A coalition of the Conservative and Liberal Unionist parties took power in the United Kingdom shortly before the 1895 general election. Conservative leader Lord Salisbury was appointed Prime Minister and his nephew, Arthur Balfour, became Leader of the House of Commons, but various major posts went to the Liberal Unionists, most notably the Leader of the House of Lords, the Liberal Unionist Duke of Devonshire, who was made Lord President, and his colleague in the Commons, Joseph Chamberlain, who became Colonial Secretary. It was this government which would conduct the Second Boer War from 1899–1902, which helped them to win a landslide victory at the 1900 general election.
The government consisted of three ministries, the first two led by Salisbury (from 1895–1902) and the third by Balfour (from 1902 onwards).
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:3 079 0854 055 9862 767 0911 132486
-
The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27
-
Communists, Nationalists, and China's Revolutions: Crash Course World History #37
-
Gilded Age Politics:Crash Course US History #26
-
Samuel Gompers
-
Tsarist Russia: Opposition-Ideas and Ideology 1894 to 1914
Transcription
Episode 27: Progressive Era Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. history, and today we’re gonna talk about Progressives. No Stan Progressives. Yes. You know, like these guys who used to want to bomb the means of production, but also less radical Progressives. Mr. Green, Mr. Green. Are we talking about, like, tumblr progressive where it’s half discussions of misogyny and half high-contrast images of pizza? Because if so, I can get behind that. Me from the past, your anachronism is showing. Your Internet was green letters on a black screen. But no, The Progressive Era was not like tumblr, however I will argue that it did indirectly make tumblr and therefore JLaw gifsets possible, so that’s something. So some of the solutions that progressives came up with to deal with issues of inequality and injustice don’t seem terribly progressive today, and also it kinda overlapped with the gilded age, and progressive implies, like, progress, presumably progress toward freedom and justice, which is hard to argue about an era that involved one of the great restrictions on freedom in American history, prohibition. So maybe we shouldn’t call it the Progressive Era at all. I g--Stan, whatever, roll the intro. Intro So, if the Gilded Age was the period when American industrial capitalism came into its own, and people like Mark Twain began to criticize its associated problems, then the Progressive era was the age in which people actually tried to solve those problems through individual and group action. As the economy changed, Progressives also had to respond to a rapidly changing political system. The population of the U.S. was growing and its economic power was becoming ever more concentrated. And sometimes, Progressives responded to this by opening up political participation and sometimes by trying to restrict the vote. The thing is, broad participatory democracy doesn’t always result in effective government--he said, sounding like the Chinese national Communist Party. And that tension between wanting to have government for, of, and by the people and wanting to have government that’s, like, good at governing kind of defined the Progressive era. And also our era. But progressives were most concerned with the social problems that revolved around industrial capitalist society. And most of these problems weren’t new by 1900, but some of the responses were. Companies and, later, corporations had a problem that had been around at least since the 1880s: they needed to keep costs down and profits high in a competitive market. And one of the best ways to do this was to keep wages low, hours long, and conditions appalling: your basic house-elf situation. Just kidding, house elves didn’t get wages. Also, by the end of the 19th century, people started to feel like these large, monopolistic industrial combinations, the so-called trusts, were exerting too much power over people’s lives. The 1890s saw federal attempts to deal with these trusts, such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but overall, the Federal Government wasn’t where most progressive changes were made. For instance, there was muckraking, a form of journalism in which reporters would find some muck and rake it. Mass circulation magazines realized they could make money by publishing exposés of industrial and political abuse, so they did. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? I bet it involves muck. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m either correct or I get shocked. “Let a man so much as scrape his finger pushing a truck in the pickle-rooms, and all the joints in his fingers might be eaten by the acid, one by one. Of the butchers and floormen, the beef-boners and trimmers, and all those who used knives, you could scarcely find a person who had the use of his thumb; time and time again the base of it had been slashed, till it was a mere lump of flesh against which the man pressed the knife to hold it. ... They would have no nails – they had worn them off pulling hides.” Wow. Well now I am hyper-aware of and grateful for my thumbs. They are just in excellent shape. I am so glad, Stan, that I am not a beef-boner at one of the meat-packing factories written about in The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. No shock for me! Oh Stan, I can only imagine how long and hard you’ve worked to get the phrase “beef-boner” into this show. And you finally did it. Congratulations. By the way, just a little bit of trivia: The Jungle was the first book I ever read that made me vomit. So that’s a review. I don’t know if it’s positive, but there you go. Anyway, at the time, readers of The Jungle were more outraged by descriptions of rotten meat than by the treatment of meatpacking workers: The Jungle led to the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act of 1906. That’s pretty cool for Upton Sinclair, although my books have also led to some federal legislation, such as the HAOPT, which officially declared Hazel and Augustus the nation’s OTP. So, to be fair, writers had been describing the harshness of industrial capitalism for decades, so muckraking wasn’t really that new, but the use of photography for documentation was. Lewis Hine, for instance, photographed child laborers in factories and mines, bringing Americans face to face with the more than 2 million children under the age of 15 working for wages. And Hine’s photos helped bring about laws that limited child labor. But even more important than the writing and photographs and magazines when it came to improving conditions for workers was Twitter … what’s that? There was no twitter? Still? What is this 1812? Alright, so apparently still without Twitter, workers had to organize into unions to get corporations to reduce hours and raise their pay. Also some employers started to realize on their own that one way to mitigate some of the problems of industrialization was to pay workers better, like in 1914, Henry Ford paid his workers an average of $5 per day, unheard of at the time. . Whereas today I pay Stan and Danica 3x that and still they whine. Ford’s reasoning was that better-paid workers would be better able to afford the Model Ts that they were making. And indeed, Ford’s annual output rose from 34,000 cars to 730,000 between 1910 and 1916, and the price of a Model T dropped from $700 to $316. Still, Henry Ford definitely forgot to be awesome sometimes; he was anti-Semitic, he used spies in his factories, and he named his child Edsel. Also like most employers at the turn of the century, he was virulently anti-union. So, while the AFL was organizing the most privileged industrial workers, another union grew up to advocate for rights for a larger swath of the workforce, especially the immigrants who dominated unskilled labor: The International Workers of the World. They were also known as the Wobblies, and they were founded in 1905 to advocate for “every wage-worker, no matter what his religion, fatherland or trade,” and not, as the name Wobblies suggests, just those fans of wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey. The Wobblies were radical socialists; ultimately they wanted to see capitalism and the state disappear in revolution. Now, most progressives didn’t go that far, but some, following the ideas of Henry George, worried that economic progress could produce a dangerous unequal distribution of wealth that could only be cured by … taxes. But, more Progressives were influenced by Simon W. Patten who prophesied that industrialization would bring about a new civilization where everyone would benefit from the abundance and all the leisure time that all these new labor-saving devices could bring. This optimism was partly spurred by the birth of a mass consumption society. I mean, Americans by 1915 could purchase all kinds of new-fangled devices, like washing machines, or vacuum cleaners, automobiles, record players. It’s worth underscoring that all this happened in a couple generations: I mean, in 1850, almost everyone listened to music and washed their clothes in nearly the same way that people did 10,000 years ago. And then BOOM. And for many progressives, this consumer culture, to quote our old friend Eric Foner, “became the foundation for a new understanding of freedom as access to the cornucopia of goods made available by modern capitalism.” And this idea was encouraged by new advertising that connected goods with freedom, using “liberty” as a brand name or affixing the Statue of Liberty to a product. By the way, Crash Course is made exclusively in the United States of America, the greatest nation on earth ever. (Libertage.) That’s a lie, of course, but you’re allowed to lie in advertising. But in spite of this optimism, most progressives were concerned that industrial capitalism, with its exploitation of labor and concentration of wealth, was limiting, rather than increasing freedom, but depending on how you defined “freedom,” of course. Industrialization created what they referred to as “the labor problem” as mechanization diminished opportunities for skilled workers and the supervised routine of the factory floor destroyed autonomy. The scientific workplace management advocated by efficiency expert Frederick W. Taylor required rigid rules and supervision in order to heighten worker productivity. So if you’ve ever had a job with a defined number of bathroom breaks, that’s why. Also “Taylorism” found its way into classrooms; and anyone who’s had to sit in rows for 45 