COLOURED LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1057, 2 June 1892, Page 33

COLOURED LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.

(press association.) Melbourne, May 26. Mr Vale moved in the Legislative As - sembly, “That this House views with disapprobation the introduction of Kanaka labour, and urges upon the Government the desirability of taking such means as will defeat the desire of those who would people Australia with a coloured alien race.” Mr Wrixon urged that the matter he brought before the Federal Council. Mr Gillies contended that all the colonies were opposed to crowding coloured labour into Australia, and they would not stand it. It would be better, he thought, for Victoria to wait till the action of Queensland interfered with her interests. Mr Vale’s motion was carried on the voices. London, May 26. In a Blue Book issued on the employment of Kanaka labour in Queensland, Lord Charles Scott, Admiral on the Colonial Station, admits that the regulations regarding the traffic which were adopted in 1884, are, if strictly enforced, sufficient to prevent a recurrence of the abuses that formerly existed in connection with the employment of coloured labour in Queensland. Mr Kinnard Rose, in a long and able letter, copies of which have been sent to every member of the House of Commons, states that it is impossible to urge a word against the traffic since 1886, and that the charges of white people having committed outrages on Kanaka women are wicked slanders. He quoted from the Rev Alexander Smith’s testimony as to the kind treatment of Kanakas. Mr Rose attributes the opposition to the renewal of the traffic to the wire-pulling by members of the new unionism. London, May 27. In the House of Commons to-day, Baron de Worms, Political Secretary to the Colonial Office, Btated that the motion carried in the Victorian Legislative Assembly on Wednesday last, viewing with disapprobation the introduction of Kanaka labour into Queensland, involved a question whioh the great colonies must themselves settle without Imperial intervention. On the motion to go into Committee of Supply, Mr Samuel Smith, M.P. for Flintshire, moved the amendment of which he had previously given notice, to re-open the discussion on the renewal of coloured labour in Queensland. He denounced the traffic as veiled slavery, which would tend to depopulate the islands. He declared that the aborigines in the colony were shot down like dogs, until there were but few remaining. Baron de Worms, in a Jong speech, asserted that there was no proof of such terrible charges as were alleged against the traffic by Mr Smith. He denied the existence of abuses or cruelties, and said the vetoing of the Act by the Imperial Government would not prevent the traffic, which would continue. possibly without restrictions. He cited the testimony of Dr Saumarcz Smith, Primate of New South Wales, the Rev Alexander Smith, and Bishop Selwyn. Mr J. Bryce, M.P. for Aberdeen, said it would be a serious mistake if Lord Knutsford disallowed the Polynesian Labour Act passed by the Queensland Legislature, but the Imperial Parliament, should be able to make the colonial Government enforce sufficient additional regulations with regard to the treatment of natives. Mr Balfour assured members that the working of the Act would be closely watched, the Home Government being fully alive to their responsibilities ia the matter. The amendment was rejected by 169 to 67.

London, May 28. In the House of Commons a l >ng and conflicting discussion took place on the proposed introduction of Kanaka labour into Queensland. Dr Clarke,. M.P., declared that it was apparent that the Queensland democracy was equdiy hostile towards the larger oolonies of Victoria and New South Wales ; therefore it was incumbent ou the Imperial Government not to allow one colony to offend the rest. Mr Henniker Heaton thought that the safeguards of the Colonial Governments were more than ample to prevent a repetition of the alleged abuses and cruelties. ~ During the course of the discussion Mr Graham, MP. for Lanark, N. W. f opposed the suggested protectorate over the Solomon Group and New Hebrides. The leader of the House stated that the Government was unable to suspend the regulations, and it would be unwise on the part of the Government to veto the'Bill. It is expected that the opinions expressed in the House of Commons on the measure will bo effective.

After Mr S. Smith withdrew hi 3 motion Mr Graham had it reinstated, but in a small House it was defeated by a majority of 150. Mr Graham’s motion was supported by a section of tho Radicals and Irish members. A further amendment, much in the same direction as Mr Smith’s motion, wa3 moved, but rejected by 197 votes to 49. In the course of the discussion Mr Balfour stated that the Government were fully aware that abases had arisen ia the past, but the regulation made to prevent b.

repetition would tend in a direction favourable to the labour traffic.

The Gladstonian leaders, or rather those of the Liberal Party, privately declare that they are not in any way connected with the Opposition extremists. Sir J. F. Garrick, Agent-General for Queensland, in a letter to the Times, declares that the statements made by Mr S. Smith in the House of Commons to the effect that 10,000 aborigines in Queensland were massacred, and that a man 20 years ago received a permit from the Government for killing blacks was grossly caluminous, and an insulting lie. Sydney, May 28. Bishop Barry, writing to the Church of England Gnardian, opposes the introduction of Kanaka labour, and says that the regulations, however carefully devised, are but too likely to be ineffective. Brisbvne, May 28. The Marine Board refused to allow the brig Parta to leave for the South Seas on a recruiting voyage, as the regulations had not been oomplied with. (SPECIAL.) London, May 26. The Times says the leaders of the Liberal Party are ploased at the discussions in the House of Commons with regard to the Queensland Government and the introduc. tiou of black labour into that colony. It considers that in the event of a Liberal win at the general elections, the question will force a quarrel with the most independent of the Australian colonies.