The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi/Volume 1/May, 1896 Memorial to J. Chamberlain

by Mohandas K. Gandhi

94. MEMORIAL TO J. CHAMBERLAIN

DURBAN,
May 22, 1896

TO

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN,
HER MAJESTY’S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
COLONIES, LONDON

THE MEMORIAL OF THE UNDERSIGNED INDIAN BRITISH SUBJECTS
RESIDING IN THE COLONY OF NATAL

HUMBLY SHEWETH THAT :

Your Memorialists hereby respectfully beg to lay before your Honour the following for your consideration with regard to the Franchise Law Amendment Bill introduced by the Natal Government in the Natal Legislative Assembly, which was read a third time on the 13th day of May, 1896, with certain amendments.

The following is the text of the Bill as it appeared in the Natal Government Gazette dated the 3rd March, 1896:

To amend the Law relating to the Franchise:

Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to the Franchise,

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of Natal, as follows:

1. Act No. 25, 1894, shall be and the same is hereby repealed.

2. Save those who come under the operation of Section 3 of this Act, no persons shall be qualified to have their names inserted in any List of Electors or in any Voters’ Roll, or to vote as Electors within the meaning of Section 22 of the Constitution Act of 1893, or of any law relating to the election of members of the Legislative Assembly, who (not being of European origin) are Natives, or descendants in the male lines of Natives of countries which have not hitherto possessed active representative institutions, unless they shall first obtain an order from the Governor-in-Council exempting them from the operation of this Act.

3. The provisions of Section 2 of this Act shall not apply to persons of the class mentioned in that Section whose names are rightly contained in any Voters’ Roll in force at the date of the promulgation of this Act, and who are otherwise competent and qualified as electors.

The Act repealed by Section I of the above Bill is as follows:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of Natal, as follows:

1. Save as in Section 2 of this Act excepted, persons of Asiatic Extraction shall not be qualified to have their names inserted in any List of Electors or in any Voters’ Roll or to vote as Electors within the meaning of Section 22 of the Constitution Act of 1893, or of any law relating to the election of members of the Legislative Assembly.

2. The provisions of Section I of this Act shall not apply to persons of the class mentioned in that Section whose names are rightly contained in any Voters’ Roll in force at the date of the promulgation of this Act, and who are otherwise competent and qualified as electors.

3. This Act shall not come into operation unless and until the Governor notifies by Proclamation in the Natal Government Gazette that it is Her Majesty’s pleasure not to disallow the same, and thereafter it shall come into operation upon such day as the Governor shall notify by the same or any other Proclamation.

A Memorial^[1] setting forth the views of the Indian community in reference to the Bill under discussion was presented to the Legislative Assembly on the 28th day of April, 1896. A copy thereof is hereto annexed marked ‘A’.

On the 6th day of May, 1896, the Bill was read a second time. During the course of his speech, the Prime Minister, the Honourable Sir John Robinson, said that the Ministers had taken steps to ascertain whether you would be agreeable to an insertion in the aforesaid Bill of the words “founded on the franchise” after “Elective representative institutions” and that you were so agreeable.

Thereupon, on the 7th day of May, 1896, your Memorialists sent to Your Honour a cablegram to the following effect:

The Indian community earnestly request you not to accept Natal Franchise Bill or Ministerial alteration thereof proposed last night; memorial preparing.

In Committee, however, the Honourable Sir John Robinson announced on the 11th day of May, 1896, that Your Honour had agreed to a further addition viz, ‘Parliamentary’ between ‘the’ and ‘franchise’.

The Bill, therefore, as to representative institutions would now read “elective representative institutions founded on the Parliamentary franchise”.

Your Memorialists humbly venture to think that the present Bill, so far as the Indian community and, indeed, all the communities are concerned, is worse than the Act it repeals.

Your Memorialists, therefore, feel aggrieved that you have been pleased to approve of the Bill, but they trust that the facts and arguments placed before you hereinbelow are such as would induce you to reconsider your views.

Your Memorialists have all along contended that the Indians did enjoy “elective representative institutions” in India. But the papers published in connection with the franchise question seem to show that you do not think that the Indians possess such institutions. With the greatest deference to Your Honour’s view, your Memorialists crave leave to draw your attention to the extracts quoted in the annexure ‘A’ upholding the opposite view.

