§ LORD AMPTHILLrose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intended to take steps to invite the Governments of the Colonies to discuss, by conference or otherwise, the question of the treatment of Asiatics in the Colonies, with a view to arriving at agreement upon general principles of Imperial application; and whether His Majesty's Government did not consider that the recent action of the Canadian Government in regard to Japanese, and of the Transvaal Government in regard to British Indians, both conspicuous demonstrations of the belief of the Colonies in the paramount importance of Imperial unity, was sufficient proof that the Governments of the Colonies would welcome an opportunity of further considering this important subject. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question on the Paper is one of those which I put to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the recent discussion on the treatment of British Indians in South Africa, and to which the noble Earl omitted to reply. I need not repeat what I said on that occasion; but, in view of the considerable public interest in the question, I have thought it justifiable to ask the noble Earl once more for information as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN)My Lords, I have to apologise to the noble Lord for having failed to answer this Question on the previous occasion. I had noted the Question, but unfortunately omitted to reply at the time. I should like to explain to the noble Lord that, though I am well aware he was desirous that this subject should have been put forward on the programme of the late Conference, and that it was not so put forward, as a matter of fact it was debated at the Conference. If he will turn to the proceedings of the tenth day, he will find that the subject came up and was debated, on the one side by Sir William Lyne, representing Australia, 391 and, on the other, by Sir James Mackay, as representing the Indian Government. The discussions, I think I may say for Conference discussions, were of a somewhat lively nature. At any rate, the result was the adoption of an absolutely uncompromising position by Sir William Lyne, and the prescribing of conditions to which I am sure the Government of India, or Sir James Mackay at the moment, could never assent. Although no other speakers directly dealt with the matter on that occasion, I am in a position to say that New Zealand's attitude with regard to the exclusion of Asiatics does not differ in principle from that set forth by Sir William Lyne. It would be difficult, so soon after the Conference at which this conversation took place, to initiate a fresh discussion, whether "by conference or otherwise"—to use the noble Lord's words. Then, with regard to the second part of the Question, the noble Lord has spoken with a just appreciation of the action taken by one of the oldest and by one of the youngest of our Colonies, but I venture to think these incidents also suggest caution. Surely, it is of the essence of the arrangements which these two Colonies have made that at this moment, so soon after the feeling which has been excited, there should be nothing whatever to throw any challenge on the validity of those arrangements. Would it be fair; now to invite them to enter into a fresh discussion before the ink of those settlements was dry? The moment, I consider, is not opportune for entering into the particular inquiries which have been suggested by the noble Lord, but I hope he will believe that I am in no way out of sympathy with the object in view. I think I may claim to have every reason to feel, as keenly as the noble Lord, obligation towards our fellow-subjects in India. I hope he will believe that I will use any opportunity which I consider a real opportunity, either by the means suggested in the Question, or perhaps by some more diplomatic method; and I think no one who bears the noble Lord's name will object if I have a preference for diplomacy.
§ House adjourned at Five o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.