HL Deb 19 February 1912 vol 11 cc52-62

*LORD AMPTHILL rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

  1. 1. Whether they have any information as to the alleged action of the Portuguese authorities in preventing minor children accompanied by their parents from entering the Transvaal from Lorenzo Marques, and to ask, supposing the reports on the subject to be correct, by what arrangement and under what British law the said foreign authorities demand permits to enter the Transvaal of children obviously under age.
  2. 2. Whether it is not a fact that under the Transvaal Registration Law of 1908 Indian parents lawfully domiciled in the Transvaal have the right to bring in their children under 16 years of age without special licence.
  3. 3. Whether it is a fact that the Portuguese authorities forcibly detain British Indians belonging to the Transvaal in Mozambique while their permits to re-enter the Union are being examined by the Asiatic Department of the Transvaal, and that the delays of that Department may very likely result in the deportation to India of these British subjects by the Portuguese authorities in consequence of the expiry of their "Delagoa Bay permits."
  4. 4. Whether His Majesty's Government have had any communications with the Government of the Union of South Africa on these subjects, and whether they have assented to an interpretation of the law which Indian citizens cannot but regard as harsh and unjust, and agreed to the unusual co-operation of the Portuguese authorities; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object in putting the Questions which stand in my name on the Notice Paper is to obtain reliable information as to the actual facts of the case, and so to call public attention to a matter which seems to me more than ever to be of enormous public importance. I shall, therefore, merely explain what has been, reported to me in regard to the facts, and refrain from any comment until I have had a reply from the noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office. In regard to my first Question, as to the alleged action of the Portuguese authorities in stopping minor children, what I have heard is this. In the month of December, I think it was—I have not got the actual dates—some five minor children of British Indian fathers—British Indian fathers who were lawfully domiciled in the Transvaal, that is to say, had a right to be there and were in possession of registration certificates according to the law—left Lorenzo Marques with their parents in order to proceed to their parents' home in the Transvaal. At Rossano Garcia, in Portuguese territory, they were arrested by Portuguese police, hauled out of the train, and compelled to pay their fares back to Lorenzo Marques, and brought up for some imaginary offence before a petty officer. Their friends in the Transvaal took prompt steps by means of the telegraph and in other ways, and they were accordingly released through the intervention of the British Consul.

But a gentleman named Mr. Hitch, who has been for some years secretary of the British South Africa Committee, with whom I work in this matter, and who is devoting himself entirely to the cause of British Indians in the Transvaal, went up to Lorenzo Marques to inquire into the matter. He had an interview with the British Consul, who told him that it was all a mistake, which was regretted. Mr. Bitch recognised, of course, that mistakes will happen in the best regulated families, and therefore did not press the matter any further. But as there happened to be a number of other children at Lorenzo Marques in exactly the same position who were waiting to proceed to the Transvaal to their parents, he made up his mind to accompany them, and a couple of days later the train left Lorenzo Marques with some thirty children and their parents. This is what I have heard about it. Mr. Hitch travelled by the same train on route for Johannesburg. At Rossano Garcia a Portuguese official boarded the train and demanded from the various Indians and their children their permits to enter the Transvaal. On Mr. Hitch's recommendation they one and all declined to discuss the matter with this gentleman, a Portuguese official be it remembered. He accordingly ordered them to leave the train, and, again on Mr. Ritch's advice, they declined to do anything of the kind; and Mr. Ritch demanded, on their behalf, by what authority this Portuguese official felt called upon to interfere with the peaceful progress of British subjects into British territory. After some hesitation the official left the train, which proceeded on its way.

At Komati Poort, however, the train was boarded by an immigrant officer, and the whole party were called upon to produce their permits. Naturally the children had no permits to produce. They are not required to produce permits because under the law parents are allowed to bring in their children under age without let or hindrance. But nevertheless, so I am informed, they were all arrested, detained at Komati Poort and Barberton for some days, and eventually remanded for trial in Johannesburg. I believe it to be the fact that under the Transvaal Registration Law of 1908 Indian parents who are lawfully domiciled in the Transvaal—and it is a question of parents who have that right—are entitled to bring in their children under sixteen years of age without any special licence; but I have heard that in another case, which has nothing to do with this particular question, a permit was demanded even in the case of an infant in arms. I want to know whether I am right in my view that the Transvaal Registration Law does not put any impediment in the way of parents who have a right to be in the Transvaal bringing in their young children.