minute periods punctuated by factory-style bells knows that this atmosphere is not particularly conducive to a sense of freedom. Now this is a little bit confusing because while responding to worker exploitation was part of the Progressive movement, so was Taylorism itself because it was an application of research, observation, and expertise in response to the vexing problem of how to increase productivity. And this use of scientific experts is another hallmark of the Progressive era, one that usually found its expression in politics. American Progressives, like their counterparts in the Green Sections of Not-America, sought government solutions to social problems. Germany, which is somewhere over here, pioneered “social legislation” with its minimum wage, unemployment insurance and old age pension laws, but the idea that government action could address the problems and insecurities that characterized the modern industrial world, also became prominent in the United States. And the notion that an activist government could enhance rather than threaten people’s freedom was something new in America. Now, Progressives pushing for social legislation tended to have more success at the state and local level, especially in cities, which established public control over gas and water and raised taxes to pay for transportation and public schools. Whereas federally the biggest success was, like, Prohibition, which, you know, not that successful. But anyway, if all that local collectivist investment sounds like Socialism, it kind of is. I mean, by 1912 the Socialist Party had 150,000 members and had elected scores of local officials like Milwaukee mayor Emil Seidel. Some urban progressives even pushed to get rid of traditional democratic forms altogether. A number of cities were run by commissions of experts or city managers, who would be chosen on the basis of some demonstrated expertise or credential rather than their ability to hand out turkeys at Christmas or find jobs for your nephew’s sister’s cousin. Progressive editor Walter Lippman argued for applying modern scientific expertise to solve social problems in his 1914 book Drift and Mastery, writing that scientifically trained experts “could be trusted more fully than ordinary citizens to solve America’s deep social problems.” This tension between government by experts and increased popular democratic participation is one of the major contradictions of the Progressive era. The 17th amendment allowed for senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by state legislatures, and many states adopted primaries to nominate candidates, again taking power away from political parties and putting it in the hands of voters. And some states, particularly western ones like California adopted aspects of even more direct democracy, the initiative, which allowed voters to put issues on the ballot, and the referendum, which allows them to vote on laws directly. And lest you think that more democracy is always good, I present you with California. But many Progressives wanted actual policy made by experts who knew what was best for the people, not the people themselves. And despite primaries in direct elections of senators it’s hard to argue that the Progressive Era was a good moment for democratic participation, since many Progressives were only in favor of voting insofar as it was done by white, middle class, Protestant voters. Alright. Let’s Go to the Thought Bubble. Progressives limited immigrants’ participation in the political process through literacy tests and laws requiring people to register to vote. Voter registration was supposedly intended to limit fraud and the power of political machines. Stop me if any of this sounds familiar, but it actually just suppressed voting generally. Voting gradually declined from 80% of male Americans voting in the 1890s to the point where today only about 50% of eligible Americans vote in presidential elections. But an even bigger blow to democracy during the Progressive era came with the Jim Crow laws passed by legislatures in southern states, which legally segregated the South. First, there was the deliberate disenfranchisement of African Americans. The 15th amendment made it illegal to deny the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude but said nothing about the ability to read, so many Southern states instituted literacy requirements. Other states added poll taxes, requiring people to pay to vote, which effectively disenfranchised large numbers of African American people, who were disproportionately poor. The Supreme Court didn’t help: In 1896, it made one of its most famous bad decisions, Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that segregation in public accommodations, in Homer Plessy’s case a railroad car, did not violate the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection clause. As long as black railroad cars were equal to white ones, it was A-OK to have duplicate sets of everything. Now, creating two sets of equal quality of everything would get really expensive, so Southern states didn’t actually do it. Black schools, public restrooms, public transportation opportunities--the list goes on and on--would definitely be separate, and definitely not equal. Thanks, ThoughtBubble. Now, of course, as we’ve seen Progressive ideas inspired a variety of