HC Deb 17 February 1904 vol 130 cc80-128

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [16th February] to Main Question [2nd February],"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

"Most Gracious Sovereign,

"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Hardy.)

Which Amendment was— At the end of the Question to add the words, 'And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that it is highly inexpedient that sanction should be given to any Ordinance permitting the introduction of indentured Chinese labourers into the Transvaal Colony until the approval of the colonists has been formally ascertained—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.")

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."


said this was one of those occasions which only occurred once or twice in a Parliamentary lifetime when a Member considered it one of his greatest privileges to address the House of Commons. He now lifted up his voice to protest against the violation, contained in this Ordinance, of all the Parliamentary traditions which made this country great, and which made it a refuge for the weak and the oppressed. When the House automatically adjourned ho was asking the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary who in this case was the master; he, the right hon. Gentleman, or his official subordinate, Lord Milner. He had come to the conclusion that, with regard to this slave policy, Lord Milner was the prime mover. It was unfortunate that the Colonial Secretary should have leapt at one bound to his present position and more unfortunate still, that he should have as his official subordinate a person of the somewhat unscrupulous character of Lord Milner, who wa3 controlled and dominated in this slave policy by the millionaires of South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman was appointed to the Colonial Office when Lord Milner had declined that position which the Prime Minister had begged him to accept in a manner hardly worthy of himself. Lord Milner then went to South Africa, and a gentleman very well known at the Bar, but not very well known in this House, was set up here as his mouthpiece. He did not wish to say anything unamiable in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, but if he said that, in this case, he was a creature of Lord Milner's he was not very far wrong; if he said that Lord Milner himself was the creature of the millionaire capitalists of South Africa he was very much in the right. The hon. Member for the Stowmarket Division who spoke first in the debate that afternoon, had made use of an observation which had started him on a train of thought. The hon. Member for Stowmarket drew attention to the fact that when the House assembled, and before public business commenced, and before Mr. Speaker took the chair, we had prayers and thanksgiving to Almighty God, and a prayer that we might arrive at our conclusions without fear, favour, or misgiving. Those words were spoken by a dignitary of the Church, whose voice they loved to hear, and whose grandfather was the great slave emancipator. When William Wilberforce stood up in this House at the time of the Union and demanded the emancipation of the slaves he did not get a voice to support him, but when seven years later, after the Union was effected, he carried the Emancipation Act he carried it with the help of an Irish majority, and he (Mr. MacNeill) was proud to belong to a nation which had always been found ready to fight on the side of freedom and humanity. The Transvaal was a new colony and new colonies he always noticed were given mottoes. In 1858 when our Indian Dependency became a British Dependency they took for their motto "Heaven be our guide" and that motto was fulfilled when the right hon. Gentleman opposite became Secretary of State for India. He now thought of presenting to the Colonial Secretary a motto for the Transvaal. The right hon. Gentleman was a scholar and came from a family of scholars and he would have given him the motto in Latin, but for the benefit of the House he would give it in the vulgar tongue. The motto for this colony, in view of this slave Ordinance, should be "The smell of gain from any source is sweet."

He had endeavoured, unsuccessfully, no doubt because he was not acute Parliamentarian enough, to get a disorderly Question past the Clerk at the Table, to elucidate this matter for the benefit of the House. He would now say this, that Lord Milner, not personally, but officially, was and must necessarily be, very much influenced in his capacity as administrator of South Africa by capitalist considerations. The late Mr. Rhodes made a will. In this will there was a disposition of £14,000,000, £7,000,000 were invested in Transvaal mines. Lord Milner was one of the executors and trustees under that will. If Lord Milner did not regard the welfare of the mines he would be disregarding the trusts of Mr. Rhodes' will. First of all he was a great administrator in which capacity he had to lower rents and see that there was a living wage for the white man. Then as executor of Mr. Rhodes' will, it was his duty to raise rents, and join hands with the capitalists of South Africa. Lord Milner had every possible defect there could be in a Governor. He was associated by sympathy and by interest as executor of Mr. Rhodes with Transvaal mines. In consequence he was carrying on his Ministry in South Africa not in favour of the poor but of the rich, not in favour of the British working man but of the Park Lane millionaire. He recollected the cheers that greeted the mover of the Amendment, when, in his masterly speech, he pointed out how the effect of the importation of the Chinese labourer would be to keep out of the Transvaal English, Scotch, and Irish working men, and asked, "Is this what we get for the war?" Henry Grattan always said— I never argue with a prophet because I always disbelieve him, He was a poor successor of a great Hebrew prophet, but he remembered four years previously making a prophecy with regard to the South African war and what it meant, and being greatly rejoiced when The Times the next day had a stinging article on "The Calumnies of Mr. Swift MacNeill." Those words of four years ago were fulfilled because, as everybody knew in their hearts, they were true, but he was much rejoiced when he saw the tons of ink expended by the yellow-press scribblers in abuse of him, and when he became the theme of every Jingo drunkard in every Jingo music hall. During the course of the debate it had been clearly seen that the great contest going on between the Members of the Treasury Bench and the opposite side of the House was as to which of two trails should lay over South Africa. The Treasury Bench said the trail of finance should have the advantage, while those upon the Opposition side said that the trail of trades unionism, which gave everybody an equal opportunity of earning a fair wage, should be the dominant factor. The great secret of the immortality of Shakespeare was that he saw that the methods of the base were the same from age to age; that he saw that men were affected by the same passions in all ages, that despite the march of civilisation men were affected by the same aspirations, the same passions, the same vices, as they were in the days of old; and when he saw, in the course of this debate, the motives which guided the actions of men, he was constrained to say that they were the same which led to the Irish Members being brought to this House by the Act of Union. He had stated, so far as he could, in succinct language, the condition of Johannesburg today when Lord Milner was in full power— The one desire of the people of Johannesburg was to maintain their independence and preserve their public liberty without which life was not worth living. The Government denied them this and violated the national sense of Englishmen at every turn. Was that true? He thought so, but when those words were written they were regarded as being as false as the Piggott forgeries. He took that extract from "the women and children's letter" at the time of the Jameson Raid. That was the means by which the war was begun and by which they came to the present state of things.

His hon. friend the Member for the Stowmarket Division had said that, in this matter of Chinese labour, he had the courage of his convictions and was prepared to face his constituents. A more noted person, the hon. Member for Dulwich, although he had said nothing of the kind, had taken an even stronger course, because, in a placard a copy of which was shown in the lobby on the previous day and with which his constituency was placarded, he said— If anybody says that Dr. Rutherfoord Harris will vote for Chinese labour in the Trans vaal it is a lie. It was to the highest degree repellent and abhorrent to civilised men that any human being, however debased he might be, should, for the sake of metallic gain to others, be placed in a degraded position. These imported Chinese labourers would be placed in that position. This Ordinance was one of the most shocking documents that had ever emanated from the brain of man, and he had no hesitation in saying that the condition of these Chinese labourers under the British law would be degrees more horrible than the condition of slavery which existed in the old days. Above all, there was one thing in the Ordinance which, in the debate, had not been brought out so clearly as it might have been. These men were to be allowed to acquire no property and to have no power of bettering themselves, they were to be as machines, and what was more, it was supported from that Treasury Bench in this Christian and Bible-loving England where Biblical expressions and quotations rose spontaneously to our lips, in this Christian England which boasted of thirty generations of Christian children they were told by the Treasury Bench that one of the conditions, in the regulations, was to be that these men were to have idols of brass made in Birmingham from whence many a foul fetish had come before for worship. Some of the most devoted of public men that he had ever known had suffered martyrdom in their desire to spread Christianity in China. What would our successors say if we allowed these poor Chinese to have brass idols made in Birmingham, for the purposes of worship, in order to give more money to Messrs. Beit and Eckstein and Swindleheim and Co. The first debate on the Address had been a fiscal debate, the second had been a slavery debate. He had made his protest; he was thankful he had had the privilege to do so. He had been eighteen years in this House and God forbid that if he lived another eighteen years and was here at the time when any such question as this arose again, he should not rise in his place and protest to the uttermost against such a course as was now proposed to be taken.

* MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.)

said it was absolutely superfluous for him to defend Lord Milner, whose great public services were universally recognised, from the attacks of the hon. Member for Donegal. He ventured to think that hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on the other side of the House had ignored, or had taken insufficient account of two important factors in this problem. The first was the resolution of the Bloemfontein Conference in March of last year. Those gentlemen who talked about hurry and hustle on the part of the Government seemed to think that nothing had been done in South Africa before the Ordinance was passed by the Legislative Council. He asked permission to read the resolution on the native question passed by that Conference on 19th March, 1903, which showed how definite the opinion was in South Africa— That this Conference, after considering ail available statistics, and hearing the reports of the highest official authorities of the several States, has come to the conclusion that the native population of Africa south of the Zambesi does not comprise a sufficient number of adult males, capable of work, to satisfy the normal requirements of the several colonies, and at the same time furnish an adequate amount of labour for the large mining centres. Under these circumstances, it is evident to the Conference that the opening up of new sources of labour supply is requisite in the interests of all the South African States. Who were the members of that Conference? They consisted of delegates and advisers from all the four colonies in South Africa—self-governing and Crown colonies delegates and advisers from Rhodesia, and one delegate from Portuguese East Africa, Mr. Lencastre. The resolution was passed, as he had said, on 19th March last, and no protest was entered to show that any individual dissented from its conclusions. [An HON. MEMBER: Did they recommend Chinese labour?] They recommended sources of labour other than African. What was the inference from that? He passed from that point to the point raised by the hon. Member for Clare,who said that the labour representatives would soon demonstrate what a cruel, heartbreaking, miserable thing this scheme for introducing Chinese labour into South Africa was. Well, the House had listened with respect and attention to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wansbeck Division, who said that he had received information from many persons, who had gone from Northumberland to the Transvaal, stating that they were against Chinese labour. But, at all events, the reports from the Transvaal were not by any means unanimous. He held in his hand a newspaper called the Labour Leader, which, he believed, was the organ of the Labour Representation Committee.

MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydfil)

said, as a matter of right, he wished to state that the Labour Leader never was the organ of, and did not represent, the Labour Representation Committee It was his personal property, and under his own charge.


said that the Labour Leader was, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil stated, edited by him at all events and he was assisted by two gentlemen, Mr. Philip Snowden and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, who, he believed, were Labour candidates. That paper, brought out under these auspices, contained the following sentences in an article called— 'The Socialist Outlook in the Transvaal,' by 'Our Rand Correspondent':—'A large portion of the Uitlander working class regard the Labour Party's cheap white remedy as far worse than the Chinese disease.' The other sentence he would read was more material and important, and appeared under the sub-title— 'Chinese, or low paid whites'. We have what is probably the larger portion of Rand working men in favour of Chinese for unskilled work. and further down, the writer continued— The average miner rather prefers to be safe from competition by having Chinese, under legislative enactment, than by having a huge number of unskilled whites, gradually becoming skilled, to step into his shoes. He thought he had shown that the Labour Party was not agreed on this question.

He came now to his second point. He thought that his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary must have satisfied everyone on that side of the House, except the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Wight, that South Africa was not a white man's country. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL BENCHES: No.] Well, at all events it was not a white man's country in the same sense that the United States or our own Colonies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were white men's countries. If any hon. Member doubted that, he would quote Mr. Moor, Secretary for Native Affairs in Natal, and one of the delegates of Natal to the Conference in Bloemfontein, whose resolution he had recited. That Gentleman stated that in South Africa the coloured population was six to one of white men, in his own colony the proportion was still greater, viz., ten to one. It was true that in South Africa there were one or two dying races, the Hottentots and Bushmen, but the situation in other respects was far different from that in the United States, where the red man was now practically extinct, from Australia where the Aborigines were practically extinct, and from New Zealand where the Maoris were fast going. In South Africa every variety of the Bantu tribes seemed to increase in proximity to the white races at the most astonishing rate. The rate was not less rapid than that of the negroes in the United States. If that were so, they could never expect to have South Africa a white man's country, in the sense that New Zealand and Australia were white men's countries. What of India? India was not a white man's country, although it was the brightest jewel in the crown of England, and many Englishmen went there to work. South Africa was, in regard to black and coloured labour in an intermediate position between India on the one hand and Australia on the other. But it was an essential factor in the problem that the supply of labour was insufficient. Already additional labour had been brought into the country from India. Why draw a distinction between black labour and yellow labour? He believed that there was a suggestion that Indian labour in Natal was regarded by the inhabitants in that colony as unsatisfactory; but if hon. Gentlemen would refer to the report of the Bloemfontein Conference they would see that the Prime Minister of Natal, Sir Albert Hime, moved a Resolution to the following effect— That in the opinion of this Conference the permanent settlement in South Africa of Asiatic races would be injurious, and should not be permitted; but that, if industrial development positively requires it, the introduction of unskilled Asiatic labourers, under a system of Government control providing for the indenturing of such labourers and their repatriation at the termination of their indentures, should be permissible. An Amendment was proposed to that resolution which began— That this Conference is of opinion that South Africa is essentially a white man's country, but it was abandoned and merged in the resolution, which he had quoted at the outset, in regard to the introduction of non-African labour. Could anything be clearer than that? Even in South Africa it was fully recognised that it was not a white man's country. [An HON. MEMBER: Is that Lord Milner's view?] He did not know, he was only concerned with the fact that the Bloemfontein Conference, which was presided over by Lord Milner, passed the resolution he had read, and that it was recorded without protest. He now came to the last portion of the second point—"Were the Chinese worse than other people?" Perhaps he had seen as much of the Chinese people as most hon. Members in the House—in their own country, in San Francisco, and elsewhere—and he had seen no evidence to show that the Chinese were worse than any European or Asiatic nation. He would venture to refer to the opinion of a gentleman whom he had met on board a steamer, who for a long time was a member of the Legislative Council and a planter in a West Indian colony. That gentleman told him that in the province of Demerara the Chinese formed an excellent part of the population, that they were superior to other immigrants, that they were orderly and well conducted, and that they equipped and maintained their Christian churches better than the other members of the community. He would quote another great authority, the celebrated American missionary to China, Dr. Wells Williams. That gentleman, who had lived forty-three years in China and wrote the standard book on China, entitled "The Middle Kingdom," said, after referring to the religious characteristics of Chinamen— To these traits of Chinese character may be added the preservative features of their regard for parents and superiors, and their general peaceful industry. If there be any connection between the former of these virtues and the promise attached to the Fifth Commandment, That thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, then the long duration of the Chinese people and the Empire is a stupendous monument of the good effects of a partial obedience to the law of God by those who only, had it inscribed on their hearts, and not written in their hands. He would give one other corroboration of the evidence as to the value and merit of the Chinese. Some twenty years ago Mr. Seward, bearing a name honoured among American statesmen, who subsequently became American Minister at Pekin, set himself to write a book on the effects of Chinese immigration into California, and bore testimony to the splendid work which the Chinese did in the mining towns of the Pacific slope. Their labour compared favourably with that of the Cornish minors. His hon. and gallant friend sitting behind him, who was intimately connected with Canada, had told him that many parts of Canada could not have been built up without the assistance of Chinese labour. It had been said that wherever Chinese had been introduced, the step had been followed by deplorable results; but that might be alleged of any place where men were herded together. The Colonial Secretary had told the House that statutory permission would be given for these men to bring their wives with them, and that would prevent any evil results following. Those who knew anything about China were aware that in China a man could only have one legal wife. There was some recognition of regularised concubines, but it was to be inferred that the Colonial Secretary would exclude these from the Transvaal. He ventured to express the belief that the provisions which had been made by way of safeguard would entirely obviate the evils which had been brought to his notice a few days ago, and which made him doubt whether he should vote on this occasion. The letter of the Bishop of Worcester to The Times and the speeches of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Rochester had made him regard this as a most serious matter, and he had gone so far as to tell one of the Whips that his vote could not be relied on on this occasion. However, he had gone into the matter very carefully, and he believed that there was no danger at all. He should vote for the Government. A gentleman in the Indian Civil Service told him how recruits were enlisted for the Assam tea gardens. They were led to believe that they would have good wages and an easy time; but when they went to Assam, they found that they had to sign a contract involving onerous conditions of which they had previously no idea. That would not be the case with the Chinese because a certificate would not be granted to the person importing them unless an officer were fully satisfied that they understood the conditions. He would vote for the Government because he believed that this movement need only betemporary, because it was urgently necessary, and because if they hampered or delayed the Government they would be retarding the development of an important part of the British Empire.

SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I will, with the permission of the House, state briefly the reasons for my vote, which I am indisposed to give silently. In passing, I should like to notice the peculiar position in which the House finds it-self, this week, as contrasted with that of last week. Last week we were blamed for bringing a question before the House which necessarily involved a vote of want of confidence in the Government; now the same position, which then we were told was wrong, is forced on the House by the action of the Colonial Secretary. It was certainly understood at the commencement of this session that the House was to have what is called an independent opportunity of discussing this question upon its own merits—a question, I venture to say, which is one of the gravest which has been submitted to the House for a long series of years. For some reason or other the Government have come to the conclusion that the Party whip must be applied in this case, and that to this question must be superadded the question which we had to discuss last week, as to the confidence or want of confidence in His Majesty's present advisers. I am not going to argue the question on one side or the other. I admit it is a sub- jet beset with difficulties, I admit that circumstances have arisen over which this House certainly has at present no control, circumstances, to which I will not refer as far as their past history is concerned, which confront us with serious economical difficulty in South Africa. I will not argue whether objections or arguments are well or ill-founded, I care not whether there can or cannot be obtained sufficient labour under existing circumstances, I care not whether the mines can be carried on at a profit or not. I venture to say that in my opinion, (which is not perhaps worth very much), applying myself to the figures and history of the case, I do not believe in the assertion that the mines cannot be carried on at a profit unless recourse is had to the system now proposed. I think the House has to deal with this subject on a higher plane than on the question of what, in the next twelve months, the profits or the losses of the mining industry in South Africa may become, with respect to which one speaker, before the adjournment, told the House that there were hundreds of millions of pounds worth of gold available in this district. But the question on which I am going to ask the House to vote is—Whether they will sanction the introduction into one part of the King's dominions of slavery. We have heard a good deal in the last two or three years of the glories and the successes and the wonders of the nineteenth century, but I venture to think that Englishmen of to-day, and I am quite sure Englishmen of the future, will look back upon one act of the century as that of which English posterity may be for ever proud—the legislation under which this House and this country resolved, at what was then a great pecuniary sacrifice, to wipe out the stain and the blot and the crime of slavery from the whole British Empire. I think this is the first time since the great Act of 1833 was passed that we have been asked in the British House of Commons to sanction a system which is—I will not say the first step, but something beyond the first step—in the direction of the re-introduction of slavery in this Empire. I have heard arguments used to-night some derogatory to the character of the Chinese, and some commendatory of the character of the Chinese, but I put that on one side altogether—whether they are good or bad, whether the introduction of a people with their habits or vices would be a great disadvantage or a great advantage to the labour market in South Africa. But even if the Ordinance be modified by the regulations which the Colonial Secretary is to make, whatever form those regulations may take, these men are bound to be, in the words used, I think, by the Chines, Ambassador, goods and chattels. I care not whether the Chinese possess all the virtues or all the vices; they are men, and when they have gone into South Africa they will be the subjects of the British Crown, and under that rule, at all events until the present period, we have always been taught to believe that no slavery could exist, and that, as Lord Mansfield said, the very breath of air on British soil meant perfect freedom to all men.

We have heard a great deal as to what would be done if this were a self-governing colony. I submit that that is perfectly irrelevant. I think the British Parliament is not entitled to allow, and would have no moral justification for allowing, any colony which called itself a British colony to introduce slavery into its midst. The great Ameri an Republic was broken up on that ground. There you had independent States claiming their right to allow slavery, and certainly a good deal was to be said in favour of their claim from the constitutional standpoint. But, although these States were in a totally different position from any self-governing colony of ours, the great American people would not allow their independence to protect the institution o slavery; and the ultimate issue of the great war which took place in consequence, was the question of the existence or non-existence of slavery. We have this corresponding duty to all parts of our Empire. That is the ground on which I shall give my vote. I believe that among the very wise sayings of that wisest of statesmen and writers, Mr. Burke, one of the most pregnant and one which ought to be held supreme in this House and in the councils of those who guide it was his declaration that— Whatever is morally wrong can never be politically right. I would put another point before I sit down. An hon. Member this evening encouraged us not to be afraid of what he called the terrors of the Episcopal or the Nonconformist conscience. Well, that hon. Member will find, and the Government-and the House will find, that the Episcopal and the Nonconformist conscience constitute together a power in this country that cannot be ignored. We may depend upon it that, if this ill-timed and ill-advised measure is allowed to proceed with the sanction of the House of Commons, you will have turned over a new page in the history of this country and you will see the beginning of an agitation which will last for years, until this stain is wiped off our Statute-book. Looking forward to the future, as well as remembering the past, I would urge the House to put aside all this question of confidence or no confidence in the illustrious body of men who at present preside over the destinies of this country. Never mind whether they are the greatest or the wisest statesmen who ever lived; never mind matters which are mere trifles in comparison with what would be a lasting disgrace to the House of Commons and the country.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

said that whether the House realised it or not, he believed, after thirteen years of Parliamentary experience, that this was the most momentous debate he had ever heard, and one which would probably mark an epoch in the relations between the Colonies and this country unless the Ordinance was revoked. In his judgment the debate raised a question of even greater importance than the question of the Jameson Raid or even the costly war which was created by the raid. Both the raid and the war were the result of wealth, and were the consequence of money taking the place of government, and commercial pro-consuls with German names governing Africa in the interest of the Jews. The question was whether or not they should again, in the history of the world, have human subjectiveness to money and human degradation in the interests of wealth, and whether this old country, which had its face towards the light more than any other country on God's earth, should tear up the charter of Wilberforce, and should, in the interests of the most profitable and most unscrupulously managed of any industry, revive slavery in some of its worst forms. When that issue was submitted to the British working man he promised that the Conservative workman in Liverpool, the Orange workman in Belfast, the Nationalist workman in Dublin, and the Tory workman in London would vote on this question without either politics or religion influencing their decision, and that they would sweep away every man on the Benches opposite who, at the instance of an unscrupulous gang of foreign capitalists, had made Lord Milner their tool and the Government their medium. The Ordinance connoted the corrupt influence of those capitalists whom Dr. Johnson must have had in his mind when he said that "patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel." It also denoted another milestone on the Jingo rake's progress. First it was protection, then it was prescription, and now it was slavery. He had spent his life in helping the poor, the unskilled and the unorganised in his own country, and, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary would give his views on the Ordinance. They had no right whatever, on a subject of such moment, to the race, the Empire, and the country, to speak from the narrow view of labour or the sectional view of trades unionism. They should not forget their duties as Members of Parliament, who had a right to protest against indentured labour and against the Chinese slavery which the Ordinance safe-guarded. He had no prejudice against the Chinaman. His virtues, not his vices, were to be exploited to his own detriment and to the white man's undoing, by men who were not as virtuous as the Chinaman they sought to use. As to the Chinaman's morality, it was comparable to the morality of drunkard Rhodesians from Throgmorton Street, who, on Friday night at the Covent Garden ball, in the presence of Inspector French, displayed more disgusting immorality than he himself had ever seen in Chinatown, San Francisco. He did not protest against the Chinaman as a Chinaman, but he protested against 10,000 men of any nationality being violently dumped down in the heart of any community at the instance of Sir George Farrar. Mr. Phillips, Mr. Beit, and other patriots who sung "God save the King" in broken English, and wanted an interpreter for the top notes. Those men were to be dumped down in South Africa because their character and susceptibilities were such that, collectively, they could be used to violently drag down the standard of life and comfort, and incidentally the standard of the morality of the community, into which they had been projected.

