a right judgment may be formed.
  When the question of Chinese immigration was discussed half a century
  442
  ago this question was continually to the front. In the proceedings before the Commission of 1854 and in the correspondence with the Colonial Office of that day, the problem was dwelt upon, and the opinion of the Colonial Office then was that it deserved the closest and most careful attention. It may be that the Colonial Government or the Colonial Office at home have at this moment information that all necesssary or possible precautions are being taken and that apprehensions are comparatively groundless; but I should like to be assured that the matter has received the attention it deserves in connection with the subject as a whole. What has brought about the apparent change from the aspect in which the difficulty presented itself fifty years ago? Have the habits of the Chinese people altered, or can it be that we are less particular than we then were, less on the watch in safeguarding our fellow-subjects against an evil which can only be indirectly referred to? All I venture to say is that, while I regard the first two conditions upon which I have insisted as having been successfully carried out, and find no ground for dissatisfaction in the Blue-book, I do not find equal satisfaction in the absence of reference to that third condition which I have mentioned. I have tried to look at the whole subject honestly, and to arrive at an independent and unbiassed opinion about it. It is certainly beset with the greatest difficulties, and, for my part, while I am far from being happy or satisfied at such a thing being done at all, it is my special wish that upon the moral aspect of this life of the Chinese in the compounds we should have fuller information than the House at present possesses.
  *THE EARL OF MINTO: My Lords, I have been so long absent from this country that I feel very diffident in addressing your Lordships, but, as my noble friend Lord Carrington in his allusions to colonial legislation turned to me, I hope I may be allowed to make a few remarks, for I cannot entirely agree with the complexion which he put upon that legislation. During the term of my office in Canada I saw a good deal of legislation levelled against not only Chinese but

  443
  Japanese immigration, but that legislation was entirely provincial. It was legislation inaugurated by the Parliament of British Columbia, and it was invariably disallowed by the Dominion Parliament. It was not only directed against immigration, but dealt also with employment in certain trades in British Columbia not only of Chinese but Japanese, and it was objected to by the Dominion Government chiefly on the ground that it was anti-Imperial. I may tell your Lordships that this strong feeling against the immigration of Chinese and Japanese in British Columbia is very much mixed up with labour interests and utilised for political purposes. The result of all this legislation was that a Royal Commission was appointed, I think in 1900, and it reported in 1902 against both Chinese and Japanese immigration, but the only result was that the Dominion Parliament still refused to pass the British Columbian Acts, though they did agree ultimately to raise the poll-tax for each Chinaman from 100 dollars to 500 dollars. In dealing with this question I do not think it is fair to draw comparisons between British Columbia in its present state and the Transvaal; if you want to make a fair comparison you must go back to the early days of British Columbia before its resources were developed. Those resources were developed very largely by means of Chinese labour. The Canadian Pacific Railway, the making of which really brought British Columbia into confederation, was built very largely by Chinese labourers. There were something like 7,000 employed on the line, and they were a well-behaved, respectable body of men. All the resources in British Columbia at that time were developed to a great extent by the same means, because white labour did not exist. We all wish to employ white labour if we can get it, and at the present moment white labour in British Columbia may be more available than it was, but we must not forget that British Columbia rose to its present prosperous position very largely through the employment of Chinese labour. We must all recognise that there are periods in the early history of colonial dependencies when white labour is not obtainable, and I ask your Lordships, are we to sit down
  444
  and see these resources remain undeveloped through some theoretical idea that we must not employ other than white labour?
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I do not wish the debate to close without saying a few words on this subject. I cannot agree with the noble Duke the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies that this is a subject which has been already completely thrashed out. I think it is a very important one, and one which still affords great possibilities of discussion; and my reason for rising is to bring before the House some considerations to which I think the attention of your Lordships has not been drawn. It is not so much the interests of the Chinese labourers that I wish to refer to. We all desire that they should be fairly treated, but that is not the sole or the principal object which we have in view. You can do nothing in this matter without its having a great effect upon the whole system of indentured immigration throughout all our Colonies. There will be throughout them all a movement for the relaxation of those regulations which are now in force in regard to the employment of labourers, if some additional restriction is not added to those which exist in the Transvaal.