Your approval of the present Bill, coupled with the view held by Your Honour regarding “elective representative institutions” in India, places the Indian community in Natal in a very painful and awkward position. Your Memorialists venture to submit:

1. That no legislation restrictive of the Indian franchise in Natal is necessary.

2. That, if there be any doubt with regard to this point, an enquiry should be first instituted as to whether such a necessity does exist.

3. That, assuming that the necessity exists, the present Bill is not calculated to meet the difficulty in a straightforward and open manner.

4. That, if her Majesty’s Government are absolutely satisfied that the necessity exists and that no Bill could be conceived that would solve the difficulty without a resort to class legislation, it is better that in any Franchise Bill the Indians should be specially named.

5. That the present Bill is likely to give rise to endless litigation owing to its ambiguity and vagueness.

6. That it would involve the Indian community in expenses almost beyond their control.

7. That assuming the Bill affects the Indian community, the method provided in the Bill whereby any member thereof may be exempted from its operation is, your Memorialists respectfully submit,arbitrary, unfair, and likely to create dissensions among the members of the Indian community.

8. That the Bill, like the Act repealed, makes an invidious distinction between Europeans and others.

Your Memorialists humbly submit that the present condition of the Voters’ List in Natal renders it absolutely unnecessary to embark on any legislation to restrict the Indian franchise. There seems to be needless hurry about passing a measure that affects a large portion of Her Majesty’s subjects. It is admitted that as against 9,309 European voters there are only 251 Indian voters; 201 are either traders or clerks, assistants, schoolmasters, etc., and 50 are gardeners and others, and that most of these voters are settlers of long standing. These figures, your Memorialists submit, do not warrant any restrictive legislation. The Bill under discussion is intended to deal with a remote and probable and possible danger. A danger is really assumed which does not exist. His Honour, Sir John Robinson, in moving the second reading of the Bill, based his fears about the danger of the European vote being swamped by the Indian vote on three grounds, viz.:

1. The fact that the petition to Her Majesty’s Government in connection with the Franchise Act, repealed by the present Bill, was signed by nearly 9,000 Indians.

2. The approaching general election in the Colony.

3. The existence of the Natal Indian Congress.

As to the first ground, even in the correspondence on the subject, the Natal Government have argued that the 9,000 signatories wanted to be placed on the Voters’ Roll. The first paragraph of that petition is a sufficient answer to the argument. The Petitioners, your Memorialists humbly submit, never contended for any such thing. They certainly protested against the wholesale disfranchisement of the Indians. Your Memorialists humbly venture to think that every Indian, whether he had the property qualifications or not, was very materially affected by that Bill. Your Memorialists admit that the fact show a degree of organizing power among the Indians, alluded to by the Hon. mover, but your Memorialists respectfully contend that no matter how powerful the organizing power might be, it cannot overcome the natural barriers. Out of the 9,000 signatories, not a hundred, besides those who were already on the Voters’ Roll, possessed the legal property qualifications.

With regard to the second ground, the Hon. mover said:

He might remind members that before long there must be a general election, and they would have to consider upon what register that general election was to take place. It was not for him to say how many Indian electors might or might not be on the ensuing electoral roll, but the Government thought it was high time that no further delay should take place in seizing this question by the throat and setting it once for all, without further delay.

Your Memorialists submit, with all due respect to the Hon. mover, that all these fears have no foundation in fact. According to the Report of the Protector of Immigrants for 1895, out of 46,343 Indians in the Colony, only 30,303 are free Indians. To that may be added the trading Indian population of, say, 5,000. Thus there are only 35,000 Indians, as against over 45,000 Europeans, who can at all compete with the latter. The 16,000 indentured Indians, it is easy to see, never can vote, while they are under indenture. But a large majority of the 30,303 are only a stage higher than the indentured Indians. And your Memorialists venture to say from personal experience that there are in this Colony thousands of Indians who do not pay £10 per year in rents. In fact, there are thousands who have to drag on their existence on that amount. Where then, your Memorialists ask, is the fear of the Indians swamping the Voters’ List next year?

The disfranchisement has been threatened for the last two years. The Electoral Roll has twice undergone revision since. The Indians had every incentive to add to the Indian vote, lest many may be shut out. And yet there has been not a single addition to the Voters’ List from the Indian community.

But the Hon. mover went on to say:

Members might not be aware that there was in this country a body, a very powerful body in its way, a very united body, though practically a secret body—he meant the Indian Congress. That was a body which possessed large funds, it was a body presided over by very active and very able men, and it was a body the avowed object of which was to exercise strong political power in the affairs of the Colony.