The Colonies were against this Ordinance. Mr. Deakin, Mr. Seddon, and all white Australia were opposed to it. In March, 1903, Sir George Farrar's own miners passed a resolution dead against it. Mr. Mather, to whom the Colonial Secretary had referred as being in favour of the I importation of Chinese labour, was present at that meeting and appealed for fairness for Sir George Farrar, who made a strong and vigorous speech against the importation. If he had changed his views he was not the only one who had done so. Lord Milner, up to 1903, was against it, and he did not believe that the late Colonial Secretary could be quoted in favour of it. White labour in South Africa was also against it. Meetings had been held and petitions adopted against it, and there was a celebrated meeting to which 500 miners were sent at 15s. a head to howl down speakers who denounced Chinese labour; but these men in their hearts did not want it. Both organised and unorganised labour was opposed to it. Who were for it? Ex-Jameson raiders, mine-owners, and official members of the Legislative Council. What did the Colonial Secretary say about it himself? He had only one plea, and that was necessity which knows no law. He gave them a long, ingenious, subtle legal argument, but that was the only plea it contained, and that was the plea with which the thief was confronted every day of his life. Necessity was that which stood between all of us, and that declension which marked us off from being honest men. But our forebears did not allow necessity to weigh with them when they gave £20,000,000 for emancipation. If only hon. Members could see, as he had seen on both the East and West Coasts of Africa, our gunboats chasing Arab dhows and our sailors working their very hearts out in pursuit of slave raiders, and with the object of saving human souls, they would hesitate to accept the plea of necessity. Where was the necessity? There were 120 gold mining companies, with £57,000,000 of capital, and a value of £174,000,000, and in the last few years they had payed £20,000,000 in dividends, ranging from 5 to 187 per cent. Necessity knew no law. Greed knew no limitation. The Colonial Secretary had told them there were 30,000 natives short, and he had insisted, on that ground, that the opposition to the proposal should drop. The question of submitting the point to a referendum had been raised. Well as to a referendum, on the question of slavery he would not have dictation from any colony. He did not care whether there was a referendum or not. If there were one the mine-owners would manipulate it and it would be corrupt. It would be one appealing to greed and to the lowest feelings, and the men would be told to vote for it because it would be the salvation of Africa. If they were to have Chinese labour in South Africa let them have it direct from the Colonial Secretary and after a long discussion in Parliament. Who were the Commissioners they were supposed to respect? Four out of the seven of the majority on the Commission were ex-Jameson raiders—men who confessed to being either liars, forgers, or conspirators, and he refused to accept their dictum. Others were officials of the big companies—men who in the pursuit of wealth had resorted to raids, rebellion, bribery, and even war in the interests of protection and slavery. He refused to accept them on any ground.

But was there any necessity for this? Mr. Birchenough a gentleman, who stood well in the councils of the Colonial Office, in his report said that during the last few years the native recruiting returns had been decidedly satisfactory, and January and February of this year had been equal in production to the best months of 1898. There was reason to believe that, before another twelve months had passed, things would be restored to the high level which obtained before the war. Then there was Mr. Grant, than whom nobody knew more about South Africa. He declared before the Commission that the effect of the ill-judged reduction of wages had been to stop the return of the natives to the mines and the difficulty had been accentuated by the war, the natives not having spent their earnings during the war and there being plenty of work in the re-erection of farm buildings. Sir Godfrey Lagden and other gentlemen of experience testified to the same effect, and declared that when the native?—many of whom earned per day during the war as much as six times what our soldiers who were fighting our battle?, earned—had spent their savings they would go back to the mines, and matters would readjust themselves. Mr. Grant went further and declared that some of the shortage of labour had been deliberately arranged by the mine-ownera themselves in order to support their claim for the importation of Chinese labour. Then a question had arisen as to the treatment of the Chinese on their passage to South Africa. Evidently there was feared a repetition of the horrors of the Middle Passage, and he was anxiously awaiting the letter from the Chinese Minister. What did the Ordinance seek to do? It proposed to do that which was never done in the history of slavery in the West Indies. This Ordinance was like a bill of lading for billets or railway sleepers. The negro slave in America was never treated as these Chinese were to be treated. He was not made to live in a compound, Part prison and part hospital, while a company made huge profits out of him by selling him rotten meal and deceased mealies, and by subjecting him to loathsome conditions. When the American negro had completed his day's task he was free to do as he liked, to go to his chapel or to his market and to indulge in games. When he was on the West Coast of Africa he had some experience of Kroomen and Kaffirs and he found them honest, loyal, clean, and industrious. If they occasionally indulged in more wives than one, well they only followed the example of our impecunious peers who married American heiresses in order that they might keep them. These poor fellows were treated like human beings. But the Chinese who were to be imported into South Africa would not be so treated. These were to be bound over for three years instead of for six months only, they would be kept in a compound and would receive probably 8d. or 9d. a day and their rations.

He ventured to assert that if the African natives had been treated properly there would have been no shortage of labour. The Colonial Secretary had quoted Canon Scott Holland's description of labour in South Africa, but let them read his articles in the Christian Commonwealth and he did not think they would find the Canon was in favour of compound labour. Of course when a Member of the House went to Kimberley he was invited to visit the De Beer's compounds. A carriage met him at the station, a nice luncheon awaited him at the other end. The compound had been smartened up, boys came out in their festive garb, but let them only go behind the scenes. Everyone knew what these De Beers compounds really were; in spite of what credulous high Church parsons and more credulous low-grade politicians might say, they would find both illness and brutality. Look at the alarming death rate. They had a series of companies making profits varying from 5 to 187 per cent., in addition to a profit of from 20 to 40 per cent. by the truck system, and by supplying rotten meal and diseased mealies. Last year in Great Britain one miner per 1,000 was killed; and in Kimberley 12 per 1,000. In the Rand compounds the death-rate was 70 per 1,000 and in some cases 106 Why we had nearly half a million of British soldiers engaged in the war for 3½ years, and the death-rate so long as the war lasted was only 38 per 1,000. Out of 58,250 natives employed there were 3,085 deaths in nine months. This was the reason natives, Kaffirs, Zulus, and Lobengula boys would not accept the work, and chief after chief had declared their boys should not go to the mines to be killed or brutalised as they had been. In one ease which had been quoted there had been 24 deaths among only 1,600 boys in 9 months. Remove the causes of excessive mortality, treat the natives fairly, and their labour would return. Of the deaths 48 per cent. were caused by bad food, largely consisting of condemned Government stores. Look at the death rate and the causes of the deaths, 12 per cent. were described as from scurvy; why, among the 800,000 British miners he had failed to discover that one death had arisen from scurvy. Many deaths were due to diarrhoea and similar diseases, indeed 48 per cent. might be attributed to stinking meat, rotten mealies, bad cooking, bad attendance in hospital, and the filthy disgusting purgatives administered to the poor creatures continuously one week before they left the compounds to return to their native land.

If the Colonial Secretary wanted to stop the shortage of native labour he would tell him how to do it. The labourers should be given better house accommodation, better food, fires in their compounds, better ventilated quarters, more air space, clean drinking water in the mines, and proper sanitation, and the sale to them of mealies from condemned Government stores should be stopped. The statement of the Colonial Secretary with regard to the whites refusing to work with blacks was exaggerated. Whites could and ought to be increasingly used in South Africa on the railways, municipalities, handy work, and many other branches of labour now performed by natives. Black and white men worked together in America; they did not work in the same companies, but they worked in different regiments; they worked together on hundreds of ships, and they could be induced to work together more in South Africa if wages were raised. He had himself worked with black men, and the more he had had to do with them the more he had respected them. The reason of the difficulty about their working together was that one section was played off against the other to the common discomfiture and detriment. If white labour was introduced to a greater extent into the mines this objection would gradually disappear. That it was disappearing was shown by the fact that whereas before the war there were 100,000 natives and 10,000 white men in the mines, there were now 68,000 blacks and 13,000 whites, a proof that when necessity compelled the thing could be done. It wag true that white men who went to South Africa were showing an indifference to honest labour. He deprecated the fact, but whose fault was it? Modern Imperialism appeared to have only two results—to make chronic loafers abroad and "little loafers" at home. For political purposes it had been dinned into the ears of these men that they were boys of the bull-dog breed, that one Briton was worth three Frenchmen, nine Kaffirs, and fifteen Chinamen, and men who at home were content with honest labour at reasonable remuneration, were taught immediately they went to Imperial South Africa to buffet the negro, to hustle him off the path into the road, and to look upon honest labour as not being the work or duty of white men. An Empire founded on such conditions could not last. An Empire that wished to evade labour instead of recognising its dignity, and to secure gold by compound slavery, by the subjection of Kaffirs and Chinamen, would be incapable of producing that physique and moral strength by which Empires alone could be maintained.