responses, both for Taylorism and against it, both for government by experts and for direct democracy. Similarly, in the Progressive era, just as the Jim Crow laws were being passed, there were many attempts to improve the lives of African Americans. The towering figure in this movement to “uplift” black southerners was Booker T. Washington, a former slave who became the head of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, a center for vocational education. And Washington urged southern black people to emphasize skills that could make them successful in the contemporary economy. The idea was that they would earn the respect of white people by demonstrating their usefulness and everyone would come to respect each other through the recognition of mutual dependence while continuing to live in separate social spheres. But Washington’s accommodationist stance was not shared by all African Americans. WEB DuBois advocated for full civil and political rights for black people and helped to found the NAACP, which urged African Americans to fight for their rights through “persistent, manly agitation.” So I wanted to talk about the Progressive Era today not only because it shows up on a lot of tests, but because Progressives tried to tackle many of the issues that we face today, particularly concerning immigration and economic justice, and they used some of the same methods that we use today: organization, journalistic exposure, and political activism. Now, we may use tumblr or tea party forums, but the same concerns motivate us to work together. And just as today, many of their efforts were not successful because of the inherent difficulty in trying to mobilize very different interests in a pluralistic nation. In some ways their platforms would have been better suited to an America that was less diverse and complex. But it was that very diversity and complexity that gave rise and still gives rise to the urge toward progress in the first place. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. You can suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course. If you like it, and if you’re watching the credits you probably do, make sure you’re subscribed. And as we say in my hometown don’t forget to be awesome...That was more dramatic than it sounded. Progressive Era -
The office of Prime Minister
Lord Salisbury was the second and last person to be head of government while not simultaneously holding the title of First Lord of the Treasury. It was said that there were some attempts to distinguish between the two offices, but in the century or more since, they have remained one and the same.
Trade reform
Balfour succeeded Salisbury as Prime Minister in 1902. Eventually, the Unionist government would falter after Chamberlain proposed his scheme for tariff reform, whose partial embrace by Balfour led to the resignation of the more orthodox free traders in the Cabinet.
Chinese miners in South Africa
After the conclusion of the Boer War, the British Government sought to rebuild the South African economy which had been devastated by the war. An important part of the rebuilding effort was to get the gold mines of the Witwatersrand, the richest in history and a major cause of the war, back in production as soon as possible. Because the government decreed that White labour was too expensive and Black labourers were reluctant to return to the mines,[1] the government decided to import over 60,000 contracted workers from China.[2]
This was deeply unpopular at the time, as popular opinion in much of the Western world, including Britain; was hostile to Chinese immigration. It also happened at a time when poverty and unemployment amongst working-class British people was at very high levels.[3] On 26 March 1904, a demonstration against Chinese immigration to South Africa was held in Hyde Park and was attended by 80,000 people. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress then passed a resolution declaring that:
That this meeting consisting of all classes of citizens of London, emphatically protests against the action of the Government in granting permission to import into South Africa indentured Chinese labour under conditions of slavery, and calls upon them to protect this new colony from the greed of capitalists and the Empire from degradation.
— Yap & Leong Man (1996, p. 107)
Fall from power
With his majority greatly reduced and defeat in the next election seeming inevitable, Balfour resigned as Prime Minister in December 1905, leading to the appointment of a minority Liberal government under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. In the general election which followed in 1906, all but three members of Balfour's Cabinet lost their seats, including Balfour himself.
Cabinets
Salisbury ministry
Salisbury ministries | |
---|---|
Unionist coalition of the United Kingdom | |
| |
Date formed |
|
Date dissolved |
|
People and organisations | |
Monarch |
|
Prime Minister | Lord Salisbury |
Prime Minister's history | 1895–1902 |
Member parties |
|
Status in legislature |
|
Opposition party | Liberal Party |
Opposition leaders |
|
History | |
Election(s) | |
Legislature term(s) | |
Predecessor | Rosebery ministry |
Successor | Balfour ministry |
June 1895 to November 1900
November 1900 to July 1902
In November 1900, the Cabinet was reformed for the first time.