Your Memorialists venture to say that this estimate of the Congress is not justified by facts. The charge of secrecy, as would appear from the correspondence between the Honourable the Prime Minister of Natal and the Honorary Secretary of the Congress, was made under an erroneous impression (Appendices B,C, D^[2]). A statement with regard to the matter also was made by him in the Legislative Assembly on the 20th instant.

Nor has the Congress in any shape or form intended or attempted to “exercise strong political power”. The following are the objects of the Congress, which were published in almost every paper in South Africa last year:

“1. To bring about a better understanding and promote friendliness between the Europeans and the Indians residing in the Colony.

“2. To spread information about India and the Indians by writing to newspapers, publishing pamphlets, lecturing, etc.

“3. To educate the Indians, especially [those] born in the Colony about Indian History, and induce them to study Indian subjects.

“4. To ascertain the various grievances the Indians are labouring under and to agitate by resorting to all constitutional methods for removing them.

“5. To enquire into the condition of the indentured Indians and to help them out of special hardships.

“6. To help the poor and the needy in all reasonable ways.

“7. And generally to do everything that would tend to put the Indians on a better footing morally, socially, intellectually, and politically.”

It would thus appear that the object of the Congress is to resist degradation, not to gain political power. As to funds the Congress has a property worth £1,080 and a balance of £148-7s 8d in the Bank, at the time of writing this. These funds have to be used in charity, printing memorials and working expenses. In your Memorialists’ humble opinion they are hardly sufficient to fulfil the objects of the Congress. The educational work is greatly hampered owing to want of funds. Your Memorialists, therefore, venture to submit that the danger which the present Bill is intended to guard against does not exist at all.

Your Memorialists, however, do not request Her Majesty’s Government to accept the above facts as correct on their ipse dixit. If there is any doubt about any of them—and the most important fact is that there are thousands who do not possess the necessary property qualifications for becoming voters—then the proper course, your Memorialists submit, is to enquire about them, particularly to enquire how many Indians there are in the Colony who possess immovable property of the value of £50 or who pay a yearly rent of £10. To prepare such a return would neither cost much time nor much money, and would be a very material help towards a satisfactory solution of the franchise question. The hot haste to pass some measure is, in your Memorialists humble opinion, detrimental to the best interests of the Colony as a whole. Your Memorialists, so far as they, as representatives of the Indian community, are concerned and speaking authoritatively for the organization of which they have the honour to be members, hereby beg to assure Her Majesty’s Government that they have no intention to endeavour to place a single Indian voter on the Voters’ List for the general election next year.

The Government organ, dealing with the present Bill in a presumably inspired article, supports the view that the danger is “a chimerical one”. It says:

Moreover, we feel sure that should the Asiatic vote ever endanger the stability of European rule in this Colony, the Imperial Government will find ways and means out of such a difficulty. The new Bill imposes certain limitations on the acquirement of the franchise by all who are not of European origin, and as now even with the franchise open to British subjects of all races and classes, except the Natives under Native law, there are only some 250 Indians on the Voters’ Roll out of a total of 9,560 registered voters, or in the proportion of one Indian voter to every 38 Europeans in possession of the franchise, we think the new Bill will fully meet the requirements of the case for very many long years at all events, if not for all time. In South Carolina, for instance, the Negroes over 21 years old number 132,949, while the whites over 21 only number 102,567, yet the whites have retained the dominant power, although in the minority. The fact of the matter is that apart from numbers altogether the superior race will always hold the reins of Government. We are inclined to the belief, therefore, that the danger of the Indian vote swamping the European is a chimerical one. From what we know of the matter, we are inclined to think that it will be held that India is a country possessing “Elective representative institutions”. In fact, the argument so often advanced that the Indian is unacquainted with their nature and responsibilities is really wide off the mark, as in India there are some 750 municipalities in which British and native voters have equal rights, and in 1891, there were 9,790 native municipal commissioners (councillors) as against 839 Europeans. . . .Even assuming, however, that natives of India will be held as coming from a country possessing “elective representative institutions”, we do not consider that the danger of being swamped is at all a likely one, as past experience has proved that the class of Indians coming here, as a rule, do not concern themselves about the franchise, and further, the majority of them do not even possess the small property qualification required. In addition to all this, the obligations of the Empire of which we form a part do not permit of Indians as Indians being excluded from the exercise of such a privilege as the franchise. So far as we are concerned, therefore, such attitude is a non possumus and may, therefore, be dropped. Should the restrictions of the new law not prevent the introduction of an undesirable element onto the Voters’ Roll, there is nothing at all to prevent us raising the franchise qualification. At present it is very low. The property qualification could, therefore, be easily increased, even doubled and an educational test imposed which, while it would not remove a single European from the Voters’ Roll, would have a sweeping effect on Indian voters. The number of the later possessing immovable property of the value of say, £100 or paying a rent of £20 per annum and able to read and write English must be exceedingly small, and should this fail, there would be nothing to hinder us from adopting the Mississippi plan, or a modification of it to suit the circumstances (5th March, 1896).