He might be asked what was his alternative. Roughly, it was better treatment, higher wages, better food, better housing, a greater regard for tribal customs, and a greater respect for inter-tribal habits. It was not right to jumble together men from the East Coast and men from Central Africa, or to take away their chiefs and deprive them of the only comfort they had in life. If it was a question between this slavery and the extinguishing of the diamond industry his choice was made. His life had been based on the model of the Vicar of Wakefield; his tastes were simple because his wants were few, and they did not run to diamonds. Why should they not apply to these companies the same restrictions as to water and gas companies, by which a dividend of more than 10 per cent. was not permitted without the commodity being proportionately reduced in price? If, in the interests of peace in South Africa, the owners agreed to amalgamate the mines, they would still be able to pay a dividend of from 20 to 30 per cent. lt was no idle threat to say that if this scheme were carried out it might mean the loss of South Africa. He had a letter from a political opponent in his own constituency, a Tory, a protectionist, and an ex-Yeoman, in which this passage occurred— I can assure you that the introduction of Chinese labour will be the first spark to the revolutionary powder in Africa. This time, instead of all men taking up arms for Britain it will be the other way about. One thing is certain, viz., that if the Chinese are landed here there is going to be civil war. That was from a man who went out to fight for the franchise, for equal rights for all white men, for justice to the native races. It was a serious warning of what might occur. The people were tiring of South Africa. The Jameson Raid sickened them of Imperial finance and financial imperialism, and they had been disillusioned by the war. If Lord Milner, whose bad temper, lack of humour, and lack of sense of proportion made him not an ideal tree Governor, whose traditions were bad, who had packed his office with untrained and inexperienced youngsters, had, in a tit of bad temper, confirmed this Ordinance, it was done under circumstances which justified the Colonial Secretary in reversing his decision. As a politician he welcomed this issue of slavery or free labour in South Africa, but as a Briton, as one who had been in a small way a steward of the British race amongst the negroes of West Africa, and had tried to teach them that to have a white face was to have a kindly heart, and to be a Briton was to be a fair, just, and kindly man, he declared that if the Government. at the instance of men who would profit by it, were to brutalise the natives, to send them to premature death, to subject them to the horrors of the compound equalling the sufferings of the Middle Passage, to involve South Africa in turmoil and dissatisfaction and this country in an electoral fight, there would be but one ending to it, viz., the re-assertion of liberty, freedom, and independence, and the revival of the anti-slavery enthusiasm which had been one of the greatest glories of this House. ["Oh."] If hon. Members doubted it let Parliament be dissolved and the test put to the people. The country would then declare that they did not elect the Government on a war issue, to become the instruments of German Jews, or to make Chinamen or negroes slaves.


I so completely associate myself with what has been said more than once as to the tendency of speeches to become longer and longer, that I can promise the House that I will not stand long in the way of the right hon. Gentleman opposite who is to reply for the Government. I am a time-worn advocate of short and strictly-limited speeches; and I hope that, except on occasions when I could not avoid it, I have not usually offended in the other direction. There are several separate and distinct points of view on this subject of Chinese labour; and I will at once make a confession for what it is worth, as to the effect of some of these points of view. There is the point of view of the mine-owner, who desires to increase his profit; the point of view of the shareholder, who wishes for larger dividends; the point of view of the Pretoria oligarchy or hierarchy, who, having set up in a country desolated by war a costly and elaborate form of Government, find that they cannot get a revenue to support it except on certain terms. From those points of view, I can well understand that there should be a desire for cheap labour in the Transvaal, and the conviction that by the importation of Chinese that advantage will be obtained. But we are here not in the interest of the mine-owners, nor of the speculators, nor of the present Government of the Transvaal. We are here in the interest of this country, and in the interest of the community of the Transvaal, our new fellow-subjects, to whom we stand in the relation of trustees. I have looked carefully through the documents presented by the Government, and, whilst wishing they had been more complete, they satisfy me that the allegation of the scarcity of native labour is not made out. I will not repeat the arguments so well put forward by the hon. Member for Battersea, but I would like to quote from a Minute of the Cape Ministry of August last. They say— To effect a satisfactory solution of the labour question in South Africa what is required above all is the exercise of patience, for Ministers are firmly convinced that, if the continent south of the Equator be explored, sufficient labour is available and can be secured, not only for the mines, but for other forms of work, if fair wages be offered and considerate treatment in the way of houses and food be accorded. I have heard the Colonial Secretary say that there has been no protest against the Ordinance from the Cape Legislature. Here, at any rate, is the formal declaration of the Cape Ministry, and I find that on 4th January, last month, they say that nothing had occurred since the Minute was drafted to alter their views on the subject.

Then I turn to the other alternative that has been suggested, the larger use of white men. Can anyone looking into these reports come to the conclusion that that alternative has been sufficiently tried by experiment? Why, what is it that happens when an industry anywhere is passing from the stage of cheap labour to better conditions? Everywhere what happens is the introduction of the use of labour-saving appliances. And when it is said that the introduction of Chinese labour would give larger employment to white men, I say that the introduction of labour-saving appliances would equally have that effect, because the machinery would require to be supervised by white men, while the natives did the more unskilled part of the work. So long, however, as muscular machinery, as they call it, is to be had at a cheap rate, no one will trouble themselves about labour-saving appliances. I would ask the House to carry back its mind to what happened, a great many years ago now, in this country, when Lord Shaftesbury and those who acted with him roused the nation on the subject of the condition of our labouring population in many industries. Take the coal mines, what went on in those days in that department of industry? There were not only men, but women and children working down in the mines, girls moving along on all fours, in low and narrow galleries, with chains round their necks, dragging trucks. There were all sorts of horrors of that kind going on. When the conscience of this country was roused to the fact, was anything said about cheap labour, or was any proposal made to introduce Chinese labour here? No, Sir, Parliament immediately ordered that this whole process should be stopped, and left the mine-owners themselves to find the remedy. Well, the mine-owners did find the remedy; the mine-owners, no doubt, had to wait a little while for their profits, and they had to expend a great deal of money, but in the long-run no injury was done either to them or to their industry.

Turning to the question of the opinion of the Colony, I wish to protest against the idea of treating this Crown colony as a self-governing colony. I do not know what that means; it has certainly deceived nobody, and His Majesty's Government and Parliament are not one whit relieved of their responsibility in the matter by such a statement. Every one in South Africa and here, knows how futile have been the steps taken to ascertain the feeling of the community. I will not recount such circumstances as the compelling of editors of newspapers to resign, and the breaking up of meetings, but the truth is that this attempt to combine Crown government with self-government has led to mine-owners' government. It is astonishing to me that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have so soon forgotten what my hon. friend who has just sat down reminded them of, the purpose for which we went to war in South Africa—the necessity, as we were told, the ardent zeal that was professed for self government. That was the plea that was put before the world, the necessity of having equal rights for all white men as the sole key to contentment and progress, and also the great indignation that was expressed at the treatment of the Kaffir, of whom we hear very little now. In all the interminable correspondence that has taken place; between the Colonial Office and the Transvaal Government, there is not a solitary reminder that I have seen of the existence of the Uitlander. What is the main case which the Colonial Secretary puts forward, what is it that he puts most emphatically before the House? I think I am fairly summing it up in these four propositions. First, that Parliament, this country, is threatened with a financial crisis in the Transvaal; secondly, that we have lent £35,000,000 to restore the ravages of the war and to develop the country; thirdly, that we have set up a model, though a costly Government; and, lastly, that that Government cannot pay its way without Chinese labour. That is the contention of the right hon. Gentleman, and he holds out that threat to us—that threat of financial crisis, and loss, and misfortune if we do not agree to this proposal. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight pricked the bubble of that argument at once, in two or three words; he said there is another alternative to your proposal, which is to reduce your expenditure. We attach as little importance to these predictions of evil as we attached last year to the promises of oil and wine, milk and honey, gold and corn, teeming populations and overflowing revenue, which came from the same persons on the same authority. After the desolation caused by such a war, time is required before progress can be made, and in any case, what a sudden reaction from the optimistic mood of last year to the note of despair to-day !

Our position is clear. We have to think of the character of this country, and also of the interests of the people of the Transvaal, who have had no voice in the matter. The Transvaal is not a Crown colony in the ordinary sense. If I were to describe it I should say it was a Crown colony in a state of probation for being a self-governing colony, and we are asked to take advantage of this brief interval to mortgage the future of the colony be-hind its back. These new fellow-subjects of ours, who have had no voice in this matter, when their novitiate is over, are to be started on their career bearing the burden which we are now asked to impose upon them—a burden such as no other self-governing colony in the Empire will bear and which no other self-governing colony would be willing to accept. I ask is that fair to them? Is it fair to us, who have this proposal flung at us without any opportunity of fully examining the details, in the very first days of a session, involving the most sacred traditions of our race and the credit and character of the country? Better, I say, a thousand times that we should go on for a time financing the Transvaal, than that we should bow to such a threat and, by so doing, commit a great wrong and injure our own self-respect and bring upon us the opprobrium of the world.