But this process of obstructing British Indians who wish to enter the Transvaal and who believe themselves to have a right to do so by virtue of their registration certificates is being carried still further, if I have been rightly informed. It appears that there are a number of Indians who are waiting at this moment, or were at the time I heard this, for permission to proceed to the Transvaal—some ten or twenty of them who have landed at Delagoa Bay. What happens is this. They are given a visiting pass, a kind of permit or bail, which allows them to remain in Portuguese territory until their certificates, which are sent on to the Transvaal, have been examined. For this visiting pass they have to pay £7. You would think that, in circumstances like that, there would be every possible expedition in examining and returning their certificates, but the delays have been such that the Indian gentlemen in question have been gravely alarmed as to whether they are going to be permitted to enter the Transvaal. They have made inquiries as to what their position is, and they are told that if they overstay their visiting pass, which is only valid for one month, they will be deported to India, and the £7 which they have paid for the permit will be applied to the cost of their voyage. It appears that they are perfectly helpless in the matter. If the officers in charge of the Asiatic Department choose to delay the matter beyond the month, these British subjects will be sent back to India to a large extent at their own expense and will apparently have no remedy whatever. Those are the circumstances on which I beg the noble Lord to give me as full information as possible, particularly on the point as to whether His Majesty's Government have had any communication with the Government of the Union of South Africa on these subjects, and whether that which has been done—that is if, indeed, I have been rightly informed—has been done with the knowledge and assent of His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the alleged action of the Portuguese authorities in preventing minor children accompanied by their parents from entering the Transvaal from Lorenzo Marques.—(Lord Ampthill.)

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT)

My Lords, I am in a little difficulty as to the Questions put to me by the noble Lord opposite, because no official information of any kind in regard to either of them has reached the Colonial Office. With regard to the case of the children, the only information I know of is that which has appeared in a paper called Indian Opinion, and that information appears to coincide with the information which the noble Lord has given to the House. But we have no official information with regard to the matter at all, and therefore I cannot say whether the facts are as stated.

The same remark applies to the point mentioned in the third Question—namely, whether it is the fact that the Portuguese authorities forcibly detain British Indians belonging to the Transvaal in Mozambique while their permits to re-enter the Union are being examined by the Asiatic Department of the Transvaal, and that the delays of that Department may very likely result in the deportation to India of these British subjects by the Portuguese authorities in consequence of the expiry of their Delagoa Bay permits. No complaint of any kind has reached us at the Colonial Office in regard to that matter, but I see in the paper which I have mentioned that there is a suggestion that the matters raised in the noble Lord's third Question, if not in the first, may be referred to us; and if any representations are made to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies he will, of course, consult the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs accordingly.

The latter part of the noble Lord's first Question asks, supposing the reports on the subject to be correct, by what arrangement and under what British law the said foreign authorities demand permits to enter the Transvaal of children obviously under age. In regard to that inquiry, we are not in possession of the facts, and therefore it will be obvious to the House that I cannot possibly make any reply to the noble Lord. But I should like to add that if there is any particular part of this matter which the noble Lord desires me to inquire into. I will confer with him about it and see what can be done. With regard to the second Question, in which the noble Lord refers to the Transvaal Registration Law of 1908, I think the law that he must mean is the Immigration Law of 1907, and that law excludes from the lists of prohibited immigrants the wife or minor children of any person who is not a prohibited immigrant. And in connection with that matter I may remind the noble Lord that in a Blue-book already issued—Cd. 5579—on page 18, Ministers have promised to preserve in the new Immigration Law the effect of the Chotabhai judgment, which bears in a very important way on this particular subject.

In regard to the last Question put by the noble Lord, no communications have been made to the Union Government in reference to the specific points raised in Questions No. 1 and No. 3, inasmuch as no com- plaints have been received by us in regard to them. Correspondence did take place in 1910 with the Union Government about other complaints referring to quite other matters, and a reference to these will be found on page 127 of Cd. 5363. The noble Lord asks, at the end of Question No. 4, whether His Majesty's Government have assented to an interpretation of the law which Indian citizens cannot but regard as harsh and unjust, and agreed to the unusual cooperation of the Portuguese authorities. In reply I have to say that we have not been asked to assent to any interpretation of the law in regard to this matter, or even in regard to matters which occurred some time ago. Therefore we have not assented in the way suggested by the noble Lord. As to Papers, in the circumstances which I have described to the House there are no Papers in regard to these questions which we can lay.

