him; they treated him very much in the manner of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they appoached this question-they said that the Government could not help it, and that it was somebody else's fault. The hon. Member had said that the new Convention was free from the taint of cheap labour. Then 10s. a month was not cheap labour; though he could remember that the 30s. or 40s. a month, which was the rate of wages under the Chinese Labour Ordinance, was spoken of by hon. Members opposite and all over the country as disgraceful, and it was said that such a rate of pay should not be allowed. Now the Liberal Party and their friends had entered into a Convention under which 10s. a month was to be paid, and they did not make a minimum rate, so that there was nothing to prevent the masters of these unhappy women and children giving them 1s. a month if they chose. They had been asked why they had taken up this question of the New Hebrides Convention. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division had told them he was glad to notice that the Opposition on this subject were becoming more humanitarian. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies had stated that the Opposition had taken up the question because they wanted to bolster up the odious system of Chinese labour in South Africa. He would tell the Committee why they were taking it up. The real reason was that they wished to show the insincerity of hon. Members on the Ministerial side who, whilst they denounced the Chinese Ordinance, which was mild in comparison with this Convention, did so at the very time that the Government were signing a Convention which was worse. There was no other name for such conduct but hypocrisy, and it was for that reason that they were agitating this question and bringing it to the notice of the people. The hon. Member opposite had said that the Convention was free from the accursed taint of gold, but the hon. Member for Gravesend had clearly pointed out that its real meaning was that cheap labour was required for the mines in New Caledonia. It did not appear to be generally understood by the supporters of the Government that the members of the Opposition had always said it was necessary to provide labour for the main industry in South Africa, because gold was needed for the Sir. F. Banbury. prosperity not only of South Africa but of this country, and it could not be got without imported labour. That was the reason why Chinese labour was necessary. He had maintained that position before and he maintained it now. In order to see that Chinese labourers were properly treated, they made the necessary provisions under the Ordinance. include women and children and they They did not did not fix the wages at 10s. a month. To stipulate under this Convention for 10s. a month meant that in the opinion of the Government 10s. a month was a fair rate of wages. Under the Chinese Ordinance they ensured that every Chinaman who left the shores of China thoroughly understood what it was he was leaving for, and where he was going. Officials were appointed to see that the Chinamen thoroughly understood the conditions under which they were going to work, but nothing of that kind was provided under this Convention. In the New Hebrides an approach the head of the tribe and say exporter might "How many single women have you? There was nothing to prevent that exporter bribing the head of the tribe to hand over any number of single women without the consent of the.r parents, merely with the consent of the head of the tribe, and those unfortunate women might be taken abroad and forced to work from sunrise to sunset. There had been a discussion as to how long the night was in those parts of the world, but every hon. Member knew that the night was shorter there than it was here. Supposing the night was ten hours. That meant fourteen hours a day for these natives to work, with only one hour for meals. The Committee would remember that the other day hon. Members were denouncing the railway companies because railway servants were employed for more than twelve hours a day, although a good deal of the time was occupied sitting in the goods vans. Now hon. Members below the gangway were apparently going to support a Liberal Government in making natives work fourteen hours a day under an indenture. He regretted that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies was not in the House because he understood him to say that the details regarding these natives were not in the Convention, and that arrangements could be made to alter any of the details. He would 1337 Civil Services and Revenue (11 MARCH 1907) Depts. Estimates, 1907-8. 1338 like to refer for a moment to page 55 of the Blue-book dealing with the subject, and he would quote a letter from Lord Elgin to the Governor General of Australia, in which the Secretary of State said- "Most of the suggestions made are intended to supplement the Convention in matters of detail rather than to alter its existing a proposal His provisions, because such Majesty's Government would deprecate." He would like to know how that agreed with what the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated. The letter further stated "In the first place, it is long and elaborate, and secondly it is undesirable that it should go into avoidable detail, for the reason that any provisions embodied in it can only be properly altered by an amending Convention." Hon. Members would remember that the Convention was excused by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the ground that it was a collection of articles simply expressing the general idea of what should take place, and that all the details could afterwards be arranged and made operative regardless of the Convention. And yet Lord Elgin said that it was inadvisable that any change should be made in the Convention, and that nothing in that direction could be actually done without an amending Convention. How they could reconcile those two contrary views he failed to see. Then the right hon. Baronet had said that children only meant people under age; but the Report referred to children, and contained the French word "enfants." He never knew before that the word "enfants" merely alluded to people under age. As far as one could tell from plain words it was children that was meant, and