The only other question I shall ask is What is the hurry in this matter; why are we, to use a modern word, to be so hustled? The information comes dribbling out day after day, one Blue-book or one Parliamentary paper after another—this very day a new one—and many that we have not yet received at all. But this sort of thing has happened before. An hon. Gentleman who made a speech a short time ago spoke of the resolution that was come to at Bloemfontein. But this question was sprung upon that Conference at Bloemfontein much in the same way as it is sprung upon us; and I observe that Sir Godfrey Lagden, surely not a very partial witness, says, in the Blue-book, that he was surprised at Bloemfontein that no facts and figures were given to sustain the case. It is very much the same with the British House of Commons. What, I ask, is the urgency? The Government are very fond of a mandate. They will not do anything without a mandate. They will not disclose a policy until they receive a mandate. But at the last General Election the mandate they received was to end the war and to improve the Army, not to introduce slavery; and I hold that. taking two alternatives, if the Transvaal in its present position is a self governing colony its people ought to he consulted, and if it is a Crown colony, then the people of this country ought to be consulted before we conmit ourselves. No more important-issue could be put before the country, and I venture to say that, if the Government commit the people of this country to this policy, a terrible day of reckoning will certainly come to them.


obody who knows the right hon. Gentleman will accuse him of unduly trespassing on the time of the House; but I think all will sympathise with him in finding himself in the position of having, for the third time in the course of a fortnight, to wind up a debate for the Opposition on a vote of censure on the Government. The first was based on the conduct of the Government during the war—a debate which began with an impeachment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and ended, I venture to say, with an impeachment of the Leader of the Opposition. There was a large majority against him on that occasion. [OPPOSITION laughter]. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite will tell me of one single occasion in the Parliament when they were in office when they had a majority of over eighty. On the second occasion the majority showed a number of Gentlemen who, at all events, were agreed upon the policy on which they voted, and the minority contained a body of sixty or seventy Members who, before the division, administered to the right hon. Gentleman the reminder that their support was temporary and conditional. Under these circumstances I think we shall all agree that the reappearance of the right hon. Gentleman upon the scene to-night in the same capacity is a triumph of hope over experience. And, like those who indulge too freely in intoxicating liquors, the right hon. Gentleman finds it necessary at each fresh onslaught to double the dose. We began this debate in quiet and reasoned periods which befitted the Amendment. But to-night we have been treated to platform oratory in which the leading part must be assigned to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, who delivered a speech which had no reference to the Ordinance as it appears before us. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will argue next that any comment which anyone can make upon anybody's public action is to be considered the legitimate and official interpretation of that public action. With regard to the imputation of slavery, let me put to the House the actual facts of the case. That is the imputation which has been repeated over and over again to-night, and which will, of course be repeated over and over again in the country. What are the restrictions under which these men are to go to South Africa, if they please, and obtain labour in the Transvaal which they cannot get in their own country? The Chinaman is free to make his bargain> which will be explained to him by men competent to interpret the matter properly to him before he leaves his own country. He is free to come or to stay away. He binds himself, not for life, but for a period of three years. When he goes to the Transvaal, he is free to labour; and my right hon. friend will take care to make it sufficiently clear, in the regulations, that if he desires to leave his employment he will be allowed to do so, subject to the usual proviso, that by his work he should pay the expense of his voyage. Therefore he will be free to terminate his employment provided he can do so without loss to his employers. I am going to make, not a comparison, but an exact parallel. All this fine language, all these heroic terms, have been employed with regard to the circumstances under which men belonging to one of the most intelligent races on the face of the earth are to make a bargain to go for three years into good employment. Is there no other class which this House invites to make a bargain and places under similar restrictions without the imputation of slavery? What about every soldier of the Crown? Allow me to complete the parallel, and then, if necessary, I shall stand corrected. The soldier serves for three years, and the soldier cannot break his engagement except by making a large payment. The indentured labourer in the Transvaal will be confined to his barracks in a "Chinese village," and the soldier is confined to his barracks, and gets leave, as the indentured labourer will, from his superior. The indentured labourer has his hours laid down for him and so has the soldier, without any right of appeal. The indentured labourer has his pay and his food is supplied to him; so has the soldier. The indentured labourer, if he breaks compound or deserts, comes under a penalty; so does the soldier. Then, Sir, are we to be told from that Bench that it is a degradation for the indentured labourer to be subjected, under this proposal, to the same restrictions which are denounced as slavery, which apply to 200,000 men in His Majesty's service? The conditions under which they enter are entered into on their part without any sacrifice of their character or of their liberty.

MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)

(who rose amidst cries of "Order")—Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[uproar, and loud cries of "Order"]—Mr. Speaker, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question?


As the right hon Gentleman the Secretary for India has given way, I hope the House will listen to the hon. and gallant Member.


Might I ask. Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman whether it is within his knowledge that the Government of India have refused to permit British Indian subjects to submit to the degrading conditions of the Ordinance?


That assumption has no foundation whatever in fact. Now, I think it will be admitted by those who heard the speech of the Colonial Secretary that he established, by conclusive arguments, a strong case for dealing at once with this labour question. What did he show in his careful review? First, that two years after the war, not only had the supply of labour not been made up, but that there was no prospect of arriving at the necessary amount of labour, and this applied not merely to the mines but to other cases where native labour was required. Another point which he established was that white men cannot be induced, if it was even desirable that they should be induced, to work side by side at unskilled labour, with the black labourer. The third point he made good was that the introduction of Asiatic labour would not interfere with white labour, with white wages, or with white morality—while it would greatly advance the country at a moment when, as I shall show, it is being subjected to exceptional strain. I wish to sweep away in one word——


Hear, hear !


I am cheered by the hon. Member for Donegal who made a speech when the House was not so full as it is now. I will specially refer to one sentence of that speech which constitutes, I think, with other remarks a regrettable feature of this debate. I am not going to follow the hon. Member into the aspersions which he cast on a great public servant when he accused Lord Milner, not merely of sympathy with, but of interest in, those millionaires who are making a profit by the mines; nor am I going to deplore the expression of the hon. Member when he said that my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary was the creature of Lord Milner, who in his turn was the creature of the millionaires.


Hear, hear !


I do take notice of the remark, made by many speakers, but especially by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, who generally speaks in this House with great moderation as well as ability, that throughout the whole of this agitation the Government had been in the hands of financiers in Park Lane. That remark in varying terms has been repeated six or seven times this evening. I am not going to insult my colleagues on this Bench by disclaiming for each, individually and collectively, any social, political, or financial interest in any party who are now engaged in business in the Transvaal; but I think those who make such charges have little studied the present economic position in the Transvaal. If a change is needed at the present moment, it is not in the interest of the mine-owners or the mine shareholders; but it is because unless there is a change, and a radical change, no man in the colonial or military service can possibly have a decent living at the present prices in the Transvaal. This is not a subject of debate. [Laughter.] It is not a subject of laughter. There are men who have refused appointments in the Army because they could not make both ends meet on the pay in South Africa. In these new Colonies food is dear, house-rent is enormous, and the wages of servants are almost prohibitive. At this moment, apart from that, you have, as the Secretary for the Colonies showed last night, a falling revenue and a considerable debt. Why is that the case? [An HON.MEMBER: "The war."] It is because you have not got enough agricultural labour, and you have not got the labour to extend the railways, in which the Transvaal stands alone among British Colonies in its backwardness at the beginning of the twentieth century. It may be asked; Why do you provide labour for the mines first? The mines pay seven-eighths of the entire revenue of the Transvaal; and if we are to provide for the other necessary services, without which the population must remain as backward as before the war, we must first set the mining industry on a fair level of prosperity, in order to obtain that stability of finance which is necessary to the complete success of the whole.