LORD AMPTHILL

My Lords, if there are no Papers which can be laid it is, of course, idle to press my Motion. But I confess that I am immensely surprised that no such Papers exist. This is not a new question. Some time ago I ventured to raise it in the House and call attention to this extraordinary co-operation of the Portuguese authorities with the authorities in the Transvaal for the purpose of impeding the lawful movements of British subjects. At that time, if I am not mistaken, I received a promise that the matter should be inquired into. Therefore there must have been communications unless that promise was not kept, and I must say that, even apart from that, it is very surprising that the Colonial Office should not be keeping a watchful eye on these matters and inquiring into circumstances which are matters of general knowledge. They appear in the newspapers; they have been brought to the notice of the Department by my friends with whom I work in this matter in repeated communications, to which I am bound to say we have had little more than a bare acknowledgment. But, anyhow, I should have thought that the Department, knowing the enormous importance of this subject, would feel, after it has gone on so long without a final and satisfactory settlement being arrived at, that they ought to be watching it carefully from day to day and ascertaining what are the actual facts in regard to any complaints or representations which appear in the newspapers even if they are not brought directly to their notice. But I shall take care that the circumstances are brought directly to the notice of the Colonial Office, and I hope that it will result in correspondence which will clear up the facts and allow the public to know exactly what has happened.

I am bound to say that it is bitterly it disappointing to me that these questions should have dragged on so long without our being appreciably nearer a settlement—the settlement which has been promised again and again, and which we have been told year after year was at hand and would shortly be accomplished. But instead of a settlement there does not appear to be, from the cases which I have just cited, any improvement in the relations between the two communities. It is evident that the troubles of our Indian fellow-subjects are not at an end, and that the persecution—I cannot call it by any other word—is continuing just as much as before. We had hoped that the Imperial Conference would result in some settlement of this question. Indeed, we were given every reason to hope that it would from the assurances of those who were responsible. It is true that there was no real representation of Indian opinion at that Conference, but still it was followed by official statements which led us to hope that it would lead to the result which we so earnestly desire. But the settlement which was subsequently foreshadowed has been delayed for reasons which I need not enter into.

Then, again, we hoped that the Coronation would have a similar effect, but it would seem that the Union Government have abandoned any intention which they held at that time of really disposing of the matter and settling it in a way satisfactory to all concerned. It looks now as if they had merely been staying their hand until after the Coronation year. And when I say that, it is not merely a suspicion on my part, but it is borne out by the public utterances of those who are responsible. A prominent member of the Union Parliament—a Mr. Nasar—has openly said so. But more important than his remarks are those of General Botha. General Botha, when he was in this country for the Imperial Conference, said that no one could be more anxious than he was that the British Indian questions should be finally settled to the satisfaction of all parties, and that he was very hopeful that this would soon be attained. But a little later on when he was back in South Africa, replying to a question which was put to him regarding Asiatic immigration, he is reported to have said that he would like to see the country rid of Asiatics but it was a most difficult question and would cost a good deal; the Government, however, still hoped, he said, to find a solution of the problem. I submit that these two answers, at any rate the spirit of them, are absolutely inconsistent, and certainly they are inconsistent with what my noble friend Lord Selborne told us was the policy of the Government in South Africa—namely, to preserve to British Indians resident in that country all their existing rights, but to restrict the immigration of any further Indians. Well, my Lords, in the face of utterances like that, one cannot resist the conclusion that the representatives of South Africa say one thing while they are over here and are being well received on an occasion like the Imperial Conference or at the Coronation, and that they forget their protestations of goodwill when they return to their own country. In these circumstances I must say that I am astonished that more pressure has not been put on by His Majesty's Government. It is idle to say that you cannot interfere in a self-governing Colony. If British subjects were being subjected to similar hardship and injustice in any foreign country there would be no hesitation whatever about interference; and surely it is easier to point out to your friends that they are doing you harm than it is to do so to your enemies, because you have a greater hope of arriving at an amicable agreement.