  There is another and more important reason why I desire to see this subject well ventilated in Parliament and in the country; I refer to the effect this system will have on the white population of the colonies where these immigrants are employed by the encouragement it will give to the pernicious views which are only too prevalent at present in those colonies with regard to the manner in which the different races living in them are to be considered. Indentured immigration has been of vast benefit both to the colonies in which the labourers have been introduced and to the labourers themselves. I have seen it abundantly illustrated. I have seen the coolies who came in misery and poverty from India develop into self-respecting householders and cultivators, and become prosperous in the land; and I have seen also how the colonies into which they have been introduced have been benefited by their introduction, how cultivation has gone

  445
  on where cultivation did not exist before, and how what were practically deserts have blossomed into gardens under their agency. But it has always been and always will be a difficult and dangerous task. It is a system which requires the most careful watching and the most careful regulation. Without those regulations and without that care it is a serious danger to the community. Such a danger must always exist where you have a wholly artificial state of society founded upon exceptional laws.
  The late Lord Elgin was no sentimentalist. The younger Members of the House, such as the noble Duke the Undersecretary for the Colonies, do not remember him, but there are many older Peers who will recollect that he was a man of great ability and sagacity, and of rather a cynical than a sentimental turn of mind. This is what he wrote in a letter on this subject—
  "It is a terrible business this living among inferior races. I have seldom from man or woman since I came to the East heard a sentence which was reconcilable with the hypothesis that Christianity had ever come into the world. Detestation, contempt, ferocity, these are the feelings with which Chinese and Indians alike are regarded. We do not treat them as dogs, because in that case we would whistle to them and pet them, but as machines with which we can have no communion or sympathy."
  That is very much like the machines that my noble friend the noble Duke spoke of, and this testimony raises one of the greatest dangers in our dealings with this subject—the danger to the whites themselves of the encouragement of race hatred, and this is a point which I think it is important for us to consider.
  As to the three conditions referred to by the most rev. Primate, I think he has completely established the first. As far as the regulations go, I see nothing of unfairness in the way in which the coolies are recruited. There will be some unfairness—there always is—behind the scenes, but you cannot prevent that. As regards his second condition, I believe the physical treatment of the Chinese in the Transvaal is good, but physical treatment is not all. When I read the description given of the compounds, of how the men are well fed, well housed, and well taken care of, I seemed to be reading some of the accounts of my old Inspector-General
  446
  of Prisons in Ceylon. There, too, we took very good care to shut up people in compounds, where they were very well fed, very well housed, very well doctored, very well looked after, and very often much better off than out of prison, but they were in prison. I maintain that this compound system is the great blot on the African system of Chinese immigration. You have no right to shut up men in what are virtually prisons. It is a mistake to think that these regulations apply to coolies elsewhere. The noble Marquess the Leader of this House dwelt last year on the similarity of the laws that existed in this respect, but he was quite mistaken. He quoted as an argument that the coolies in Trinidad were compelled to reside on the estates. It is true that in a quite recent Act—passed in 1899—that obligation of residence was for the first time put into the law. But what is meant by residence? The noble Marquess thought it meant that they were confined to the estate and were punished if they left it. The noble Marquess, of course, cannot himself know much about colonial affairs; he is taken up with the important questions connected with his Department and probably only speaks on colonial matters on information supplied to him. A certain clause was given to the noble Marquess which he quoted to the House, but those who furnished him with that clause quite forgot to give him also Clause 137, which follows it, and which is to this effect, that it is punishable for any man to—
  "Absent himself without leave from the plantation in such manner or for such a time as to constitute a breach of the obligation of residence."
