The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, FEB. 10, 1879. .

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5604, 10 February 1879, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, FEB. 10, 1879. .

The cry against Chinese immigtiation to tho Colonies has been taken kp in Australia from .Melbourne to Brisbane. At the instance o£ the "TOople| the OovernmentH of Queensland/New South Wales, and Victoria are legislating or about to legislate for the disootuugement of the Chinese importation. jThafc; legislation is taking tihe y fonjr 0f iioqfr taation t 0 he leafed bn Oninese Bmval, and it is to be suppbrteid % the practice of the public administration, which will dtortly 'list pire* sent signs are to be trusted, to exjolade .Ohinese labourers by express pro|iribn from nilGbvemmentoontraoto. ~ lktiia emergency some Chinese inetbhMits of Melbourne have issued a stirrihg appeal on behalf 61 their countiymeL -to Australasian phblioV is in; the., form of a painphleC to* titled “The Chinese -Questioki in Australia.’’ Well : written, snbtlo, remarkable "for!., vigproiis ; language, dignity of remonstrance, 1 and* jpower

of intellect, &e pamphlet » a powerful contribution to the Chinese aide of the question. It puts the arguments well, it makes the most of them* and may be described as the best plea which in the Colonies has yet been put forward for the Chinese. Such a defence of the Chinese claim to enter the Colonial ports with the utmost freedom of settlement and labour, is at the present time specially opportune. It is always just to hear both sidei an argument, and justice should be! the tending characteristic of the CJolonial relations with the Chinese as with other peoples. M The line of argument may be briefly summarised as follows. The writers hold that the Treaties which Great Britain imposed upon China at the cannon’s month from 1842 to 1860, give to British Bubjeota the . right of free ingress into, residence in, ; and ©gress from lhe -Ohinesd3mpire, and confer on Chinese subjects the aiame rights with respect to the British Empire. The Chinese; claim thuil fended is, say the writers, powerfully strengthened by the dictates of - religion, jmtural jvi a tipe, and humanity. , In support of this plea they quote the words “God made .of one blood all of mfen for to dwell on all the face of the earth;” and they urge that when the European is admitted to free competition in China with' the Chinaman, there should be reciprocity by Which the - Ghinampm should be allowed to compete in the British possessions on equ& toms with British subjects,; The appeal to humanity! is the statement of thecontrast between the Chinese Empire and, th? Australian Continent, — the ~ one comprising afl area of two million square miles, inhabited- by a population of four! hundred millions, many of them dying, absolutely dying,' of hunger ;” and in the other three million Square miles of area, inhabited by two millions of people, who hold vast tracts that are fit for the habitation of pm™, and will not be inhabited for many generations to come, The claims thus founded bn Treaty rights, and strengthened by the dictates of religion, justice, and humanity, the writers assert are not weakened by the bad character of the . Chinese, who, by the testimony of independent and competent writers, have been pronounced to be a moral, polished, and educated people. They specially quote from the writings of Mr Meadows,, who has written the most valuable work on Chinese subjects we possess, .and Sir Walter Medhurst, for some time British Consul at Shanghai, who both assign the of the people as the chief cause of the long duration, of the Chinese Empire. The writers declare that the claim of the Chinese to enter her ports is further strengthened by the services they have performed to the Colonies in which they have hitherto lived; and they quote from the report of a Committee of the American Congress which pronounced lately that the Chinese element had been of the greatest benefit to the State of California. They reason that the advent of the Chinese to a Colony will not lower the rates of labour, because they say that the Chinaman being as foud of money as others will insist like the German the French and the Danish immigrant on receiving the current high rates of wages. There are vigorous protests throughout the pamphlet against the ill-treatment accorded to Chinamen by those colonists who, being Christians, should know better. Amongst these the strongest is the defence of the practice the Chinese immigrants make of leaving their women behind them. “ What Chinaman of any self-respect,” ask these writers, would care to subject his wife to the insults and outrages which he is iu the habit of receiving. The peroration is > fine vindication of the principle of reciprocity, and it contains an argument not used in any previous passage. It is that as there are places on the Australian Continent, which are unfit for white labour, are such in fact-that white labour must away” from them if introduced; a Chinese immigration should be welcomed, instead of discouraged. The foundation of the claim thus set forth is the first point for examination. It is true that the Treaties spoken of were forced upon the Chinese Government by Great Britain, and “pity t’ie, t’is true.” The British treatment of the Chinese from the days of the opium clippers has been too bad to merit any attempt at justification. Bat whether the Treaties cited as giving rights to the Chinese are the result of just or unjust policy, they are made by the Chinese advocates the chief ground of their claim, and as such must b 4 -oif amined. Now, these Treaties do not, as these advocates assert they do, give un* . restricted tfie right of ingress and the rest to British subjects for every; part of the Chinese Empire. The Treaty of Nankin in 1842 opened five of the Chinese ports to British trade, giving the rights of entry and residence and egress unrestricted to British merchants. The Treaty of Tientsin opened the River Yaugtse to British commerce, and increased the number of ports open to British commerce - with rights to British subjects of entry, residence, and efiTCM unrestricted—from five to ten” The smer Treaty gave the British the " an Ambassador to Bekin, totravelfor business or pleasure, to all parts of ..the interior under! passports msued^iheirOousu l . This is a very different thing from throwing open the Miole of the Chinese Empire by conferring the rights of entry residence GSUS?"#®* Bwtisk subjects lor part of it.. If the Treaties »ro to the ri»i#rocite be. Chinese nations, 1560I 560 ? 11 * 6 .si- argument o* Chinese immigration mtb the British Empire. Our Eastern «j m* . to satfctyXtifde! teauds of reciprocity. The Australian Colonies, under thnnn ’ mn to Tr^tiflathe,Chinese Empire! The ’ ‘aJjSj; I Bo .; far demolishing the Sif mU-OWnese: nsiderably strengthen it. Wo are

quite awafre tiat f t&igion, justice, and humanity are stronger than Treaties, and therefore we must notice the arguments founded by the Ohinese advocates upon these. If the universe was divided into two countries, China and Australasia, then these arguments would apply to the Case. But as long as there are numerous islands, and the great continent of Central Africa remaining uhcolohised, the Chinese argument can be met with the answer that the world is before the Chinaman offering magnificent unoccupied regions to his choice. There is no obligation on the part of Australasia to receive him either, of religion, justice, orvhmnanity. As for the reciprocity ofcompetition of labour, there is nothing to reciprocate. The British vessels that trade on the OMnesef Coast; were certainly for years manned by British seamen, but they are ,now manned tosomeextent by Chinamen, and will be so altogether by them before long. The competition of this' coast trade, however, even if it were as represented, vfonld ;not be a reason for advocating unrestricted competition in every department of labour. As the Chinese labourmarketfis not invaded by the British workman, or proposed to be invaded by him, there is, as we have said, nothing to reciprocate. We have shown then that the foundations of the advocates of the Ohinese claim to enter every part of the British Empire are unsound, Neither the Treaties of Nankin, Tientsin, or Pekin, necessarily give them rights of entry to settle, nor do any considerations of justice, religion, and humanity. Theconsideration of tbe other arguments employed by the Chinese advocates we must defer to another occasion. These ore the defence of the morality of the Chinese people the services they have done as colonists, and the allegation that they do not reduce wages. The mission of the Anglo-Saxon race must likewise be considered, and the character of the social problems which confront the Legislature of these young and rising nations. No discussion on the Chinese question that does hot enter into these matters can. be worthy of the name.