We have our rights in this matter as well as our fellow-citizens in South Africa. Would it be nothing at all to us if all the good that has been done by the recent momentous celebrations in India were to be undone by the bitterness and discontent arising out of this question? Surely from that point of view alone we have a right, a right which we ought to make clear to the people in South Africa, and which we surely ought to be able to persuade them is one which they should recognise and make some sacrifice, if sacrifice it be, in order to meet. We have had ample information as to the state of feeling throughout the whole of India on this subject, and ample warning as to what the result of that feeling will be if a different spirit does not soon prevail in South Africa and if this question is not soon settled. Therefore I do with all the earnestness at my command appeal to the Colonial Office to look a little more closely into it and let us have information on the subject. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers seeing that there are no Papers to be laid.

LORD EMMOTT

My Lords, may I, with the indulgence of the House, make one or two observations in reply to the second speech of the noble Lord? He began by saying that there must be Papers with regard to these matters. The matters which he specifies in his Questions are, on his own showing, absolutely new, and have arisen within the last month or two. I have told him that no Papers have reached the Colonial Office in regard to these matters, and when replying to his fourth Question I was naturally thinking of the form in which the Question is couched. In it the noble Lord asks whether His Majesty's Government have had any communications with the Government of the Union of South Africa on these subjects. "These subjects" can only be, I take it, the matters which he mentions in the Questions standing in his name on the Paper.

LORD AMPTHILL

Which includes the interference of Portuguese officials.

LORD EMMOTT

With regard to the questions that arose in 1910 we had communications with the South African Government, and I told the noble Lord that a reference to those communications may be found on page 127 of Cd. 5363. But the noble Lord went on to speak of the general question of our relations with South Africa in regard to this extremely difficult question of which the matters referred to in his specific Questions are part. I regretted to hear him say that in his opinion there is no improvement in our relations, but I am very glad to be able to assure the House that that is not my own opinion. I think that there is an improvement, and that that improvement will increase as time goes on. That is my belief as well as my hope. I must say that I regretted very much to hear some of the observations of the noble Lord in regard to Union Ministers. I do not think remarks of that kind can do any possible good. I think that they may do a great deal of harm, and if the House will allow me I would like to explain in general terms how we deal with these questions of complaints that come to us from South Africa.

The House, of course, will know that the question of the treatment of Indians in South Africa is one of the most complicated matters that we have to deal with at the Colonial Office at the present time. Besides being complicated it is extremely difficult and delicate. The South African Union is a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire, and has the same rights as our other self-governing Dominions. We, on the other hand, have a special responsibility towards our Indian fellow-subjects in whatever part of the Empire they happen to live, It would be idle to pretend that the Ministers of the Union and His Majesty's Government at home have always seen matters in the same light, for they and we have different standpoints. It is not essential that we should always see matters in the same light at first. But I think it is essential that when differences arise between us we should, first of all, each try to understand the others standpoint; in the second place, that we here should not interfere with the proper functions of the Ministers of the Union; and, in the third place, that when we do use the influence that we undoubtedly have a right to exercise we should use it at the right time and in the right place so as to obtain the utmost possible effect.

I must say, in respect to Union Ministers, that in my opinion they do honestly try to meet us in regard to important points. They go quite as far as the public opinion on which they have to depend allows them to go; and I must add that no greater disservice could be done to the cause of Indians in South Africa, and no greater damage to the harmonious relations which at present exist between Union Ministers and His Majesty's Government, than by our pouring in upon them a constant stream of unsubstantiated complaints founded either upon Press rumours or unsifted ex porte statements. Every specific complaint of substance that comes before us officially is carefully inquired into, and when necessary or advisable we communicate with South Africa about them. We correspond also on all matters of new legislation in which the interests of Indians are concerned, and it is precisely in regard to that branch of the subject that we have often most usefully used our influence in the past. In other words, we do not intend to destroy our influence by nagging, but we are ready to deal with any question that calls for inquiry, and we shall do so in the future as we have done in the past. I have ventured to make these few general observations because there are strong reasons at the present moment why Ministers in South Africa, who have really given proofs, in my opinion, of a desire to meet us on some of the difficult questions that still await settlement, should feel that we recognise their goodwill, and will continue to work with them towards a genuine solution of this extremely difficult and delicate question.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.