  Nothing like the imprisonment in the compounds which obtains in South Africa obtains in any other colony. The immigration of women is imperative in other colonies importing indentured labourers. If the same laws with regard to Chinese immigrants prevailed in South Africa as are enforced in other colonies the Chinese would not be counted by thousands, or by hundreds, or even by scores. If the same proportion of women to men was enforced there as is enforced in other colonies the number of Chinamen would be only six. Those who say that the conditions are the same in South

  447
  Africa as in other colonies may take that fact to heart and make the best they can of it. It must have a bad effect on the white community to be encouraged to look down on immigrants as prisoners.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, even at this late hour I hope I may be permitted very briefly to say how this matter presents itself to plain and serious English people outside the Parliamentary circle. The noble and learned Lord at the beginning of his speech spoke of the Chinese Ordinance as a new departure. It is not because it is a new departure that we object to it, but because it is, in fact, a reversion to a lower type of legislation and represents a policy which we had hoped had been entirely discarded. English people have feelings of repulsion in regarding this Ordinance because of the taint of serfdom in it.
  The Questions of the noble and learned Lord were somewhat comprehensive. They dealt with the recruiting of the Chinese labourers, with their treatment in South Africa, and with the declarations of His Majesty's Ministers on the subject. One cannot but observe to what an extent on this side of the House the discussion has been confined to the treatment of the natives. With regard to the question of recruiting, the well-known Chinese missionary, the Rev. Arnold Foster, has described the advertisements for these labourers in Northern China as absolutely misleading. Those advertisements are said to omit no favourable condition among the terms of the Ordinance except one, and that one is the condition that the Chinaman may take his wife to South Africa with him, while they hardly refer at all to those conditions which have in them the element of slavery. One would like to know whether that series of advertisements is still being circulated in Northern China—whether these roseate and misleading announcements are still the first thing the Chinese emigrants to South Africa are allowed to see. I agree that, on the whole, the treatment of the Chinese in the compounds is favourable. The mineowners are wise and shrewd men; they are, no doubt, also influenced by humane views, and therefore it is
  448
  not surprising that they should treat their labourers well. Still, I have read, within the last day or two, statements in the Press of coolies having been tied up by the pigtail so that their toes only touched the ground, and so many cuts of the cane administered to them by order of the compound manager. One cannot but ask who gives this authority? This statement may not have been seen by many of your Lordships; it appeared in the Daily News, which, if not universally read, is read by an immense number of serious, middle-class English people. The statement was written to Mr. R. L. Brathwaite by a member of the Witwatersrand Trade and Labour Council and if it is mistaken it ought to be contradicted.
  But it is not merely of the Chinese that most of us are thinking. I am thinking also of the reputation of Englishmen, because this policy is a step backward, and has placed an offensive yellow blotch upon the escutcheon of our Empire of freedom. Moreover, putting aside the moral aspect of the question, and regarding it from the economical point of view, this system of indentured Chinese labour in the Transvaal is nothing more nor less than a triumph of capitalism. It is obvious to any impartial reader that the Transvaal is not governed by His Majesty's Government at home, or by the High Commissioner, but by a group of capitalists, who have stated in the frankest terms that they do not wish the Rand to become a white man's country. Their policy is that it should not be a country with its thousands of white men like Durham or Lancashire, everyone with a vote, but that the government of the country should be in the hands of a group of capitalists working servile labour. I need not remind your Lordships of the very plain statements that have been made by chairmen of companies on this subject when they have met their shareholders, and I need not remind you of the statement made by Lord Milner, in which he said the Rand did not want a white proletariat. When this country sent its sons to fight in the late war they expected that they were fighting for something very different from this. However much we might have objected to the war, we had

  449
  hoped the result might be that we should see a colony of British citizens growing up and expanding, and we might have seen the beginning of this but for this policy. The noble and learned Lord has reminded us that but for the invasion of yellow labour we might fairly have anticipated the development of mining by the employment of an ever-increasing number of white men, so that we should have had our fellow-countrymen going from Cornwall and other parts and settling with their families in what would have become a prosperous and happy colony of the English self-governing type. Now it is beyondall question that the Rand is a place governed by a few millionaire capitalists, with its mines exploited by alien serfs. That is why the English people are, I believe, strongly opposed to that policy and will continue so in spite of any political blandishments.