Portfolio | Minister | Took office | Left office | Party | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The 3rd Marquess of Salisbury * | 25 June 1895 | 11 July 1902 | Conservative | ||
Arthur Balfour | 25 June 1895 | 4 December 1905 | Conservative | ||
Lord Chancellor | The Earl of Halsbury | 29 June 1895 | 4 December 1905 | Conservative | |
Lord President of the Council | The Duke of Devonshire | 29 June 1895 | 19 October 1903 | Liberal Unionist | |
Secretary of State for the Home Department | 12 November 1900 | 12 July 1902 | Conservative | ||
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs | 12 November 1900 | 4 December 1905 | Liberal Unionist | ||
Secretary of State for the Colonies | Joseph Chamberlain | 29 June 1895 | 16 September 1903 | Liberal Unionist | |
Secretary of State for War | 12 November 1900 | 6 October 1903 | Conservative | ||
Secretary of State for India | Lord George Hamilton | 4 July 1895 | 9 October 1903 | Conservative | |
First Lord of the Admiralty | 1900 | 1905 | Liberal Unionist | ||
Chancellor of the Exchequer | Sir Michael Hicks Beach | 29 June 1895 | 11 August 1902 | Conservative | |
President of the Board of Trade | 12 November 1900 | 12 March 1905 | Conservative | ||
President of the Local Government Board | 1900 | 1905 | Conservative | ||
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster | The Lord James of Hereford | 4 July 1895 | 11 August 1902 | Liberal Unionist | |
First Commissioner of Works | Aretas Akers-Douglas | 4 July 1895 | 11 August 1902 | Conservative | |
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland | The Earl Cadogan | 29 June 1895 | 11 August 1902 | Conservative | |
Lord Chancellor of Ireland | The Lord Ashbourne | 29 June 1895 | 1905 | Conservative | |
Secretary for Scotland | 29 June 1895 | 9 October 1903 | Conservative | ||
President of the Board of Agriculture | 16 November 1900 | 28 April 1903 | Conservative |
Balfour ministry
Balfour ministry | |
---|---|
1902–1905 | |
Date formed | 12 July 1902 |
Date dissolved | 4 December 1905 |
People and organisations | |
Monarch | Edward VII |
Prime Minister | Arthur Balfour |
Member parties | |
Status in legislature | Majority (coalition) |
Opposition party | Liberal Party |
Opposition leaders |
|
History | |
Legislature term(s) | 27th UK Parliament |
Predecessor | Fourth Salisbury ministry |
Successor | Campbell-Bannerman ministry |
Portfolio | Minister | Took office | Left office | Party | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
* | 12 July 1902 | 4 December 1905 | Conservative | ||
Lord Chancellor | 29 June 1895 | 4 December 1905 | Conservative | ||
29 June 1895 | 19 October 1903 | Liberal Unionist | |||
Lord President of the Council | 19 October 1903 | 11 December 1905 | Conservative | ||
Leader of the House of Lords | 13 October 1903 | 4 December 1905 | Liberal Unionist | ||
Secretary of State for the Home Department | 12 July 1902 | 5 December 1905 | Conservative | ||
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs | The Marquess of Lansdowne | 12 November 1900 | 4 December 1905 | Liberal Unionist | |
Secretary of State for the Colonies | 29 June 1895 | 16 September 1903 | Liberal Unionist | ||
11 October 1903 | 4 December 1905 | Liberal Unionist | |||
Secretary of State for War | 12 November 1900 | 6 October 1903 | Conservative | ||
6 October 1903 | 4 December 1905 | Liberal Unionist | |||
Secretary of State for India | 4 July 1895 | 9 October 1903 | Conservative | ||
St John Brodrick | 9 October 1903 | 4 December 1905 | Conservative | ||
First Lord of the Admiralty | 1900 | 1905 | Liberal Unionist | ||
Chancellor of the Exchequer | 11 August 1902 | 9 October 1903 | Conservative | ||
9 October 1903 | 4 December 1905 | Liberal Unionist | |||
President of the Board of Trade | 12 November 1900 | 12 March 1905 | Conservative | ||
12 March 1905 | 4 December 1905 | Conservative | |||
Secretary for Scotland | 29 June 1895 | 9 October 1903 | Conservative | ||
9 October 1903 | 2 February 1905 | Conservative | |||
2 February 1905 | 4 December 1905 | Conservative | |||
Chief Secretary for Ireland | 9 November 1900 | 12 March 1905 | Conservative | ||
12 March 1905 | 4 December 1905 | Conservative | |||
President of the Local Government Board | Walter Long | 1900 | 1905 | Conservative | |
Gerald Balfour | 1905 | 11 December 1905 | Conservative | ||
President of the Board of Agriculture | 16 November 1900 | 28 April 1903 | Conservative | ||
President of the Board of Education | The Marquess of Londonderry | 11 August 1902 | 4 December 1905 | Conservative | |
Lord Chancellor of Ireland | 29 June 1895 | 1905 | Conservative | ||
First Commissioner of Works | 11 August 1902 | 4 December 1905 | Conservative | ||
Postmaster General | Austen Chamberlain | 11 August 1902 | 9 October 1903 | Liberal Unionist |
Changes
- May 1903 – Lord Onslow succeeds Robert William Hanbury at the Board of Agriculture.
