ページの画像
PDF
ePub

recognised that it was the great mistake o 1881 that was the direct result of war in 1899. If the soldiers were asked what was the cause of the war in South Africa, they would answer simply and justly that it was the insulting ultimatum which directed the late Queen to remove Her own troops from her own colony.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.) said it would be convenient to know whether hon. Gentlemen in this debate were entitled to discuss the cause and the reasons for the late war. If they were the debate would take some time.

*LORD ALWYNE COMPTON said he

meant a state in which one person was bound to another for life in servitude or bondage, from which he could not escape. Any ordinary intelligent man would take that view. But how did that compare with the proposition under the Ordinance? The Chinaman was to be asked whether he wished to go to the Transvaal or not; he was not to be compelled to go unless he wished; and he would be told the conditions under which he was to go. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that the Chinaman would not be told, but of course he would. Further, he would be allowed to take his wife and children with him; and on arrival in South Africa he was to be an inhabitant of a village planned by *MR. SPEAKER: I did not interrupt experts and in that village he would live the noble Lord because I understood that in the same conditions as the Kaffir now he was replying briefly to a casual oblived in the Transvaal. He would earn servation of the hon. Member for higher wages than he would be able to Camberwell; but I should have stopped obtain in his own country, and eventually him if he proceeded further. he would be enabled to return to China, at the expiration of his service, a richer man than he left it. Was it not, therefore, an wished to apologise for the digression, exaggeration of language to call that but he felt very warmly on the subject. slavery? Could it be compared to the Another argument used in the debate was conditions under which the Kaffirs lived that the mine-owners wished to get rid in compounds before the war? Was that of British workmen. An hon. Gentleman slavery? If it was slavery, why did not stated last evening that the output of the great Liberal Party, which hung like a gold on the Rand at present was equal to load on all who went to the war, pat the the output before the war. soldiers on the back and tell them they lenged that statement. The output was were fighting for the emancipation of nothing like what it was before the slaves. No doubt hon. Gentlemen would war. The number of stamps working not only use the word "slavery" in the before the war was 7,345, now there were House but on every platform in the only 4,310 working. That was the true country; and he only wished his voice test as to the relative output. He had could spread throughout the country in not any prejudice against mine-owners. order to combat such an exaggerated view. Another question was- What did the soldiers who fought in the war think? The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell asked that question last night. He thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would be wise in not repeating it. He had served in the British Army for seventeen years, and he knew that soldiers had oftentimes very inconvenient memories. The What was the position? It was soldiers who fought in South Africa re- almost a truism to say that it was membered 1881. The hon. Gentleman to the advantage of South Africa that last evening said that the soldiers were its stores of gold should be distributed fighting under the emblem of freedom; throughout the world as quickly as but the emblem of freedom in 1881 was possible. If gold for the use of the not allowed to remain unsullied. Many world did not come from South Africa of the soldiers who fought in the late war it must come from somewhere else. were more intelligent than hon. Gentle- He also thought it was beyond doubt men opposite imagined; and they fully that there were undeveloped parts of Lord Alwyne Compton.

He

He chal

knew a great many of them, and he knew that they were very honourable men, carrying on a perfectly legitimate and honourable industry. It appeared, however, to be assumed that the accusation of mala fides against the mine-owners was true; but even that did not alter the facts of the case as regarded gold in South Africa.