  One word, my Lords, with reference to the declarations of His Majesty's Ministers. We have nothing to complain of in the declaration of the noble Duke, but as I read the surprising speech made by the Prime Minister the other day in the Albert Hall, I felt that its unblushing cynicism called for a protest from all of us who have been opposed to this Ordinance. There we had the Prime Minister of England addressing a company of Primrose League ladies and saying to them that this Chinese advance has been opposed and assailed, not only by misrepresentation, but by mendacious misrepresentation. That is a very strong thing for a Prime Minister to say, and I think he ought to be more explicit when he indulges in such language. I have no doubt there may have been misrepresentation in this and other forms of South African affairs, but I am sure, if that is so, that the misrepresentation has not been all on our side. The Prime Minister went on to appeal to the Primrose League ladies to defend the Government, religion, and the Chinese Ordinance, and I noticed he was standing strange to say, all the time, under the motto, Imperium et libertas. I do not think I ever read anything more glaringly cynical or which I felt more seriously demanded a protest from these who have been conscientiously opposed to this Ordinance and its consequences, and I sincerely hope that those
  450
  ladies will not allow themselves to be turned into missionaries of this Chinese Ordinance. My Lords, we see various sorts of missionaries now-a-days, but I hope I may never see respectable British matrons going about in our constituencies as missionaries in support of this invasion of Chinese serfdom. I am convinced that nothing can come of this Ordinance, morally or politically, but evil consequences to the Empire, which we must always regret, even if we can think of them without shame.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the arguments which are used in these not infrequent debates on Chinese labour in the Transvaal are so familiar that I hesitate to travel again over the ground which has been covered by the speeches this evening. But the noble Lord opposite, Lord Carrington, made so impassioned an appeal to me that I feel myself obliged to offer him some kind of response. I am afraid the noble Earl greatly exaggerates the effect of any words that are likely to fall from me upon an occasion of this sort; but as he desires my humble opinion on the subject, I am willing to satisfy him. I am one of those who have always regarded the experiment which is being tried in the Transvaal as a very serious experiment, and one which requires close and attentive watching. We made the experiment not light-heartedly or without deep consideration; we made it because we were convinced that something of the kind was absolutely necessary in the interest of the colony.
  Some of the old fallacies in connection with this subject, which have been from time to time controverted, die very hard, as we see from the debate this evening. It has been said by more than one speaker—it was certainly said by the mover of the Motion—that His Majesty's Government, or the mine-owners had by some means or another created an artificial scarcity of labour in South Africa with the object of facilitating the introduction of Chinese coolies. Was ever a statement wider of the mark than that? What are the facts? The complete collapse of the mining industry was imminent. White labour was unobtainable; Some of the

  451
  mineowners had tried to obtain it, and failed egregiously. Efforts were then made to obtain labour in other parts of the world. I remember that an effort was made to obtain a certain number of coolies from one of the African protectorates, but it had to be given up in despair. Kaffir labour was not forthcoming in sufficient numbers; and it was because the collapse was imminent, and because the mining industry would have gone under, that we, not without hesitation as I have said, authorised the introduction of Chinese labour. If the mining industry had gone under it would have carried with it most of the other industries in that part of Africa.