It is clear, therefore, that according to the Government organ the present property qualifications are sufficiently high to prevent any undue influx of Indian voters on the Roll, and that the only object of the present Bill is to harass the Indian community—to land them in expensive litigation.

According to the Mauritius Almanac for 1895, the population of that island in 1894 was 259,224 Indians as against 106,995 persons under the heading ‘general population’. The franchise qualification there is as follows:

Every male person shall be entitled to be registered in any year as a voter for any electoral district and, when, registered, to vote at the election of a member of the Council for such district who is qualified as follows, that is to say:

1. That he has attained the age of twenty-one years.

2. Is under no legal incapacity.

3. Is a British subject by birth or naturalization.

4. Has resided in the Colony for three years at least previous to the date of registration and possesses some one of the following qualifications:

(a) Is on the 1st day of January in each year, and has, during the preceding six calendar months, been the owner of immovable property within such district of the annual value of Rs. 300 or the monthly value of Rs. 25 above all charges and encumbrances affecting the same.

(b) Is at the date of registration paying, and has for the six calendar months previous to the 1st day of January in such year paid, rent in respect of immovable property situate within such district at the rate of at least Rs. 25 per month.

(c) Has for three calendar months previous to the 1st of January in such year resided, or had his principal place of business or employment within such district, and is the owner of movable property within the Colony of the value of at least Rs. 3,000.

(d) Is the husband of a wife, or the eldest son of a widow, possessing any one of the above qualifications.

(e) Has for three calendar months previous to the 1st day of January in such year resided, or had his principal place of business or employment within such district, and is in receipt of a yearly salary of at least Rs. 600, or a monthly salary of at least Rs. 50.

(f) Has for three calendar months previous to the 1st of January in such year resided, or has his principal place of business or employment within such district, and pays licence duty to the amount of at least Rs. 50 per annum.

Provided—

1. That no person shall be registered as a voter, or be entitled to vote for the election of a member of the Council who has been convicted of perjury in any Court in our Dominions or who has been sentenced by any such Court to death, or penal servitude, or imprisonment with hard labour, or for a term exceeding twelve months, and has not either suffered the punishment to which he was sentenced or such other punishment as by competent authority may have been substituted for the same or received a free pardon from us.

2. That no person shall be registered as a voter in any year who has, within twelve calendar months immediately preceding the first day of January in that year, received any relief from public or parochial funds.

3. That no person shall be registered as a voter in any year unless he shall, in the presence of the registering officer or of a magistrate, with his own hand subscribe his name to his claim to be registered and write thereon the date of such subscription and the qualification, in respect of which he claims to be registered.

4. That no person claiming to be registered in the district in which he resides in respect of any of the qualifications (c), (d), (e) and (f), shall be registered in respect of the same qualification in the district in which he has his principal place of business or employment or vice versa.

With these qualifications there is evidently no trouble in Mauritius, although the Indian population is twice as large as the general population, and the Indians in Mauritius belong to the same class as the Indians in Natal. Only, there they are far more prosperous than their Natal brethren.

Assuming, however, that the necessity to deal with the Indian franchise does exist, your Memorialists respectfully beg to say that the present Bill is not calculated to meet it in a straightforward and open manner. The Honourable and learned Attorney-General of Natal, referring to a suggestion to slightly alter the existing law in course of the debate on the Second Reading, is reported to have said:

The reason why he refused to do this was because it was apparently doing it by a side-wind and quietly, and the Government intended to do it in the full light of day.