South Africa which showed immense stores of gold which could only be developed by the use of money, and that money could not be made in South Africa without the development of the mines in South Africa already in existence. He thought the debate on the fiscal policy would have taught the dullest that we must pay for our imports by our exports, and nobody would deny that gold was one of the best exports we could have. We had gold in South Africa which the present stagnation prevented from being extracted from the mines. The greater the stream of gold from South Africa the greater would be our exports into that country in the shape of machinery and all other commodities. Cape Colony was an object lesson in this respect. Everybody knew the rapidity with which that country developed on the discovery of diamonds. The same argument applied all over the world,-New South Wales, Australia, and California. New countries progressed slowly and surely, and it was only when there was a great discovery of precious metals or precious stones that they developed by leaps and bounds. Hon. Members opposite might think it better that South Africa should develop slowly, but he did not hold that view. He agreed with those who had said the great fault of our administration in South Africa had been that we had never been able to accept the opinion and advice of our councillors there. He hoped we were not going to repeat that mistake now. Hon. Members opposite were content to rely on the belated manifestoes of the Boer leaders, and such inferences as they drew, but he was not. He based his opinion and was content to rely on the opinion of Lord Milner and Sir Arthur Lawley. He was content to rely on the fact that the great men of the Transvaal desired the importation of Chinese labour, and he believed, if this Amendment was carried, it would result, not only in further stagnation, but in all probability in the future ruin of the country.

MR. WILLIAM MCARTHUR (Cornwall, St. Austell) said that having lived a great part of his life in Australia, he had had opportunities of observing the conditions under which Chinese lived in large towns there, and the effect which

they had on the white population. Australia, as much as any part of the Empire, shared in the great development of the Imperial idea. With that idea he did not quarrel in the least. But on what did they base their conception of the Imperial idea. They in that House had always studiously maintained that, wherever England acquired territory or authority over native races, she owed a duty to those races, and it had been the constant effort of English statesmen, even at the risk of not leaving her colonies quite free, in her dealings with native races to see that native labour in native territories under the dominion of the King, should be conducted under decent conditions. To go further than that, the House had repeatedly interfered with self-governing colonies with regard to those conditions. Whatever, therefore, might be said as to the justice of the Colonies managing their own affairs, the House could not divest itself of its inherent authority or responsibility in regard to the treatment of native races in territories under the British Crown. Australia made stringent regulations of her own, and submitted to the Imperial Government that these regulations should be made still more stringent, and within the last year or so we had seen a still greater development of the inherent dislike in Australia to the importation of alien races. One of the first actions of the Federal Parliament of Australia was to decree that imported labour should cease. So that, from the general point of view, Australian sentiment would be absolutely opposed to the importation of Chinese into the Transvaal, and he considered that the people in Australia had a peculiar claim upon us in this instance. If we were to estimate the value of attachment by the sacrifices made by our colonies in the recent war, surely no opinion had a better claim to be tried than the unanimous opinion of Australia and New Zealand in this matter. Although he had no title to say he represented Australia, he was perfectly certain that he spoke the practically unanimous opinion of every man and woman in Australia when he said he looked upon the proposal of the Government with horror and detestation; because Australians knew from experience what it meant. They had had Chinese coolies among them for years and years,

[ocr errors]

but happily the evil was greatly diminished now, and he hoped it was within still further process of diminution. The result of Australian experience had been that they regarded the importation of Chinese in a large white community as a moral plague spot which ought to be stopped if possible. The Colonial Secretary the previous night, unintentionally he was sure, was somewhat unfair to the Australian view of this question. The right hon. Gentleman treated it as if it were a question of wages. It was by no means a question of wages or the competition of labour. The Chinaman in Australia did not compete very largely in the general labour market. The Australian objection to the importation of Chinamen was that it constituted a moral plague spot which the citizens were anxious and determined to get rid of. We were constantly boasting, and with truth, that whenever we took into our charge the affairs of a native colony we had done our best to raise the moral tone and the whole standard of life of those communities, and it was one of the proudest boasts of this country that in the main we had been successful. But how could anybody say we were doing nothing to lower the moral tone of the community in carrying out such a proposal as was now before the House? In his judgment it was not an Imperial idea to import into South Africa an alien race bringing almost every possible Eastern vice into a Western community. He declined to discuss the question from the point of view whether the mines could make money with Chinese labour and not with white labour. If we were to follow up the Imperial idea we ought to take account of the almost universal sentiment of white colonists against such a measure, and it was because he had seen the infinite evil which might occur from an aggregation of Chinese amongst a Western population that he urgently pressed upon every Member of the House that he had a direct responsibility in this matter. Speaking for himself, he would as soon be responsible for introducing the plague into the City of London as have any part or lot in assenting to the introduction of what would be a moral plague spot into the community of South Africa.