  What I always regret is that this question cannot be discussed without the exhibition of what I can only describe as a considerable amount of class prejudice. During the course of the discussion this evening we have been constantly told that all this has been done for the sake of the capitalist class, who, because they are described as millionaires, seem to be regarded as wholly unworthy of any support or recognition. I want to know why the mineowners of South Africa are to be singled out for special attack in this manner. It is suggested that they are unworthy of our consideration because the wealth which is produced in the mines leaves the country; but do noble Lords who use that argument suppose that the existence of these mines does not lead to other industries and other forms of employment of labour which create wealth—a wealth which does remain in the country and benefits those who dwell in it? Do noble Lords suppose that if, for example, the mines were to be suddenly closed, that would not affect the prosperity of the whole of South Africa, and the welfare of other trades besides the mining trade? There is another kind of class prejudice which I am sorry to say is also manifested on these occasions; I think we have some right to complain of the manner in which the Chinese coolies themselves are very often referred to. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Carrington, on every occasion when he mentioned the word coolie coupled it with the epithet "low-class"; and during the course of his speech he indicated not obscurely
  452
  that that class was distinguished by forms of immorality which he did not more particularly describe.
  The same point was dealt with, though I must say in a very different spirit and tone, by the most rev. Primate, who, I think very naturally, asked us whether we were able to give an assurance as to the manner in which the question of the morality of the coolies had been dealt with. Well, I have to say that that aspect of the case has not been and will not be lost sight of; and I am able to tell the most rev. Primate that up to the present time among this great body of coolies there has only been one criminal assault of the kind at which his argument pointed; and, when I say that, I ask your Lordships to remember that these compounds are always open, that they may be visited freely, and are visited, and that there are consequently ample opportunities for ascertaining whether the kind of immorality which is particularly apprehended really prevails within them or not.
  What we say is that this experiment has produced the results which we hoped from it, in so far as it has saved the mining industry from impending ruin; and we say, on the other hand, that it has not produced the sinister results which were so freely predicted from it by noble Lords opposite. That part of the case was so fully dealt with by my noble friend who represents the Colonial Office that I will not enter into it in any detail; but I ask your Lordships to remember that a year ago the conditions under which these coolies were employed were constantly described to us as conditions indistinguishable from those of slavery— a charge which has been completely disposed of by the statements contained in the Blue-book. In the same way we were told that fraudulent enlistment was sure to prevail. I was glad to hear from the most rev. Primate to-night a frank admission that in his opinion that part of the case had broken down. Then there is the question of the health of the coolies. Your Lordships will find in this Blue-book detailed reports from responsible officials, showing that the surroundings under which these men live and do their work are surroundings of a satisfactory character, and that the

  453
  general state of their health is not bad at present and is tending to improve.
  Something was said this evening on the subject of the riots, which are described very fully in the Blue-book. But the loss of life from those riots does not appear to have been considerable; and it is stated, and I must say stated in a manner which carries great conviction to one's mind, that these riots were largely due to the fact that the first batches of Chinamen who arrived in the country were completely strange to it, were easily alarmed, and got out of hand. It is confidently predicted by those best able to judge that now that the newcomers find friends and fellow-countrymen on the spot, and are able to learn from them what their actual position in the mines is likely to be, such riots and disturbances will become much less frequent.
  In regard to the question of the absence of wives, the most rev. Primate has, I think, been somewhat misled, because he has not realised or had it explained to him that Chinese coolies, as a rule, do not take their wives with them. I was under no delusion upon this point, and I remember that I stated in the House, on high authority, that the Chinaman when he leaves his country for a short time to go and work in another country scarcely ever takes his wife with him. Do noble Lords opposite believe that in other parts of the world, where large bodies of labourers are gathered together, they do not leave their wives or families behind? I have seen something of railway construction in other parts of the world, where large gangs of men have been employed together, and I do not think it was ever the case that in their camps—which probably were not at all fit places for women—their wives and families were to be found. It appears that out of the total number of men now in South Africa, about 4,000 have registered their intention of bringing their wives out, but whether they will do so seems to me somewhat problematic. Another anticipation which has been completely falsified is the anticipation that the employment of these Chinese workmen would have the effect of limiting the employment of white
  454
  labourers. We now know that a large number of white men are being employed who certainly would not be employed if the Chinese coolies were not there to keep the mines going. The fact is that, as Lord Milner explains in one of the despatches contained in the Blue-book, the white labourers do not resent the presence of the Chinese, but, on the contrary, know perfectly well that the addition of a large number of Chinamen to the ranks of labour in South Africa means a corresponding addition to the number of white men employed.