- September to October 1903 –
- Lord Londonderry succeeds the Duke of Devonshire as Lord President. Londonderry remains President of the Board of Education.
- Lord Lansdowne succeeds Devonshire as Leader of the House of Lords. Lansdowne remains Foreign Secretary.
- Lord Salisbury succeeds Arthur Balfour as Lord Privy Seal.
- Austen Chamberlain succeeds Charles Ritchie at the Exchequer. Chamberlain's successor as Postmaster General is not in the Cabinet.
- Alfred Lyttelton succeeds Joseph Chamberlain as Colonial Secretary.
- St John Brodrick succeeds Lord George Hamilton as Secretary for India.
- H. O. Arnold-Forster succeeds Brodrick as Secretary for War.
- Andrew Graham-Murray succeeds Lord Balfour of Burleigh as Secretary for Scotland.
- March 1905 –
- Walter Hume Long succeeds George Wyndham as Irish Secretary.
- Gerald Balfour succeeds Long at the Local Government Board.
- Lord Salisbury succeeds Balfour at the Board of Trade. Salisbury remains Lord Privy Seal.
- Lord Cawdor succeeds Lord Selborne at the Admiralty.
- Ailwyn Fellowes succeeds Lord Onslow at the Board of Agriculture.
List of ministers
Notes
- ^ The position of Prime Minister was not a formal ministerial office.
- ^ a b c Also served as Leader of the House of Lords.
- ^ Halsbury was created the 1st Earl of Halsbury on 19 January 1898.
- ^ Devonshire also served as Leader of the House of Lords from 12 July 1902 to 13 October 1903.
- ^ Lansdowne also served as Leader of the House of Lords from 13 October 1903 to 4 December 1905
- ^ Cranborne succeeded as the 4th Marquess of Salisbury on 22 August 1903.
- ^ Londonderry entered the Cabinet on 7 November 1900.
- ^ Office abolished on 8 August 1902 and replaced by that of Secretary to the Board of Education.
- ^ Carmarthen succeeded as the 10th Duke of Leeds on 23 December 1895.
- ^ Office abolished in 1900.
References
- ^ Yap & Leong Man 1996, p. 104.
- ^ Yap & Leong Man 1996, p. 103.
- ^ Yap & Leong Man 1996, p. 107.
- ^ a b Englefield, Seaton & White 1995, p. 412.
Sources
- Cook, Chris; Keith, Brendan (1975). British Historical Facts: 1830–1900 (first ed.). Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-1-349-01348-7.
- Butler, David; Butler, Gareth (2010). British Political Facts (tenth ed.). Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-0-230-29318-2.
- Englefield, Dermot; Seaton, Janet; et al. (1995). Facts About the British Prime Ministers. Mansell. ISBN 978-0-7201-2306-7.
- Tout, T. F. (1910). An Advanced History of Great Britain from the Earliest Times to the Death of Edward Vii. New York: Longmans, Green. pp. 740–741. OL 13991885M.
- Yap, Melanie; Leong Man, Dainne (1996). Colour, Confusion and Concessions: The History of the Chinese in South Africa. Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 978-962-209-424-6.