The hon. and learned Member for Hawick who spoke a little earlier to-night] made a consistent speech, for he has always objected to war. He has always misconceived our motives with regard to the war. He opposed, I believe, the annexation of the Colonies, and therefore he cannot be considered an unbiassed witness as to the measure now to be taken. He spoke with more than his usual earnestness and, perhaps, less than his usual fairness. I will make that good. He attacked my right hon. friend for the remarks he made last night with regard to General Botha. My light hon. friend stated with regard to General Botha that he could not accept him as a witness who represents, as General Botha professes to do, Boer feel-with regard to this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman went into an argument with regard to the way in which the Commission had taken evidence and spoke of their having been "adepts at suppression and distortion," and objected to the refusal to accept General Botha as representative of Boer feeling. But if General Botha disapproved of Chinese labour, he also plainly told the Commission that what he desired for the Kaffirs was the enforcement of the squatter law, and, by removing them from their locations, the driving of them into agricultural pursuits. That is a policy that will not be accepted by the House, for General Botha's opinions are not accepted by the Boers. My right hon. friend has handed me a telegram received to-night from Lord Milner giving the following letter from Mr. Van Rensburg, a member of the Transvaal Legislative Council. He is a farmer and a Boer representative.


Is he a Boer representative?


I beg pardon. I should say that if the right hon. Gentleman means to ask, was he elected by the Boers to represent them, then in that case no doubt he is not a Boer representative. He is a representative Boer.


A Dablin Castle Boer.


His letter says— I have seen in the Press that the despatch your Excellency has cabled to Mr. Alfred Lyttelton contains a letter received from General Botha and signed by him on behalf of certain gentlemen who claim to represent the Boer opinion of the Transvaal on the question of Asiatic immigration. I venture also to write praying your Excellency to cable to Mr. Alfred Lyttelton my protest against the position taken up by General Botha in which he claims that he has the right to represent Boer opinion. British public opinion has far too long been allowed to believe that such is the case. The people of England have been told that because General Botha refused to take the seat offered to him on the Legislative Council therefore the Boers are not represented on that Council, protest against this doctrine going out to the world as a fact. I maintain that Boer opinion is adequately represented in the Legislative Council by five Boer members, of whom I am proud to be one. Each of us would be prepared at any time to contest with General Botha the representation of any country district of the Transvaal with confidence of success. On behalf of the Government I may say that we are not prepared to accept General Botha's proposal that we should proceed to coercion of the Kaffirs in order to obtain sufficient labour. We know that there is a great deal of labour which might be obtained if it were possible to impound all labour; but we know that if that labour were obtained there is not sufficient labour in South Africa available among the Kaffirs to fulfil the needs of the Transvaal at the present time. It we are to extend the railways, for which this House has so often loudly cheered, if we are to provide the Boers themselves even with the Kaffir labour which they had before the war, we require, according to some authorities, 60,000, according to others 80,000, or 100,000 more Kaffir labourers than at present. What is the alternative you place before the Government by this proposal? If you defeat the Government, which you will not do, You on that side of the House, many of whom during the war I have heard making attacks on the Kaffirs and speaking about their position in the social scale in language which I will not now recapitulate—you will be placing in the hands of Kaffirs the whole monopoly of labour in South Africa, and by doing so you will make the Kaffirs the dictators of the pace at which civilisation should proceed in that country. Do not let it be supposed that by introducing other labour you are handicapping the whites. You are enabling the whites to find subsistence. It is not I who say this. The hon. Member for Camberwell last night said that shiploads of whites were coming away from South Africa, and the other day, when 3,000 or 4,000 Kaffirs left their work on the railways, 600 or 700 whites superintending them had immediately to be dismissed. Nobody has spoken more strongly upon that than the right hon. Member for Aberdeen. He says— All hard labour, all unskilled labour, is, and must be, done by the blacks. The coloured man is indispensable to the white man. He is a necessary part of the economic machinery of the country, whether for mining or for manufacture, for tillage or for ranching. An entirely false economic parallel has been drawn between the objection in Australia to the introduction of Chinese labour and the objection in South Africa. There is no parallel between the two cases except this—that both countries are British colonies. In Australia it is a question of the coolie competing against the white man; in Africa it is a question of the yellow man competing against the black man. In Australia the experience has been of unrestricted permanent Chinese labour, and in Africa the proposal is to have temporary labour under definite restrictions. We have heard very tall talk with regard to this labour. The Member for Camberwell said that the British soldier would tear off his medals sooner than see the Chinaman performing his religious observances in his own compound; and we have been told that, we are establishing a moral pest spot, and a moral cancer. Some years ago a statesman said that the Australian Colonies taxed the Chinaman and that that was protection pure and simple. They taxed him not because it was the desire of an enlightened race not to associate with a nation of a less degree of enlightenment—not on account of the Chinaman's vices, but because of his virtues, because he did more work for the money, because he consumed less liquor. That is the statement of Mr. Gladstone. It is ten years since the voice of Mr. Gladstone was heard in this House, but I think the echo of these sentiments will be more powerful tonight than some of the utterances to which we have listened. We are asked to delay this Ordinance. My right hon. friend has given some most specific pledges as to the regulations, and those pledges will be specifically observed. What is the Ordinance? The Ordinance is an Ordinance of the Transvaal Legislative Council which the Council has made and the Conned can revoke by it; and if hon. Members opposite upset the Government they can themselves reconsider the subject. When self-government is given to the Transvaal, which hon. Gentleman opposite regard as an early expedient, the colony will itself be able, at any moment it pleases, to deal with this Ordinance. It is hedged about with every restriction which philanthropy can suggest, and I think this House would exercise an unwise discretion if it placed any difficulty in the way of the Government to-night. Have we not too often in the past stepped in here to change that which those on the spot advised us to do in connection with our colonies. This is a time when the House should disregard sentimental forebodings which have no foundation, which are in fact appeals to prejudice that may do for the platform, but are too thin for the House of Commons. The House should now express its determination to place the labour question in the Transvaal on such a footing as may tend to the civilising of that colony, and so avoid the difficulties which have been clearly pointed out, and the effects of which may he clearly foreseen.


rose to continue the debate immediately before midnight, and was received with cries of "Order."

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's) moved that the Question be now put.


addressing the Speaker amid loud cries of "Order," said he desired to be heard.


The Question is that the Question be now put.


again attempted to speak, beginning with the words "Surely, Mr. Speaker," but the remainder of the sentence was lost in cries of "Order." Speaking in a loud voice, which was audible above the clamour, the hon.

Member said, I feel, Mr. Speaker, that rather than sit silent on this Bench, I am prepared to be suspended from the service of this House.


I quite understand that the hon. Member feels strongly on this matter, but, having made his protest, I hope he will not persist in what would be a breach of the Rules of this House, but will acquiesce in those Rules, which were made for the benefit of the whole House.


again rising amid loud cries of "Order" and some cries of "Name." said: I want to be respectful to the House, but this is a matter on which I feel very strongly. I want to ask you Sir, whether the Government intend by moving the closure to make it impossible for me to speak.


The duty is thrown on the Chair of accepting or rejecting the Motion for the closure after it has been proposed. I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to show any disrespect to the Chair. The closure has been moved.


