THE CHINESE IMMIGRATION BILL IN QUEENSLAND.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 221, 19 September 1888, Page 8

THE CHINESE IMMIGRATION BILL IN QUEENSLAND.

In the isseiribly at Brisbane MrCoi-field introduced a Bill, to amend certain provision^ of the Injuries to Property AcR.; * Sir Thomas Mcllwraithmoved the second read - ing of the.Chinese sliwmigrati6-i' Restriction Bill, He referred.*fb the recent Chinese agitation .throughout the colonies .and expressed deep regret at the mode of action adopted -by New South' -.yfaleßj;. , whiph hinaered rather than assisted the Home authorities in carrying out i their object, One thing was certain, that the action of New South Wales had not the sympathy of Queensland; ;at the 7 recent intercolohial conference held for the pnrpoae Of frairi-7 ing a BiU for the assrint of the respebtive Parliament*; The Bill now being dlsbußged was almost verbally the same as that agreed

upon at the conference. The principle of the Bill was the limitation of the one Chinese passenger to 500 tons of cargo. The Conference hadnot made sufficieot provision to prevent Chinese being shipped as the crew and afterav ards landed as passengers. That, however, would be overoome by the Biil submitted to-da\. Sir Thomas M'llwraith was of opinion that the Chinese Government were not the least anxious to send emigrants to Australia. In fact, emigration thus far had been contrary to the wishes of the Chinese authorities. The Chinese were only coming from Crown colonies governed by the British .Crown, and the. emigration was carried on under the auspice's of the British merchants. Therefore it was simply owing to the laxity of the British Government in the Crown colonies of China that the emigrants were allowed come to Australia, Acablegram had been received i from Lord Knutsford to theeil'ect that the Imj perial Government saw no reason to disturb thedecision made by the recent anti-Chinese conference. Queensland proposed t<o insert a now clause to provide that a vessel! after her arrival should nob be allowed, to clear until the names and numbers of the Chinese crews were checked*: in order to. ascertain whether any ef the" crew bad been allowed .to . laud as passengers. Sir Thomas M'llwraith thought ;that the colonies would succeed in keeping out the Chinese better by "legislating for themselves, because even if arrangements were made with bhe Chinese Government to_stop emigiation there are thousands of Chinese out of the control of the Chinese Emperor.

Sir Samuel Griffith.said bhab.all were agreed as bo the advisability of excluding the Chinese as far as possible. Like Sir Thomas M'llwraith, he thought a treaty between England and China would not succeed as well as the pissing of a Restriction Bill by ourselves. There was'one serious matter j however: the Chinese could charter an old ship at a cost of, /say £1,000 5 to 7 carry, 7 say, 500 Chinese and land them on the Northern Terri ory or the Gulf of Carpentaria. The result would be that the ship would be forfeited and the captain fined £500 for each passenger. The captain would be unable to pay and would go to prison for six months, and then be released. The 500' Chinese would also be imprisoned for a term at the expense of the country and afterwards liberated. He bhoughb bhe Chinese i-hould be liable financially until such liability were discharged. He hoped the bill would become law and that the other colonies would also pass similar bills. Restriction in one colony alone ' t would do nothing.-" i.7/-' . ■~; . !..*'..*,-: <V ' ....' Mr Macrossan regretted that at the recent conference the representative of Tasmania Was more anxious to encourage than to discourage Chinese immigration. Mr Macrossan thought that Sir Samuel Griffith's supposition of 500 Chinese chartering an old vessel was. farfetched and not likely to happen. He hoped that: Queensland would be the first colony to'pass the bill. ' The Premier of Now South Wales had promised .bo introduce -_ bill as loon as two other; colonies passed the measure. The second reading of the Chinese; Bill wascarried.

The debate in committee; on the Kail ways Bill was long and dry. A discussion was raised by Sir Samuel Griffith on the question ot constibutionalright to introduce a bill with figures in blank. It is understood that the salaries to be fixed aie: Chief, £3,000; other commissioners, £1,500.