  All these gloomy anticipations have certainly not been fulfilled; and I should have thought it would have been more natural for those who indulged in them to confess frankly that they had been mistaken in many particulars, to continue their watchfulness, which might be usefully exercised, but at the same time to concede to us that many of the disastrous results to which they looked forward have by no means taken place. I am sorry to say that instead of that we are treated to a constant reproduction of the same old charges which have been made and met on so many occasions. As for us, we shall continue the experiment, we shall continue it under proper precautions and with due watchfulness. And before I sit down I should like, as prophecies are the fashion, to indulge in a little prophecy of my own—and that is that, if the fortunes of war should permit noble Lords opposite to occupy our places on these benches, they too will continue the experiment and do exactly what we have been doing.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not know that I should have been tempted to take any part in this debate at this hour of the evening had it not been for what, to my mind, is the distinguishing feature of this debate, and that is the fact that His Majesty's Government appear to be quite unconscious of the grave importance which attaches to the question of the lack of Chinese women with the coolies, which has been referred to by the most rev. Primate. It was certainly a very singular thing that the noble Duke, answering not only what my noble and learned friend said, but a great many things which he never said, should have entirely omitted the

  455
  smallest allusion to this question of the supply of women. I do not make any charge against the noble Duke in that respect. I have no doubt he entirely forgot it. I do not doubt that if he had remembered it he would have said something about it, but I do think it is a singular fact that the Under-Secretary should forget what seems to many of us one of the most important features of this case, and that there should be, as the most rev. Primate has stated, no allusion to the subject in the Blue-book. There is no apparent consciousness on the part of those who prepared the Blue-book in South Africa, that the subject was of any importance at all.
  The noble Duke said that our prophecies had been very unfortunate and wholly disproved, but there is, at all events, one prophecy that has not been disproved, and that is the statement which we persistently made that you would not get any considerable quantity of women to accompany the coolies who were taken from China to South Africa. That has been exactly the case. Some 4,000 or 5,000, out of between 35,000 and 40,000 who have gone to South Africa, have registered their names in order to bring out their wives; and as a matter of fact I believe there are only two Chinese women and a few children at the present moment with them. That that should be the state of things does not in the smallest degree surprise me. It is what I always anticipated would be the result. I quite admit that Mr. Lyttelton removed those provisions of the original draft Ordinance which tended absolutely to prevent women accompanying the coolies at all, but I never supposed that that would have the effect of bringing over a large number of women, not so much on the ground pointed out by the most rev. Primate that Chinese coolies when they went out to labour were not in the habit of taking their women, but because I felt that those engaged in recruiting were quite certain, after the Ordinance had been altered, to enlist very few married men or men who were inclined to take their wives out to South Africa. We all know what sort of persons these recruiters are; they would naturally look to what they would suppose to be the principal interest of their employer, and it was idle to imagine that any number of
  456
  women would really accompany these coolies. Therefore we have precisely that grave state of things which was contemplated and discussed last year.
  You have between 35,000 and 40,000 Chinese coolies in South Africa. We are told in this Blue-book that the number will soon rise to 55,000, and yet the proportion of women even registered is only 4,000. That, I think, is the most complete proof of the justice of our contention last year that this very grave state of things ought never to have been allowed to be created because of the grave moral questions involved. As your Lordships know, we on this side of the House have never admitted that there was a necessity for the introduction of Chinese labourers. I believed, and I think it is clear now, that the necessary labour might have been obtained at a price in South Africa. But it is a question of cheap labour, not of labour alone, and we hold that, in order to procure this cheap labour for the mineowners, His Majesty's Government were not justified in incurring the great and grave moral risks which they are proved to have incurred by the adoption of this policy.
