It was soon seen and realized that any attempt to negative the Ordinance must prove abortive. All that the Opposition could do was to render it as innocuous as possible, and to secure as many guarantees as they could for the proper moral and physical treatment of the unfortunate Chinamen. They extracted pledges and promises galore, most of which have been completely broken.
On March 21, 1904, Mr. Lyttelton, after stating that the average Kaffir wage was 50s. for thirty days' work, made this statement in the House of Commons—"Chinamen would receive in the Transvaal at least 2s. a day. I stand here and give the House my assurance that the Chinese will receive at least the amount I have specified."
At that time, when this well-meaning pledge was made, the Kaffir was only receiving 33s. per month. But even had he been receiving 50s. a month, which Mr. Lyttelton in his ignorance imagined, was it at all likely that the Rand owner would pay the Chinaman 2s. a day, or 60s. a month, that is to say, 10s. a month more than they were presumably paying the Kaffirs? Of course, the mine magnates were not going to pay the Chinaman more than the 33s. they were paying the Kaffir.
Mr. Lyttelton's pledge was summarily disposed of by Lord Milner and the mine owners.
After at first insisting on a minimum of 1s. a day instead of 2s., Lord Milner finally made this plausible promise, that if within six months the average pay was not more than 50s. for thirty days' work, the minimum should be raised from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a day. Mr. Lyttelton's maximum of 2s. a day was thus reduced to a possible minimum of 1s. 6d. a day.
Another delightful pledge was also given. It seemed almost indeed as if the Transvaal Government were continually advising Lord Milner to cable, saying, "Promise anything in heaven or earth, but let's get this Ordinance through."
With somewhat unusual consideration, the opinion of the Chinese Government had been asked on the subject. Speaking through their ambassador, the Chinese Government insisted that the immigrant should have free access to the courts of justice to obtain redress for injury to his personal property.
On March 10, 1904, Mr. Lyttelton stated that the Chinese labourers would have the same right of access to the courts as all the other subjects of his Majesty's dominions. Any subject of his Majesty's dominions has the right to appear before a court when he has any grievance. That is the right of all subjects of his Majesty's dominions. The Chinaman, according to Mr. Lyttelton, was to have the same right. As a matter of fact, he has no right of access to the courts, except by leave of an inspector.
Again, Mr. Lyttelton declared, when the Chinese Government raised the point of flogging, that there was no power in the Ordinance to impose flogging. There was not at that time. But four months later, on July 28, an Ordinance was assented to by which the resident magistrate had the right to flog in cases where the conviction was a conviction of robbery, in cases of any statutory offence for which flogging could be only given for the second conviction, in cases of assault of a grave character or intended to do serious bodily harm, or, indeed, to commit any offence.
I shall deal later in detail with the punishments that have been inflicted on the yellow slaves that work in their slavery under the Union Jack. It is at present only my object to outline the policy of promising anything and making all sorts of preposterous pledges in order that the clamours of the Rand lords might be gratified. In Johannesburg they knew well that if once indentured labour was agreed to in principle, it would be easy to make what alterations they wished in the spirit or the letter of the Ordinance.