It is difficult to conceive a better mode of doing a thing by a “side-wind and quietly” than that of passing the present Bill, which leaves everybody in the dark. The Natal Advertiser of the 8th May, 1896, says:

. . . What is the present Bill if not a side-wind? Its whole object is to endeavour quietly and by a side-wind to effect that which the measure of last session failed to accomplish. Mr. Escombe admitted that the measure was brutally blunt and to this he rightly ascribed its failure to obtain acceptance by the Imperial Government. He further admitted that the present Bill has precisely the same object in view as the “brutal” Bill, only it does not state its object honestly and straightforwardly; in other words, it seeks quietly and by a side-wind to reach the goal apparently unattainable by plain sailing.

If Her Majesty’s Government are convinced that a real necessity exists for legislation restricting the Indian franchise in Natal, and if Her Majesty’s Government are satisfied that the question cannot be dealt with but by class legislation, and if Her Majesty’s Government further accept the Colonial view that Indian British subjects, in spite of the gracious Proclamation of 1858, may be treated on a different footing from that on which the European British subjects are treated, then, your Memorialists submit that it would be infinitely better and more satisfactory to exclude the Indians by name from any rights and privileges that they in the opinion of Her Majesty’s Government, should not be allowed to enjoy, than that by ambiguous legislation the door should be left open for litigation and trouble.

That the Bill, if assented to, would give rise to endless litigation owing to its ambiguity is an admitted fact. It is admittedly also of the first importance that the question of the Indian franchise should be “settled once for all”. to quote the words of the Honourable the Prime Minister of Natal. And yet, in the opinion of the majority of the leaders of opinion in Natal, the Bill will not settle the question once for all.

Mr. Binns, the leader of the Opposition in the Natal Assembly, after quoting chapter and verse to show that the Indians in India did possess elective representative institutions, founded on the parliamentary franchise, is reported to have said this:

He hoped he had shown clearly that on that ground this Bill was wrong. There were representative institutions and the elective principle was acknowledged in India. They had a Parliamentary franchise and there was an enormous municipal franchise which affected local government, and if this was the case, what was the use of their passing this Bill? The facts he had stated to the Assembly were taken from the best authorities he could find and they proved most conclusively that these institutions did exist. There was no doubt on one point, that if a Bill of this kind passed into law it would lead them into endless litigation, difficulties, and trouble. The Bill was not sufficiently clear or definite. They wanted something more clear and definite. He wanted to see this question settled and he would do all he could to assist at a settlement. But he thought this Bill was framed on wrong lines, contained a fact that was not correct, and it would lead them into endless litigation, difficulty, and trouble. It would be impossible for him to vote for the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Bale, a leading member of the Assembly and a leading lawyer in Natal, agreeing with Mr. Binns’ views, opposed as he is to the Indians retaining the franchise rights under the general law of the Colony, thus feelingly appealed to the House, as well on behalf of the Indians as for the Colony generally, not to pass the Bill:

It would give rise to litigation and produce a feeling of hostility and create a ferment amongst the Indians themselves. It would also have the further effect of inducing appeals to the Privy Council and would prejudice the election of members to this House. Having regard to the great issues involved in this measure he hoped the second reading of this Bill would not be carried.

The Natal Witness of the 8th May thus sums up the situation:

Our warning that, if the Bill passes into law as it stands, the Colony will be involved in serious litigation, had the support of Mr. Binns and Mr. Bale, and Mr. Smythe’s half loaf, which is better than, nothing, would be dearly purchased at that price. What leads us to think the Bill has not been considered by the legal advisers of the Crown are the exceedingly delicate questions which it raises and which will undoubtedly be fought out unless the wording be altered so as not to leave the possibility of a resort to law. Amongst these questions are the following: Can a Colony make laws which contravene the Naturalization Law of England? Are British Indians British subjects or not? In other words the Bill raises the whole question of the position of the British Indians in the Empire. Can special laws be passed in Natal, since the issue of the Proclamation of 1858, [to] take away any part of the privileges conferred by that document?

After deploring the ambiguity and vagueness of the Bill, The Natal Advertiser, in its leader of the 8th May, says:

The truth of the position is [that] each line of the present Bill is an ambuscade of disputes, which will all come out in the open some day, to perpetuate for years, and probably with increased bitterness, the struggle between the Indians and the Europeans in this Colony with regard to the vote.

Your Memorialists appeal to Her Majesty’s Government to save the Indian community, if not the whole Colony, from such a dismal outlook—from perpetual agitation—and all this to avoid a danger that does not exist.