  My noble friend who has just sat down said that the mines were threatened with ruin. I have in my hand a statement not altogether consistent with that notion. It is a statement made, not in 1904, but in 1903, and I am quite aware that anybody now-a-days quoting the opinion of anybody else expressed a year ago is considered to be guilty of a very unjust and highly improper proceeding. But I am rather old-fashioned, and believe in political consistency. This is what Lord Milner said on June 2nd, 1903, at which time he was not, I believe, an advocate of the introduction of Chinese labour—
  "To listen to the extreme advocates of Asiatic labour you would think the country was on the verge of ruin. What was fabulous wealth seven years ago cannot be abject poverty now. Not only that, but the rate of production is steadily increasing."
  And on May 31st of that year he said—
  "It does not strike me that our financial troubles, over which so many crocodile tears have been shed, are anything out of the common: the Transvaal is paying its way."
  Lord Milner subsequently took a different view of the case, but at the same

  457
  time he ought to have known something of the prospects of the Transvaal in May, 1903, and his sudden conversion to the introduction of Chinese labour and the statements made in regard to it, that the colony was on the verge of ruin, do not, I confess, commend themselves to me as very certain proofs of the real state of things. We know the pressure that was brought to bear. We know the circumstances that probably led to the change of Lord Milner's opinion, but we still hold that labour might have been obtained at a price, and I think you will find the proof of that in the Blue - book itself. Your Lordships will observe that in the month of June, 1903, there was a sudden drop in the number of Kaffirs employed; they fell to 74,000, and in July and August to 73,000. That was just the time when the controversy with reference to Chinese labour was at its height; but by December of that year the number of Kaffirs employed had risen to 83,000. I do not believe, therefore, that it would have been impossible to get Kaffir labour if the mineowners had been willing to pay for it.
  My noble friend asked why this hard language was used in regard to the mineowners. He said they are persons conducting an industry in the Transvaal naturally anxious to promote their own interests, but why were all these hard things said of them? Those who own the mines are not mainly persons whose chief interest is the conduct of that industry. They are persons who are much more interested in what goes on on the Stock Exchange in London than in the mines in South Africa, and that is the reason why there is a greater suspicion in regard to their proceedings. They have less real concern in the true interest of the country than they would have if they were merely employed in the conduct of a straightforward industry on the spot. Both the noble Duke and the noble Marquess who has just sat down seemed to make some sort of complaint of my noble and learned friend's having brought forward this subject to-day. We have occasionally brought the subject forward because we attach great importance to it and entertain grave objections to the policy that has been pursued. I should have been sorry if we had lost the able speech with
  458
  which my noble and learned friend opened this discussion to-night; and I must say it is going rather far to complain of my noble friend's bringing the subject forward for the first time in. this session, after this experiment, as my noble friend the Foreign Minister called it—and I was delighted to hear him use the word "experiment"—has had six months trial——
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I took exception to some of the noble and learned Lord's arguments, but made no complaint whatever of his bringing the subject forward.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I beg the noble Marquess' pardon, but I am sure the noble Duke will not deny the soft impeachment, for he spoke about the frequency with which this question was discussed. To my mind the question is one of the highest importance, concerning as it does the reputation of this country. I am glad to think, however, that there is a possible opportunity of bringing the experiment to a close. Mr. Evans tells us that by the end of August or September there will be 55,000 Chinese coolies in the Transvaal, and that after that time they will not need to introduce any more except to supply the natural wastage. I therefore urge His Majesty's Government, if they really were, as the noble Marquess has said, reluctant to enter upon this mischievous experiment, to take the opportunity of bringing that experiment to a close as soon as, at all events, they can say that the immediate danger which they anticipated, but the existence of which I and my friends always doubted, has passed away. The noble Lord treated lightly the question of the ratio between the white and coloured men, but it is of the essence of the question. Until that point has been satisfactorily answered—and I do not think it can be—we shall continue to think that the Government have made a dangerous experiment, involving very serious questions, especially moral questions, and tending not to increase, but to reduce, the employment of British labour.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Eight o'clock, till Thursday day next, half-past Ten o'clock.