Mr. William McArthur.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said he never remembered, in the twenty-one years of his Membership of this House, a matter of such serious importance, such widespread influence, being considered in debate in so light and airy a manner. In spite of what had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, this question resolved itself into the question of whether, after all these years, slavery was to be reintroduced into the British Empire. What was the attitude of the Government upon the matter. It was perfectly scandalous that the Government Bench should be in the condition it was. The Government were conspicuous by absence. It was the same on the previous day. Hardly a Minister deigned to put in an appearance at all, and during the course of the discussion which was at present taking place there had never been more than three or four Members on the Treasury Bench, and they were gentlemen who had never been men of first-ratimportance, or men who had occupied great positions. Whatever view might be taken, the matter was one of sufficient importance to command the attention and appearance of the Government, which it did not appear to have done. He had listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. McArthur), and could agree in the fullest manner with what the hon. Gentleman said as to the attitude of the Commonwealth of Australia in this matter. He had been permitted to judge of the colonial sentiment in the many visits he had made to that country, and could bear out what had been said with such effect by his hon. friend. The attitude of official Australia was strongly against the introduction of Chinese labour in South Africa. We had had experience of gold mining all over the world, and there was not a gold mine in the world which white men could not be found to undertake the working of. He could quite understand the proposal to introduce Chinese labour, if it could be shown that it was the last resource to keep the mines open, receiving the emphatic support of hon. Gentlemen like the noble Lord the Member for Biggleswade, who might be somewhat biassed by the fact that he owned so many shares in South African securities, and who said Chinese labour was a necessity. It was said that

Chinese labour was a necessity, but he believed that if the facts were laid clearly before the House, it would be seen that the mines could pay enormous profits, even though they employed white labour at reasonable wages. That being so, why were not white men obtained? As to the alleged impossibility of replacing by white men the Kaffirs who left the mines through the war, the country wanted to know what honest attempts had been made in that direction with the offer of reasonable terms. The fact was that no real attempt had been made. There were thousands of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen who would be glad to go to South Africa if proper wages were given. He did not say that they could be supplied wholesale so rapidly as the Chinese, but it was capable of proof that, if a sincere attempt were made, tens of thousands of honest white labouring men would be prepared to undertake the work on terms which would still leave the mine-owners an enormous profit.

In view of the present situation in the Far East, it was somewhat surprising that Tory Members should indulge in such language as had been used in the course of the debate with reference to the populations of other European countries. Italian workmen had been spoken of as "white trash," whose character and habits were so low that Chinese were preferable to them. That was hardly the way in which the white subjects of a friendly Power should be referred to. There was really no necessity to import members of different European races. If only the mineowners were half as earnest in getting white men as they were in bringing about the recent war, it would be quite possible to secure the necessary supply. It was cruel and heart-breaking to be told that in order to work the mines in a British possession, the acquisition of which had cost the country millions of money and tens of thousands of lives, men were to be imported from China under conditions which amounted to semi-slavery. In London itself could be found numbers of able-bodied men willing and anxious to work to keep their wives and families from starvation, and yet the Government and the millionaires of Park Lane, instead of attempting to draft such men to South Africa, were to

import at £8 a head Chinamen to do work which could be better done by white men if only they were given the opportunity of doing it. A balance-sheet, showing the difference between employing white men at standard wages and Chinese labour would afford interesting reading, and he believed it would show that the mineowners, not satisfied with owning the mines and making enormous profits, actually grudged the wages of the workmen. That was really an infamous state of affairs. Whatever might be the opinion of the soldiers who fought in the war, there would be but one opinion among the vast majority of the working people who paid the £250,000,000 which the war cost-viz., that it was a disgrace that the first, and apparently the only, result of the struggle was the introduction, under the British flag, of a system of forced labour. Even those in favour of the proposal might agree that there was no immediate hurry in the matter. The members of the Transvaal Labour Commission might have been eminently qualified for the task they had to perform, but certainly their findings had not satisfied people generally that the whole of the facts had been brought to light, and before a final decision was arrived at there should be a fresh, thorough, and impartial inquiry into the whole question. The Government, however, would not accept that proposal, because the essence of the matter was that it should be hustled through without further inquiry. From every point of view the proposal was an innovation of a startling character; it was the introduction of slavery in almost its worst form. The noble Lord opposite objected to the term "slavery.'

