BRITISH INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA. (Hansard, 6 December 1911)

§ LORD EMMOTT
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I have only been at the Colonial Office for a few weeks, and, of course, he will know that this particular question of the treatment of British. Indians in South Africa is one of the most delicate, difficult, and complicated of all the questions with which we have to deal at the present time. I cannot pretend as yet to be a master of the question or to know the whole history of the case from the beginning, but I hope to be able to give a reply not entirely unsatisfactory to the Questions of the noble Lord. I will deal with his Motion in regard to the Papers and with the two Questions at the same time.
The matters with which the noble Lord's Questions deal are, of course, constantly receiving the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government. As regards the 668 Union of South Africa there was published in March last a Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 5579] containing with other Papers a draft Bill to regulate immigration into South Africa based on proposals made to the Union Government by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. The main object of those proposals was to put an end to differentiation against Indians in the text of immigration legislation, and to terminate the movement of passive resistance on behalf of Transvaal British Indians, particulars as to which will be found in still earlier Parliamentary Papers of this series. The position of Indians was that while they acquiesced in the exclusion of fresh Indians, with the exception of a limited number required to cater for the religious and professional needs of the resident population, they desired that such exclusion should be by means of administrative action, and not by differentiation in the text of the Bill on the ground of race or colour. They also desired the repeal of the Transvaal Registration Act of 1907, as they held that its repeal had been promised at an earlier stage in the Transvaal.
It will be seen from the text of the Bill published in the Command Paper to which I have referred, and from the published correspondence, that these desires of the Indians would have been provided for. The Bill was read a second time with certain amendments which went still further in the direction of meeting the views of Indians; for example, by saving the rights of domiciled Indians, and by providing that the fresh Indians of the religious and professional class who were to be admitted should be exempt from registration as Asiatics in the Transvaal. The discussions in the Union Parliament, however, revealed certain difficulties and defects in the Bill. One difficulty arose especially regarding the question whether the fresh Indians to be annually admitted into the Union should have the right to enter the Orange Free State, from which, as the noble Lord knows, Asiatics had been practically excluded altogether. The Union Government accordingly decided, with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government, to withdraw the Bill last session. In announcing this decision the Minister of the Interior intimated that the whole question would be further considered in the light of the criticisms of the Bill, and that an amended Bill would be introduced next year. 669 At the same time an agreement was arrived at with the Transvaal British Indians by which the passive resistance movement in the province was brought to an end. That is the history of the question up to comparatively recent times.
Now I have to tell the noble Lord that correspondence respecting the terms of a new Immigration Bill is still proceeding, and it would not at the present time be proper to lay Papers, though His Majesty's Government will have no objection to considering at some future time whether they can lay Papers with regard to this question, with the concurrence of the South African Government. The noble Lord's Motion calls for a publication of all correspondence back to 1910, and in his Questions he refers to correspondence on two specific points—the Draft Transvaal Municipal Ordinance and the Transvaal Gold Law and Townships Amendment Acts of 1908 and 1909. The correspondence up to March, 1911, as regards the question of immigration, has already been published in the Command Paper to which have referred [No. 5579], and I have already answered the noble Lord's question as to the publication of further correspondence on that question. Between August, 1910, and March, 1911, other correspondence dealt almost entirely with the passive resistance movement in the Transvaal, and as a provisional settlement of that question has been arrived at, I think the noble Lord will agree that no good end will be served now by publishing Papers with regard to it. As regards the correspondence since March, 1911, on subjects other than immigration, it will probably be sufficient on the present occasion if I state the substance of the replies of the Union Government on the two specific points raised in the Questions, without publishing the correspondence. First of all, as to the Transvaal Municipal Ordinance, that was referred to a Select Committee of the Provincial Council, whose Report will not be brought up until the Council meets in January. The Union Government have, however, stated that in all, or nearly all, of the points complained of the Ordinance merely repeats existing legislation; and in regard to the specific points about which it is thought that a grievance may still exist, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, I may say those points are now the subject of correspondence between the Home Government and the Union Government.
670 There remains for me only to deal with the question of the Gold Law and the Townships Amendment Acts of 1908 and 1909. The Union Ministers state that they do not understand the grievance alleged to have been imposed on Indians by the Townships Acts. With regard to the Gold Law, it has been laid down in a judgment recently given in the case of Tamblin v. Rex by the Supreme Court of South Africa that there is now no restriction imposed by the Act on the letting to Asiatics of any stands laid out under the Mining Laws prior to 1908. I think, therefore, the noble Lord will see that the difficulties of which he has spoken have been to a large extent removed.

