The Evening Star FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1906.

Evening Star, Issue 12763, 16 March 1906, Page 4

The Evening Star FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1906.

The employment, of Chinese in the Rand mines continues to hold tho The Chinese In attention and to sway the South Africa, passions of the statesmen, people, and Press of the Mother Country as no other question can. A fierce debate, wherein charge and countercharge were freely made, took place in the House of Commons on Wednesday night, and venomous and amazing comments and criticisms followed from a section of the British Press. It is net possible, from the cabled summaries that reach us, to judge to a nicety the actual worth of tho charges levelled at the Government, but a perusal of the history of this unfeytunato business does not substantiate the accusations of inconsistency abd hypocrisy. The attitude of the responsible leadens of tho Liberal party, from the early days of 1904, when a draft Ordinance to regulate the introduction into the Transvaal of unskilled nonEuropean laborers was submitted to the Legislative Council of that colony, has been distinctly hostile to tho policy then initiated. When Mr H. Samuel, on February 16_of that year, moved an amendment to tho Address-in-Reply strongly protesting against the Imperial Government sanctioning the Transvaal Ordinance, Sir H. Camp-bell-Bannerman, speaking in support, maintained that if there were not a sufficiency of native labor the alternative was tho employment of whato labor, adding that “ be “ should prefer' to see tho development- of “the Transvaal delayed rather than that “this country should do a great wrong “and bring upon itself the opprobrium of “tho world.” Sir Henry, at the opening of the 1905 session, again demanded to know whether the employment of Chinese was a permanent policy or a- temporary expedient, and' if tho Latter, when it would end. The policy of the bulk of the Liberal party, both inside and outside the House of Commons, of many Unionists, and of an influential section of Sleuth African colonists was in harmony with that of the Liberal Leader. The view-point of the Australian and New Zealand colonies is well known. Mr Seddon and Mr Deakin each lodged a strong protest, the Commonwealth Premier’ opposing the Transvaal Ordinance because lie foresaw that it involved “ grave perils of a racial, social, political, and sanitary nature.’’ Nor were the Imperil Government of the day entirely liappy in the dOemma in which they were placed. The Duke of Marlborough, in the House of Lords, and Air Lyttelton, in the House of Commons, laid stress on the financial rather than on the moral aspect of the problem, whilst the Marquis of Lamsdowne admitted that the Ordinance was “an “ experiment that required close at- “ teution, and would bo tried only “on a 1 inured scale, coupled with “every precaution that experience could “ suggest.” The Balfour Ministry were the reverse of enthusiastic, and we are etiD of opinion that their approval, which took the form of not disallowing the Ordinance, was more the result of necessity than of choice. Lord Milner, with the evidence he had at his command, cordially supported tho experiment; and it is questionable whether the Liberal party, if they had happened to have been in power, could have taken any other course. Mr Balfour, at all events, has always maintained that his Government had no option, and that the then Opposition, had they been in office, oonld not have acted differently. ‘ Where, however, tho cx-Premicr laid himself open to criticism was in not following the advice of tho Boer leaders (who regarded the Ordinance as a public calamity) and of British politicians of all parties to throw tho responsibility for the measure upon the people of the Transvaal, cither through the grant of representative institutions or by means of a referendum. Had cither course been taken, the entire position, as far as tho attitude of the political parties in Great Britain is concerned, would have been changed. The onus would then have rested upon the Transvaal Colony, and hostile critics would have had to condemn, not a political opponent, bnb the decision of a free pecmle acting within their constitutional rights. It was Mr Balfour’s failure in this direction that precipitated a conflict which, in the intensity of its malice and falsity—if wo accept the asseverations of Mr Chamberlain, Mr Balfour, and others—has rarely been equalled in the history of British politics. ' Not that a reference to tho people of the Transvaal cmdd rid tho Imperial Government of the moral responsibility inherent in this question, for it is its moral aspect that is at tho bottom of by far the greater half of the opposition that has been shown. Strictly limited to questions of financial results, or tho truth or falsity of the slavery charges, tho weight of argument ia on the side of the supporters of the Ordinance. But it cannot bo so limited. The heart of the nation resents tho building up of an Anglo-Saxon civilisation on a Mongolian foundation, and the Imperial Government are apparently prepared to carry out their election pledges, even to the extent of Vetoing tho importation of Chinese, to the South African goldfields, should the people of the Transvaal, through their dulyeloctcd representatives, decide to oontinuo the Ordinance. The assumption of the critics who predict clanger to tho Empire is that tho colonies will resent SUoh an exercise of the Imperial prerogative, but wo. do not think that colonial opinion, as far as it has pronounced itself, lends any weight to this pessimistic prediction.