TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, . LORD MILNER, AND CHINESE LABOUR.
WE deeply regret that the debate in the House of Commons on the proposal to censure Lord Milner should have taken place. It was a debate which proved nothing, and led to nothing except exaggeration and heat and passion on both sides. We have several times had occasion to criticise Lord Milner in these pages for his action in South Africa after the conclusion of the war. We hold that his unsuccessful attempt to suspend the Cape " Constitution showed a lack of statesmanship and political instinct. Again, we deplore his surrender to those who • insisted. upon attempting 'the dangerous• and desperate expedient of employing Asiatic labour on the conditions under which the • people of the Transvaal would alone • tolerate such labour. Without due consideration of the effdet, not only upon public opinion here, but • upon the public opinion of the whole Empire, he embarked upon a • policy the full consequences of which will not be exhausted for many years to come. But, though we disagree so profoundly with certain of Lord Milner's actions, we can never forget, not only that his intentions have always been patriotic, single-minded, and self-sacrificing in a high degree, but also that he has rendered great and notable services to the nation. For ourselves, we believe as firmly now as we believed in 1899 that the war to determine whether the Boers should drive us from South Africa, 'or whether South Africa should remain part of the British Enipire, was inevitable; but leaving that question aside, we hold tftat Lord Milner throughout the course of the war acted a great and a patriotic part., and that the nation owes him a deep debt of gratitude for his steadfast- ness and his never-failing courage. At a time when so many men who had talked loudly of Imperialism while the Empire was in smooth water showed weakness and vacilla- tion, and were unable to meet in a worthy spirit the crisis with which the Empire was faced, Lord Milner never failed to play the man. His was the mens aequa in arduis, and when soldiers lost battles and civilians lost their heads he remained at the helm in South Africa calm and undis- turbed, and steered the ship which had been entrusted into his hands through the perils of the tempest. No one could have done better what it was his duty at the moment to do. A man of less courage, less single-mindedness, less consistency, might have failed in nerve, might have been overcome by excitement, or, still worse, might have thought of his own personal position or career rather than of the essential need of keeping the ship on the course that had been marked out for her, and of keeping her head to the waves at all costs. Men who can give such service to the State are rare, and therefore, even if Lord Milner's later errors of judgment had been far worse than they were, we should have held it unfitting to record the censure of the House of Commons in regard to them. • The objections which we have just urged respecting the censure of Lord Milner for action which we deplore in itself as a most grave and serious error would, in our opinion, hold good even if Lord Milner heel not merely been an instrument of government and a subordinate servant of the State, but a principal,—that is, a Cabinet Minister, with the supreme responsibility for the transactions in which he was concerned. As a matter • of fact, however, Lord Milner did not have, and could not have in our Constitution, any supreme responsibility in regard to the policy pursued or to the acts done. He was, as we have said, an instrument of "government, not a principal. In his case, and in all such cases, the censure. should. fall, upon the Secretary of State and the Cabinet at home who direct the policy, 'or who by tolerating it make themselves responsible Tor that policy. If the Empire is to be well and efficiently governed, the House of Commons, which is the .Snal power in the. State, must exact responsibility, not from Viceroys, Governors, High Commissioners, Generals, Ambassadors, or permanent officials, but from the Ministers of the Crown, who are in effect appointed by the House of- Commons, and who are answerable to it for the conduct of national and Imperial affairs. The Admiral of a fleet does not censure the Lieutenant of a battleship for an error which has imperilled the ship, but holds the 'Captain responsible for what has gone wrong in his command. So the House of Commas, if it is to exercise an efficient control over the affairs of the Empire, must deal with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and not with his subordinates. That these suliordinates may 'be willing to take-responsibility has nothing to do with the matter. The attitude of the House must be : ".You either appointed or continued.in office such-and-such a Governor, and either instructed him to take a particular course, or else by giving him a free band endorsed beforehand any line of action he might take. Therefore you. are re- sponsible for his acts." To' take another concrete example, suppose.the present House of Commons' and the present Government were to come to the conclusion that a grave injury to the Indian Empire had been committed by the Tibetan Expedition. If theY did so, it Would. be monstrous to censure Lord Curzon, for the Government at home, since they allowed and endorsed the expedition, were necessarily the persons 'responsible. If once the House of Commons were to take to censuring or dealing directly with the instruments of Imperial policy, a condition of insubordination would arise in the Empire which must prove fatal to its strength and continuance. When the Secretary of State gave an order, he would. be liable to be met by a Viceroy or a Governor with such words as these :—" I cannot carry out your .order, because if I do I shall be liable to be censured- by the House of Commons. In my opinion, it is more than likely that the next House will disapprove of the policy you recommend, and I am not going to risk the possibility of being called to account by the supreme power in the State." Only by maintaining the principle that the order of his chief, either expressed or implied, is an endorsement of the acts and a protection of every subordinate, is it possible for a true and efficient system of discipline to be established in the government of the Empire. Even, then, if we thought very differently than we do think of Lord Milner's past career, and even if Lord Milner had not so candidly and so honourably admitted the particular grave dereliction of duty of which he was guilty, we should. still deprecate in the strongest possible way the attempt to censure him in the House of Commons. As it is, we rejoice to think that no censure was entered on the journals of the House of Commons, though we greatly regret that the Government did not take a stronger line and negative Mr. Byles's Motion. While doing this they might still have expressed their condemnation of the late Government for so ordering the affairs of the Empire that it was possible that a solemn Treaty should be made with a foreign Power, and then be almost immediately violated.