LORD ALWYNE COMPTON said his argument was that the conditions under which the Kaffirs lived before the war would obtain.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND reminded the House that the alleged object of the war was to give equality and freedom to all men under the British flag in South Africa, and now the noble Lord justified this proposal by saying that before the war slavery of a similar kind existed under the reign of Mr. Kruger. He declined to follow a bad example, whether

made, and said that I was biassed because I held so many mining shares. I desire to say that I hold no shares of any sort or kind in South African mines.

set by Mr. Kruger or anybody else, and, in
any case, it was no justification for setting
up slavery in the British Empire.
To-day hon. Members were to be asked
by their votes to say that slavery would
be allowed in a large portion of the British
Empire. At elections in this country
a favourite episode was the singing of
"Britons never shall be slaves." That
cry had floated hon. Gentlemen opposite
into this House. After the vote which
they would give to-night they should
change their song-

"Rule Britannia, Britannia money saves,
By kicking Britons out of work for Chinese

slaves."

He thought they would find that version of the song would not be so popular at election meetings. His hands were clean in this matter. He had no reason to love the British Empire. The Nationalists of Ireland had not been so very kindly dealt with by the British Government, and they were not in the slightest degree interested for the reputation of the Empire and for the Flag being unstained and unsullied. What they were interested in, and what their countrymen throughout the world

were interested in, was the cause of human freedom and liberty. In the division tonight he and his hon. friends would vote for freedom and liberty. From the point of view of men who had no great love for the British Empire, he thought they should be rather pleased at the trend of events. As far as one could see, things were going badly for the British Empire at present. Lord Roberts had been dismissed from the War Office, and his place had been taken by one of the Gentlemen opposite. Now they were to have slavery in one of the newly-acquired British colonies. He believed that the effect of this measure would be disastrous in the ex

treme, and that before many years passed it would cause a disruption in South Africa far greater than that caused by the late war. He hoped it would stand on record that the representatives of Ireland voted unanimously against the proposal.

LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: With the permission of the House I should like to make a personal explanation. I understand that during my absence from the House the hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the speech I had lately Mr. William Redmond.

1

The

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: noble Lord, I am sure, does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I never said that he had any mining shares in South Africa. What I said was that the noble Lord had shares in South African concerns. Unless I am misinformed-and if I am I withdraw the statement and express my regret for having made it-the noble Lord formerly possessed, if he does not now possess, 5,000 shares in the Chartered Company.

LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: I never held 5,000 shares in the Chartered Company, and I have no shares now. [An HON. MEMBER: Or any shares.] I have no shares.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: If that is the case I withdraw the statement.

fordshire, Handsworth) said he had paid *SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON (StafChinese labour in California, which he considerable attention to the question of visited in 1873. Chinese labourers had just finished the Pacific Railway, and they work. Everyone at that time said it were engaged in other forms of unskilled would have been impossible for the railway to have been made, and for California to have made the progress it had, but for Chinese labour. If the accusations made against the Chinese had been true British

Columbia would not have admitted them

in the numbers they had done. If they were such a dreadful people as they were said to be objection would be taken to raised the standard of labour and efficithem there. The fact was that they had ency wherever they had been. There was no question in South Africa of ousting white men from the occupations in which they were now engaged. The proposals under consideration only affected unskilled labour in mines, which could not and, he said boldly, ought not to be done by white men. When he visited Johannesburg the first thing he learned was that there was an enormous amount of gold to be dug out of the earth. It was no exaggeration to say that there were

« 前へ次へ »