it meant children of any age as long as they were of a certain height. Hon. Members knew perfectly well that some children at twelve years of age were 5 ft. high, and some might be over fifteen years of age, and yet would not be more than 4 ft. 11 in. For the Government to shelter themselves behind a height standard was an absurd position and one which was not worthy even of hon. Gentlemen opposite. His hon. and learned friend had dealt very ably with the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division, who seemed to think that if people were in a state of slavery in a certain place and it came to an end it was the height of their ambition to remain in the that Every labourer who has completed his term of engagement shall be returned to his home of his employer." at the first convenient opportunity by and at the expense He was aware that in Parliament they had sometimes had a little difference of opinion as to what was the difference between the word "shall" and the word 66 may," but in this particular case the words were "shall be returned to his own home." The article proceeded in the following terms "Such labourer shall be taken to the place to the nearest place thereto from which the That was a perfectly clear article, to be no doubt and there seemed If he had any intenwhatever in it. tion of going to law and could found his case upon such a clear provision as that, he would have no hesitation in going to law, in spite of the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown, because he did not think anyone could interpret such plain language into a declaration that it did not mean repatriation at the end of the period of three years. The Convention further provided that persistent ill-treatment was not to be taken notice of until two written warnings had been given. Apparently one warning might be given in December and another in July, but steps were not to be taken for the protection of the labourers till those warnings had been given, though the sufferers might be women. He would like to read a few extracts from that Blue-book on any platform in the kingdom, and see what the electors thought of the Government who were returned to do away with Chinese slavery, and who the very month they were returned entered into an agreement containing the clauses to which he had referred. The Under-Secretary and other Members had attempted to justify the Convention by saying that previously the inhabitants of the New Hebrides were in a worse position. He did not know whether that was true or not, but he would admit for the sake of argument that it was true. It did not seem to him that that was an excuse. It was a Convention in many ways far worse than that in regard to the Chinese which hon. Members opposite had denounced. All the excuse offered was that these people were not in such a bad position as they were two or three years ago. Supposing the Liberal Government were to find in a certain dominion under their jurisdiction real slavery as it existed in the United States of America, where a master was at liberty to kill his slave, and instead of putting an end to that slavery they came down and said, "We have allowed slavery to continue, but we have said that no slave owner must destroy his slave. They are in a much better position than they were, and therefore we are to be excused for allowing slavery to continue." That was practically the argument brought forward. The Government did not deny that the Colonial Governors had addressed remonstrances to them. That was a striking commentary on the abuse hurled at Unionists for not attending to their duties, and not knowing what was going on. The Prime Minister admitted an hour ago that he did not know of this Convention. Yet the right hon. Gentleman allowed slavery to go on without taking the trouble to inquire whether the Convention had been signed, or whether the Articles in the Convention were sound and good. He gathered from the Under-Secretary of the Colonies that he was going to consult the Colonial Premiers at the Colonial Conference as to what might be done under the Convention. It seemed to him extraordinary that the Government should take that step now, when the Blue-book was full of remonstrances from the different Colonial Governments and full of answers Sir F. Banbury. from the Radical Government that they would take no notice of the remonstrances addressed to them. It had already been said that the reason for this sudden change of front was the debate which had been raised. If that was so, he thought the Opposition might conhad taken. He wished to point out gratulate themselves on the steps they what was really their position. They did not object to indentured labour provided that it was absolutely necessary for an industry that labour should be obtained, and that the labourers thoroughly knew what their wages, food, hours of work, and other conditions of service would be. Under the Chinese Ordinance the hours were ten. Let grown men accept engagements under indenture after everything had been explained to them. But he and his friends did object to the indentured labour of women and children. He ventured to say that there was not a man in the House who would have come forward at the last election and supported even his own Government if they had desired to bring into South Africa Chinese women and children to work from sunrise to sunset. MR. LUPTON: They are in the Chinese Convention. SIR F. BANBURY disagreed with the hon. Gentleman. He hoped the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board, who had made a great study of this question and who did not seem the remarks he had made. very happy, would get up and answer *MR. MOLTENO (Dumfriesshire) said the hon. Member opposite had laid great stress on the fact that evidence was not produced that the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association had attempted to manipulate or vary the number of labourers, and had challenged hon. Members on the Ministerial side to produce such evidence. It might interest the Committee to know that there was considerable official evidence of that having been done. In January, 1906, Lord Elgin noticed a curious variation in the figures, there being a considerable number of native labourers coming in summer, and fewer in winter. That state of things suddenly 1341 Civil Services and Revenue (11 MARCH 1907) Depts. Estimates, 1907-8. 