That the expenses of such a struggle to the Indian community must be beyond their control needs no argument to prove. The whole struggle is unequal.

Now, assuming further, that the highest legal tribunal has recorded its opinion that the Indians do not possess “elective representative institutions founded on the Parliamentary franchise”, the method provided in the Bill whereby the Indians may be placed on the Voters’ Roll is, in your Memorialists’ humble opinion, in every way unsatisfactory.

The disapproval of that portion of the Bill which confers the power on the Governor is very emphatic on the part of the Europeans also. The Natal Witness, in dealing with that branch of the subject, says:

It attacks great constitutional principles, and further introduces into the working of representative institutions in Natal what may be termed an unknown quantity—that is to say, the effect which the third clause, providing for an electorate of six to choose fit and proper Asiatics for the Voters’ Roll, will have upon them. . . . The Ministry appeared to have caught on to the idea (i.e., of indirect election), but in making themselves and the Governor an indirect electorate, they are not only doing what is decidedly preposterous but highly improper.

Reverting to the same question again, it says:

The Assembly has not gained in public estimation by passing a Bill which most of the leading members are distrustful of, which they can see is a compromise and a compromise which may prove quite ineffectual and which, as we pointed out when it was first published, is a most dangerous invasion of the privileges of the Assembly as well as an attack upon constitutional principles which it might have been assumed that every member would have held himself to be under a solemn obligation to maintain unimpaired. There was no need to remind some of the members of the last objection. Mr. Bale said that the Franchise ought to be vested in the people alone, to be exercised of course by their representatives. . . . But what the press is concerned about is not the present Parliament but all future ones. . . .When a great constitutional principle is once broken through, however slightly it may be, there is the imminent risk of the breach being widened by a Government greedy of power.

That is the objection from the European point of view. Your Memorialists, while agreeing with that view, have a yet more formidable objection to the principle of the clause. It is not so much the number of Indian voters that the Indian community wish to see on the Voters’ Roll as the vindication of their rights and privileges as British subjects and the equal status with European British subjects that is assured to the British Indians by Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen Empress on more occasions than one, and that has been specially assured to the Indian community in Natal by Her Majesty’s Government in a special despatch by the Right Honourable the late Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies. If other British subjects having certain qualifications can claim the franchise as of right, why, your Memorialists humbly ask, should not the Indian British subjects?

The method is cumbrous and will tend to keep up the franchise agitation for ever. It would, moreover, transfer the agitation from the Europeans to the Indians. The speeches in the Assembly on the second reading show that the power will be exercised very sparingly, if at all, by the Governor-in-Council.

It is calculated to create dissensions among the Indian community, for the applicant who is rejected may resent the favour granted to a brother applicant if the one considers himself as good as the other.

Education, intelligence, and stake, are mentioned in Your Honour’s despatch relating to the franchise question as entitling the Indians to the franchise. Your Memorialists submit that if a certain amount of education, intelligence or stake is to be sufficient to qualify an Indian to become a voter in the Colony, then such a test could be introduced instead of leaving the power in the hands of the Governor-in-Council. Hereon, your Memorialists beg to draw your attention to a portion of the leading article in The Natal Mercury hereinbefore quoted. If the necessary qualifications for those coming under the operation of that Bill were stated, it would do away with the contentious character of that part of the Bill, and those coming under its operation will then know exactly what qualifications would entitle them to a vote. The position is well summed up in The Natal Advertiser of the 8th May.

A still further proof of the duplicity of the present Bill lies in its provision that the Governor-in-Council shall have the power to place certain Indians on the Voters’ Roll. This clause is obviously inserted with the idea of leading the Imperial Government to suppose that this power of exemption would occasionally be used—sparingly perhaps, but still used. Yet the Attorney-General declared that “the power of inclusion given in such circumstances under the present Bill could not, however, he wished to point out, be attained, except through the Governor-in-Council. Every section of the community had begun to realize what the true meaning was of the responsibility of Ministers and knew quite well that no Ministers could hold office for fourteen days if they took upon themselves the responsibility of watering the constituencies by the introduction of Indian electors.” Further on he said, “There would be no other voice throughout South Africa than that the electoral rolls of the country should be absolutely confined to persons of the European race. That was the starting point from which they began and the goal they had in view all along.”

