40 THE SOUTH AFRICAN INDIAN QUESTION a _very great deal of pain. It insists on legislation affecting British Indians or Asiatics, as such. It also insists on the principle of compulsory segregation both of which are in conflict with the repeated assurances given to British Indians. Sir Arthur Lawley, I wish to say with the greatest deference, has allowed himself to he led astray by what he saw in Natal. Natal has been held up as an example of what the Transvaal would be, but the responsible politicians in Natal have always admitted that Indians have been the saving of the Colony. Sir James Hulett stated before the Native Affairs Commis— sion that the Indian, even as a trader, was a desirable citizen, and formed a better link between the white wholesale merchant and the Native. Sir Arthur Lawley had also stated that, even if promises were made to British Indians, they were made in ignorance of the facts as they now are, and therefore it would be a greater duty to break them than to carry them out. With the greatest deference, I venture to submit that this is a wrong view to take of the promises. We are not dealing with promises that were made dfty years ago, though we undoubtedly rely upon the Proclamation of 1858 as our °` Magna Charts." That proclamation has been reaffirmed more than once. Viceroy after Viceroy has stated emphatically that it was a promise acted upon. At the Conference of the Ooloniai Premiere. Mr· Cham- berlain laid down the same doctrine and told , the Premiere that no legislation affecting British Indians as such would be oountenanced by Her late Majesty’s Government, that it would be putting an affront quite unnecessarily on millions of the loyal subjects of the crown, and that, therefore, the legislation that was passed could only be of a general character. It was for that