We have left ourselves little space to deal with the debate on Chinese labour which- preceded • the debate on. Lord Milner. Of this debate we can only say, as we have said in regard to the discussion of Lord. Milner's actions, that we deeply regret that so much exaggeration and• so much heat were used on both sides. What is most wanted in Parliament just now is a complete cessation of dis- cussions on the question of Chinese labour. Personally, we think Mr. Chamberlain was most unwise in raising the' subject again. But as he did raise it, we think that the Government would probably have been wise to have granted a Commission with a well-drawn reference to inquire into the question whether the gold industry could not have been maintained without recourse to Chinese labour ; whether white unskilled labour cannot be as profitably employed in the Transvaal as it is in other parts of the Empire; and, finally, if Asiatic indentured labour is to be employed, what are the conditions under which it can be employed without violating the principles of liberty and the recog- nition of those moral obligations upon which, in the last resort, the British Empire rests. If, however, the Government, for reasons which seemed good to them, could. not agree to such a Commission, we do not see why the Prime Minister should not have offered to take the whole of the self-governing nations within the Empire into con- sultation in regard .to the conditions under which Asiatic labour should. be allowed in the while portions of the Empire,—that is, in those portions of the Empire which enjoy respohsible government and representative institu- tions. Mr. Chamberlain could surely not have refused to agree to a Colonial Conference on such a matter as this.
As to the main issue,'it seems to us that the attitude of the Government has • been misrepresented by those who think, or profess to think, that they are preparing Id override the decision's of slf-governing Colonies in regard to matters of internal legislation. As we understand the decision of the Government, nothing of the sort has ever been threatened. What the Govern- ment have said is something of this kind :—" Under the present Constitution of the Empire, the Mother-country exercises in certain strictly limited cases a right of veto over Colonial legislation." In the case of a great Federation like that of Canada or Australia, it is almost inconceivable, that the veto would be used, because it is almost incon- ceivable that these great nations would desire legislation that would violate any of the essential principles of freedom or morality on which the Empire rests. Nevertheless, that veto exists in theory—it may be regarded, indeed,•as one of the symbols of Imperial unity—and would be employed if iany self-governing portion of the Empire should propose a law contrary to the welfare of the whole Imperial Union. Such a law, for example, would be one under which either white or coloured men could be sold or could sell themselves into slavery, under which polygamy could be practised by white men, or, again, under which marriage was made a contract terminable at will by either party.
In the present case the Government are establishing representative and responsible government in the Trans- , vaal ; but, owing to the unfortunate history of the Chinese labour controversy, they have been obliged to draw atten- tion to this reserve power in the Constitution, which, as a rule, is better not dwelt upon. But even here there is no talk and no intention of placing an absolute veto on Colonial legislation. The position of the Government can, in effect, be expressed as follows :—" The Transvaal Government is free to make use of indentured Chinese labour if it so desires, but the fact remains that if the Transvaal Government were to propose a system of indentured labour involving servile conditions and violating moral principles, such legislation would be properly subject to the veto." It is not for a moment to be expected that a representative Transvaal Legislature will propose legislation of this kind, but to sag that it is an insult to let it be known that legislation incom- patible with the general opinion of the Empire in regard. to servile conditions cannot be sanctioned by the British Government seems to us absurd. The mineowners are free to have Chinese labour on sound conditions, but they are not free to have it if the public opinion of the Colony and of South Africa, insists that the conditions shall be of a kind inconsistent with the principles of • freedom and morality.
We do not think that this attitude would be unfair if taken up in regard to any Colony ; but, in any case, it is impossible to forget the past history of the Transvaal. The fact that the Mother-country has so lately, spent two hundred and fifty millions and run the risks involved in a great war in bringing the Transvaal within the British Empire, and in preventing the Boer element in South Africa overpowering and dominating the British, unquestionably gives her—we do not say for all time, but for many years—the right to exercise a certain control over the destinies of all the South African States. No one, for' example, denies that we might, if we tholight fit, maintain Crown Colony govern-. ment for another ten years in the Transvaal without injustice or without insult to the Colonies. If that is so, it is clear that we may maintain our control in any degree of •completeness between Crown Colony government and that which we exercise over, the freest Colonies. We have always contended that the great sacrifices made by the Mother-country in the case of the Transvaal do not give her a right to exploit that Colony for her material benefit, or to levy a money tribute such as Mr. Chamberlain, most unwisely, as we think, desired to see levied. But we hold that those sacrifices do give us, in tie case of the Transvaal, the right tb exercise fbr sC 'limited time special powers of guidance and control. These are rights, however, which must be exercised most carefully and most tactfully, and always with the highest interests of the Colony kept steadily in view. In view of the exaggerated language which has been used in regard to the veto over Colonial legislation, we desire to draw attention to a letter which stands first in our correspondence columns. That letter shows that Mr. Chamberlain claimed, and exercised, the right of interfer- ence in the internal legislation of •a self-governing Colony.
Previous page