1342 changed, and Lord Elgin asked Lord "I am now directed to submit a statement for the period in question, viz., 30th April, 1905 to 28th February, 1906, from which it will be seen that the decrease in the labour supply on mines in the number of labourers from the Cape Colony was 9,711, from the Transvaal 7,724, from Natal and Zululand 775, from British Bechuanaland 511, and from Basutoland 1,211.... There can, nevertheless, be little doubt that the alterations adopted by the mines in the conditions of its labour recruit ment, by insisting upon underground work and extending the periods of contract did operate as a deterrent to the inflow from the Cape Colony, the Transvaal, and Basutoland, as the natives from those Colonies have always been accustomed to short contracts from three to six months." It was well known that no respectable native would leave his home for more than four or six months in any year, and the result of the instruction that no man should be engaged unless he would agree to work underground for a period of one year had the effect which apparently it was intended to have, of largely limiting the number of natives recruited. He would like to refer to another fact in connection with the employment of natives. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, was not always so enamoured of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. In a telegram which the right hon. Gentleman sent to Lord Milner in 1904, he said— Brownlee's There was good reason for the right hon. were or so detrimental to the requisite number of natives being obtained. This was what one of the witnesses said— 66 'Native labourers are being sjambocked and beaten, and ill-treated in many other ways by : their European overseers and indumas so He wished to draw attention to the fact armour, was not fair. What was wanted was was to get back to the higher standard once held in regard to human liberty. The late Mr. Milner-Gibson once gave in the House a definition of slavery. It was "To get possession of men that we may make them work for us for our own profit, or to take possession of the fruits of their labour, is equally and always slavery; there is no difference but in degree.' That was the common result of these Ordinances, which deprived men of their liberty, and then by all kinds of regulations tried to obviate the evils which arose therefrom. He contended that they destroyed our ideas of freedom and of the right treatment of human beings. It was curious, too, to note that all these systems of indentured labour occurred not in self-governing Colonies, but in Crown Colonies. There was no indentured labour now in any of the selfgoverning Colonies excepting Natal. That had come about because the people of the Crown Colonies had had no say in the matter, and they were easily persuaded by interested parties who were in haste to be rich that the salvation and prosperity of the Colony were dependent on these artificial and unhealthy systems. Moreover, they had a demoralising effect on the officials, for very soon they found the officials proposing in South Africa to refuse to allow coloured men to hold land. Fortunately British traditions still lingered in the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice held that a coloured man was as much entitled as a white man to hold land. However, again the officials, with the sanction of the High Commissioner, proposed an Ordinance to take away the right of a coloured man to hold land. To the credit of Lord Elgin he was glad to say the Colonial Secretary refused to sanction that Ordinance. Another illustra tion was the treatment of Indians, who had been banished in hundreds by a stroke of the pen simply because they were coloured, although British subjects. We never allowed the Executive in this country to banish an individual; that could only be done by the operation of the law. The treatment of the Indians in the Transvaal was far worse under the officials than under the Boer Government. So demoralised were the officials that they again introduced an Ordinance Mr. Molteno. which imposed great disabilities on the Indians, to which Ordinance the Lord High Commissioner gave his sanction. Lord Elgin vetoed that Ordinance and it fell to the ground-a decision from which Lord Selborne strongly dissented, and remonstrated passionately in regard to the particular part of it which permitted an appeal against a decree of banishment by the magistrates. Was it the desire of the House of Commons to impose those restrictions, and destroy the liberty of British subjects in that manner? He came to a more serious matter which affected the majority of the inhabitants of the Transvaal, and illustrated the demoralisation of the superior race who got possession of men in order to enjoy the fruits of their labour by making them work for them. We were the trustees of the native population of the Transvaal, who were led to rely upon us for justice. Mr. Chamberlain had stated that their treatment under the late South African Republic was extremely brutal, and the late Lord Salisbury, and Lord Lansdowne made similar statements. But what had we done to them? ployed them in the war as scouts and drivers, and they acted with great fidelity; but no was the war We em over, and we were in possession of the country than we first disarmed them, next oppressed them, and finally subjected them to spoliation. We began to tax them enormously. He found that the whole of native taxation in 1903-4 did not amount to more than £342,000, whereas only a year afterwards it reached £653,178, or 50 per cent. more than the taxes on the rich gold mines, and nine times per head what it was in the Cape Colony. He thought these figures were extremely significant, and he estimated that the taxation in the Transvaal of the natives was four times per head what it was in Basutoland. In the Transvaal he estimated that the whole cost of native administration did not amount to not amount to more than £200,000. whereas we were imposing taxes to the amount of £650,000. We were therefore taking from the natives for the benefit of the rest of the population. £450,000. But not content with that there was worse to come, because we had imposed a further tax of £1 per adult upon natives occupying Crown lands. But |