. . . if these ministerial declarations mean anything, it is that this Government have no intention to exercise their right of exemption. Then why is it placed on the Bill? Is there not at least an appearance of dissembling, or utilizing a side-wind, if the phrase is more expressive, in inserting a provision in a measure, which its framers declare in submitting it for adoption, they mean to treat as a dead letter?

It would be hardly pleasant for a wealthy Indian merchant to have to apply for a permit to be exempted from the operation of the Bill and also to risk the rejection of his application. It is difficult to understand why Europeans, not coming from countries which have not hitherto possessed elective representative institutions founded on the Parliamentary franchise, should exercise the right of voting, while the non-Europeans similarly placed cannot under the general law of the Colony.

The present Bill, according to the view of the Government, is an experimental measure,. “If”, said the honourable and learned Attorney-General on the second reading, “contrary to their belief, and their firm belief, the Bill should fall short of what was intended, then there never would be rest in the Colony,” etc. The Bill, therefore, is not finite. Under such circumstances, your Memorialists submit that unless all the resources, without resort to class legislation, are tried and have failed (i.e., assuming that there is a danger of the Indian vote swamping the European), a Bill like the present one should not be passed. Your Memorialists venture to submit that this is not a question that affects a mere handful of Her Majesty’s subjects, but it affects 300,000,000 of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects. The question is not how many or what Indians shall have the vote, but the question, your Memorialists humbly submit, is what status the British Indians shall occupy outside India and in the Colonies and allied States. May a respectable Indian venture out of India in pursuit of trade or other enterprise and hope to have any status? The Indian community do not want to shape the political destiny of South Africa, but they may be allowed to carry on their peaceful avocations quietly without any degrading conditions being imposed upon them. Your Memorialists, therefore, submit that if there is the slightest danger of the Indian vote preponderating, a simple educational test may be imposed on all alike, either with or without an increase in property qualifications. That would, in the opinion of the Government organ also, effectually remove all fear and if such a test failed, a more severe test may be imposed, which would tell. Against the Indians without materially affecting the European vote. If nothing short of a total exclusion of the Indians from the franchise would be acceptable to the Natal Government, and if Her Majesty’s Government are inclined to favour such a demand, then your Memorialists submit that nothing short of specific exclusion of the Indians by name would satisfactorily meet the difficulty.

Your Memorialists, however, beg to draw your attention to the fact that the European Colonists as a body make no such demand. They seem to be absolutely indifferent. The Natal Advertiser thus rebukes the indifference:

Perhaps the manner in which this all-important subject has been treated by Parliament also brings out a fourth point—the indifference of the Colony to its own politics. It would be highly interesting to discover, if such could be done, how many of the Colonists have taken the trouble even to read the Bill in question. Perhaps the proportion who have not read it would be a striking one. The general unconcern of Colonists in this matter is demonstrated by the fact that meetings have not been held in every centre—not to say every nook and corner of the Colony for its ventilation, and to formulate a demand that Parliament should only pass such a Bill as would render abortive all further controversy over the subject. Had the Colony been fully alive to the real gravity of the issue, the columns of the newspaper would also have teemed with a serious and intelligent correspondence on the question. Neither of these things, however, has happened. As a consequence, the Government have been able to get through a measure supposed to effectually deal with the matter, but which in reality puts it in a far worse and dangerous position than ever it was before.

It would appear from the extracts quoted above that the present Bill satisfies neither party. With the utmost deference to the Natal Ministry and to both the Legislative bodies here, your Memorialists submit that the fact that the Bill has been accepted by them does not signify much. The very members who refrained from any active opposition to the measure are, as The Natal Witness puts it, distrustful of it.

Your Memorialists hope that they have shown to your satisfaction that the danger referred to above is imaginary and that the present Bill is unsatisfactory from the point of view of those who wish to see the Indians disenfranchised as also from that of the Indians themselves. In any case, however, your Memorialists claim that sufficient facts and arguments have been brought out to show that the question should not be hastily disposed of, and that there is no necessity for so doing. The Natal Witness thinks that “no explanation, at least no satisfactory one, has been given for the anxiety to rush the Bill through.” The Natal Advertiser opines that “this Indian franchise question is a most vital one and there should be no haste in settling it for ever. Indeed the best course would be to postpone the proposed Bill and have the whole matter for the consideration of the constituencies when they have accurate information before them” (28-3-1896)

The feelings of the Indian community may be well expressed in the words of the London Times. The Times (Weekly edition, 20th March, 1896) says:

If the Indians are allowed to carry with them their status as British subjects to foreign countries and British Colonies whither they go in quest of work, the opening up of Africa holds out new possibilities to Indian labour. The Indian Government and the Indians themselves believe that it is in South Africa that this question of their status must be determined. If they secure the position of British subjects in South Africa, it will be almost impossible to deny it to them elsewhere. If they fail to secure that position in South Africa it will be extremely difficult for them to attain it elsewhere. They readily acknowledge that Indian labourers who accept a contract of service for a period of years, as the price of aided immigration, must fulfil the conditions of their contract, however it may curtail their rights. But they hold that after the period of contracted labour has expired, they are entitled to the status of British subjects in whatever Colony or country they have fixed their abodes.... The Indian Government may reasonably ask that after Indian labourers have given their best years to South Africa they should not be forced back upon India by denying to them the status of British subjects in their adopted homes. Whatever the decision may be, it will seriously affect the future development of emigration in India.

Dealing particularly with this question of franchise and the figures compiled from the Natal Government Gazette and now accepted as correct, the same paper says, under date 31st January, 1896 (Weekly edition):

According to this return, there are in the Colony 9,309 European registered voters against 251 registered voters of British Indian origin. . . . Nor, if Mr. Gandhi’s statements are correct, does it seem possible that the Indian vote can swamp the European at any period within the range of practical politics. . . . Not only are all Indian immigrants under labour contracts excluded but also all British Indians whatsoever, except an extremely small class, who, by intelligence and industry, have raised themselves to the position of well-to-do citizens. . . .

The returns show that even under the existing law it takes a long time for a British Indian to attain the franchise in Natal. With the exception of 63 British Indians, many of whom started with capital, and whose residence in the Colony is under ten years, the rest of the 251 voters seem to have resided during more than 10 years and the majority over 14. An analysis of the British Indian Voters’ List according to occupation yields equally encouraging results to those who wish to see this question settled. . . .

It is precisely this class of men who form the most valued element in the municipal and other electorates in India. The argument that the Indian in Natal cannot claim higher privileges than he enjoys in India and that he has no franchise whatever in India is inconsistent with the facts. . . . So far as government by voting exists in India, Englishmen and Indians stand on the same footing, and alike in the Municipal, the Provincial, and the Supreme Councils the native interests are powerfully represented. Nor does the plea that the British Indian is unacquainted with the nature and responsibilities of representative government beat inspection. There is probably no other country in the world in which representative institutions have penetrated so deeply into the life of the people. . . .

The question now before Mr. Chamberlain is not an academic one. It is not a question of argument but of racefeeling. The Queen’s Proclamation of 1858 gave the full rights of British subjects to the Indians and they vote in England and sit in the British Parliament on the same terms as Englishmen. But these questions are inevitable in a vast Empire made up of many peoples and as the steamship brings the component population of Greater Britain into closer contact they will present themselves in more acute forms. Two things are clear. Such questions will not settle themselves by being ignored, and a strong Government at home affords the best Court of Appeal to adjudicate upon them. We cannot afford a war of races among our own subjects. It would be as wrong for the Government of India to suddenly arrest the development of Natal by shutting off the supply of immigrants as it would be for Natal to deny the rights of citizenship to British Indian subjects, who, by years of thrift and good work in the Colony, have raised themselves to the actual status of citizens (the italics throughout are your Memorialists’).

Your Memorialists now leave their case in your hands, and in so doing earnestly pray, and confidently hope, that the Royal assent to the Bill hereinbefore referred to will be withheld, and, if there be any fear as to the European vote being swamped by the Indian, an enquiry be ordered to ascertain whether there actually exists any such danger under the existing law, or such other relief will be granted as may meet the ends of justice.

And for this act of justice and mercy, your Memorialists, as in duty bound, shall for ever pray, etc., etc.^[3]

ABDUL KAREEM HAJI ADAM
AND OTHERS

From a photostat of a printed copy: S. N. 979-83

1↑  Vide “Memorial to Natal Legislative Assembly”, 27-4-1896

2↑ Vide “Letter to Prime Minister” 14-5-1896, and “Letter to C. Bird”, 18-5-1896.

3↑ On September 25, 1896, C. Bird communicated to the Memorialists Chamberlain's decision, that "Her Majesty's Government has carefully considered their representations, but has not felt justified in advising Her Majesty to disallow the Act" (S.N. 160)