§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON
I think noble Lords will agree that the reply of the noble Lord who has addressed us for the first time, and on whose first appearance in our debates I must be allowed to congratulate him, was on the whole satisfactory, as it certainly was sympathetic. I agree with the noble Lord that no more complicated question ever collies before this House than that of the position of British Indians in South Africa. I had to deal with the question myself for some years while in India, and I have kept in touch with it. ever since; and there is, not on this side of the House alone but equally among noble Lords opposite, a genuine desire that this running sore, for it is nothing else, on the surface of the Empire should be satisfactorily removed.
The noble Lord, I think, gave a perfectly satisfactory reply to the first Question about Papers. He reminded us that the last Papers were presented to us only in the Spring of the present year, and he told us that when matters are further developed we may reasonably ask for more. The fact is, as you will have gathered from the speech of the noble Lord, there are really two aspects to this case. There is, first, the large issue of the admission of Indians to residence in South Africa. This has been, of course, the main bone of contention between the two parties for all these years, and has resulted in the movement of passive resistance with all its painful and distressing features to which the noble Lord referred. I have taken great interest in that question, not only because of the acute form it had assumed when I left India, but at a later date I was in South Africa and had 671 communications with General Botha and General Smuts and with the British Indian community, and there was a good deal of discussion as to a possible basis of compromise. It is that compromise that has been embodied in the Bill to which the noble Lord referred, and I would ask His Majesty's Government most earnestly to keep their eyes fixed on the progress of that Bill. We understand that certain difficulties occurred which prevented the passage of the Bill into law last year, and that it was withdrawn with the consent of the British Indian community, but the Bill is to be introduced again in the forthcoming session. If there were, as I do not think there is likely to be, any slowness on the part of the Union Government in South Africa in pushing forward the matter, I am certain that the noble Lord opposite, as the custodian of wider interests even than those of South Africa, will see that the matter is proceeded with without delay.
Then there is the smaller issue raised by the other Question of my noble friend behind me. They are matters, of course, narrower and less important than those raised by the bigger question of admission to South Africa. But as any noble Lord will understand who reflects that the great majority of these British Indians are small people engaged in petty trade, they are intensely personal to the everyday life and interests of settlers in that country. The restrictions under which they live and pursue their trade have been regarded by them as exceedingly vexatious in the past, and have been responsible, perhaps even more than the larger restrictions, for the trouble that has arisen. As regards the first of these two sets of grievances mentioned in the second Question of the noble Lord, I gathered that the reply of the Under-Secretary was a satisfactory one. Upon the second matter I understood the noble Lord to say that the Union Government are of opinion that the case of grievance does not arise; that there has been a misunderstanding.

§ LORD EMMOTT
I think there has been some misunderstanding as between the Townships Act and the Gold Law. The Townships Act refers, of course, to the land in the townships, in which the law is different, and the Gold Law refers to land in mining districts outside the townships. I think there has been some confusion between the two.

§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON
That, of course, is a confusion that we cannot elucidate or remove in this House. I would merely ask the noble Lord, in discharge of the duties of his new office, to keep an eye upon the smaller as well as the larger issues, and if he can help to remove these petty grievances he will do a great deal to earn the gratitude not only of British Indians in South Africa but of those in India also.

§ LORD EMMOTT
I can assure the noble Earl that there is nothing the Colonial Office is more anxious to do than to remove these grievances, which are a real source of difficulty not only to us, which is a small matter perhaps, but also to the Empire, and our constant endeavours will be extended in that direction.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
I beg to withdraw the Motion.