rose again, but was, as before, received with loud cries of "Order." and some cries of "Go on" from his supporters. He, however, quickly resumed his seat.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 330; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 3.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E. Ambrose, Robert Arrol, Sir William
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Anson, Sir William Reynell Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Arkwright, John Stanhope Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H
Allsopp, Hon. George, Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh Bagot, Capt. Joseeline FitzRoy
Bailey, James (Walworth) Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hoult, Joseph
Bain, Colonel James Robert Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Houston, Robert Paterson
Baird, John George Alexander Donelan, Captain A. Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil
Balcarres, Lord Doogan, P. C. Hudson, George Bickersteth
Baldwin, Alfred Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Hunt, Rowland
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Doxford, Sir William Theodore Jameson, Major J. Eustance
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Duffy, William J. Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Duke, Henry Edward Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Joyce, Michael
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Hart Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks Esmonde, Sir Thomas Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Beckett, Ernest William Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.
Bignold, Arthur Faber, George Denison (York) Kerr, John
Bigwood, James Fardell, Sir T. George Keswick, William
Bill, Charles Farrell, James Patrick Kimber, Henry
Blyndell, Colonel Henry Field, William Knowles, Sir Lees
Boland, John Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Laurie, Lieut. -General
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Boulnois, Edmund Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)
Bousfield, William Robert Fison, Frederick William Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N.R.)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh. Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Brymer, William Ernest Flavin, Michael Joseph Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bull, William James Flower, Sir Ernest Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Burdett-Coutts, W. Flynn, James Christopher Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Burke, E. Haviland- Forster, Henry William Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham
Butcher, John George Foster, P. H. (Warwick, S.W. Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow Fyler, John Arthur Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Campbell, J. H. M (Dublin Univ. Galloway, William Johnson Lowe, Francis William
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Gardner, Ernest Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Carlile, William Walter Garfit, William Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'uth
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Lundon, W.
Cautley, Henry Strother Gilhooly, James Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Macdona, John Cumming
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Maconochie, A. W.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Orms.-(Salop M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Goschen, Hn. George Joachim M'Calmont, Colonel James
Chapman, Edward Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Hugh, Patrick, A.
Charrington, Spencer Graham, Henry Robert M'Kean, John
Clancy, John Joseph Gray, Ernest (West Ham) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Coates, Edward Feetham Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Malcolm, Ian
Coddington, Sir William Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Manners, Lord Cecil
Cogan, Denis J. Grenfell, William Henry Martin, Richard Biddulph
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gretton, John Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Greville, Hon. Ronald Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hain, Edward Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriessh-
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hall, Edward Marshall Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Hambro, Charles Eric Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Mitchell, William (Burnley)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hare, Thomas Leigh Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Haslett, Sir James Horner Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow
Cust, Henry John C. Hayden, John Patrick Morrell, George Herbert
Dalkeith, Earl of Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley) Morrison, James Archibald
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Davenport, William Bromley- Heaton, John Heniker Mount, William Arthur
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Helder, Augustus Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Delany, William Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) Muntz, Sir Philip A.
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Murphy, John
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Hickman, Sir Alfred Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Hamlets Hoare, Sir Samuel Hurray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Dickson, Charles Scott Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside Myers, William Henry
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Horner, Frederick William Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Nicholson, William Graham Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge) Thornton, Percy M.
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Tollemache, Henry James
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Roche, John Tuff, Charles
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Ht Sheff'd
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Royds, Clement Molyneux Walker, Col. William Hall
O'Dowd, John Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wanklyn, James Leslie
O'Malley, William Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Warde, Colonel C. E.
O'Mara, James Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Webb, Colonel William George
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Parker, Sir Gilbert Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Peel, Hn. Wm. Rob. Wellesley Sharpe, William Edward T. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Percy, Earl Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Pierpoint, Robert Skewes-Cox, Thomas Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Pilkington, Colonel Richard Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynesid Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Plummer, Walter R. Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Smith, Hon, W. F. D. (Strand) Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Power, Patrick Joseph Spear, John Ward Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Pretyman, Ernest George Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Purvis, Robert Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Pym, C. Guy Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Wylie, Alexander
Randles, John S. Stock, James Henry Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Rankin, Sir James Stone, Sir Benjamin Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Ratcliff, R. F. Stroyan, John Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Reddy, M. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Young, Samuel
Redmond, John E. (Waterford Sullivan, Donal
Redmond, William (Clare) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Reid, James (Greenock) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.
Remnant, James Farquharson Thorburn, Sir Walter
Ainsworth, John Stirling Dalziel, James Henry Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Allen, Charles P. Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E
Asher, Alexander Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Holland, Sir William Henry
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hope, John Deans (Fife, West
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry Douglas, Charles VI. (Lanark) Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Atherley-Jones, L. Duncan, J. Hastings Hutchinson, D. Charles Fredk
Austin, Sir John Edwards, Frank Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Barlow, John Emmott Elibank, Master of Jacoby, James Alfred
Barran, Rowland Hirst Ellice, Capt E. C (S. Andrw'sBghs Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B. Emmott, Alfred Jones, William (Carnarvonshir
Bell, Richard Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) Jordan Jeremiah
Black, Alexander William Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Farquharson, Dr. Robert Kearley, Hudson, E.
Broadhurst, Henry Fenwick, Charles Kilbride, Denis
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Kitson, Sir James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Labouchere, Henry
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lambert, George
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Langley, Batty
Burns, John Fuller, J. M. F. Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W
Burt, Thomas Goddard, Daniel Ford Llayland-Barratt, Francis
Buxton, Sydney Charles Grant, Corrie Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington
Caldwell, James Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) Leigh, Sir Joseph
Cameron, Robert Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Leng, Sir John
Campbell- Bannerman, Sir H. Hammond, John Levy, Maurice
Causton, Richard Knight Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William Lewis, John Herbert
Cawley, Frederick Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydv. Lloyd-George, David
Channing, Francis Allston Harmsworth, R. Leicester Lough, Thomas
Churchill, Winston Spencer Harwood, George MacDonnell, Dr, Mark A.
Cremer, William Randal Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Crombie, John William Helme, Norval Watson M'Crae, George
Crooks, William Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. M'Kenna, Reginald
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Roe, Sir Thomas Tomkinson, James
Mansfield, Horace Kendall Rose, Charles Day Toulmin, George
Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, X. Runciman, Walter Trekelyan, Charles Philips
Mooney, John J. Russell, T. W. Ure, Alexander
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Wallace, Robert
Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Schwann, Charles E. Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Moulton, John Fletcher Shackleton, David James Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Newnes, Sir George Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Nolan, Co. John P. (Galway, X Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)
Norman, Henry Shipman, Dr. John G. Weir, James Galloway
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) White, George (Norfolk)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Slack, John Bamford White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) Sloan, Thomas Henry Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Partington, Oswald Smith, Samuel (Flint) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Paulton, James Mellor Soames, Arthur Wellesley Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Pirie, Duncan V. Soares, Ernest J. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Priestley, Arthur Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Rea, Russell Stevenson. Francis S. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Reekitt, Harold James Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Strachey, Sir Edward Wood, James
Rickett, J. Compton Tennant, Harold John Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd
Rigg, Richard Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Yoxall, James Henry
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Thomson, F. W. (Kork, W. R.)
Robson, William Snowdon Tillet, Louis John

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."

The House divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 281. (Division List No. 4.)

Abraham, William (Cork. N.E.) Crean, Eugene Fuller, J. M. F.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cremer, William Randal Gilhooly, James
Allen, Charles P. Crombie, John William Goddard, Daniel Ford
Ambrose, Robert Crooks, William Grant, Corrie
Asher, Alexander Cullinan, J. Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dalziel, James Henry Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Hain, Edward
Atherley-Jones, L. Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Hammond, John
Austin, Sir John Delany, William Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William
Barlow, John Emmott Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Hardie, J. Keir (M'rth'r T'dvil)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, X.) Harmsworth, R. Leicester
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Harwood, George
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Donelan, Captain A. Hayden, John Patrick
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Doogan, P. C. Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.
Bell, Richard Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Helme, Norval Watson
Black, Alexander William Duffy, William J. Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.
Boland, John Duncan, J. Hastings Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Broadhurst, Henry Edwards Frank Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Elibank, Master of Holland, Sir William Henry
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw's Bghs Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Emmott, Alfred Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.
Burke, E. Haviland Esmonde, Sir Thomas Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Burns, John Burt, Thomas Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) Jacoby, James Alfred
Buxton, Sydney Charles Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Caldwell, James Farquharson, Dr. Robert Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Cameron, Robert Farrell, James Patrick Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Fenwick, Charles Jordan, Jeremiah
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Joyce, Michael
Causton, Richard Knight Ffrench, Peter Kearley, Hudson E.
Cawley, Frederick Field, William Kilbride, Denis
Charming, Francis Allston Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Kitson, Sir James
Churchill, Winston Spencer Flavin, Michael Joseph Labouchere, Henry
Clancy, John Joseph Flynn, James Christopher Lambert, George
Cogan, Denis J. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Langley, Batty
Condon, Thomas Joseph Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.
Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Dowd, John Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, X.) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Leigh, Sir Joseph O'Malley, William Soares, Ernest J.
Leng, Sir John O'Mara, James Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants
Levy, Maurice O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Stevenson, Francis S.
Lewis, John Herbert O'Shee, James John Strachey, Sir Edward
Lloyd-George, David Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) Sullivan, Donal
Lough, Thomas Partington, Oswald Tennant, Harold John
Lundon, W. Paulton, James Mellor Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Pirie, Duncan V. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Power, Patrick Joseph Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Priestley, Arthur Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Rea, Russell Tillet, Louis John
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Reckitt, Harold James Tomkinson, James
M'Crae, George Reddy, M. Toulmin, George
M'Hugh, Patrick, A. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Kean, John Redmond, William (Clare) Ure, Alexander
M'Kenna, Reginald Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Wallace, Robert
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Rickett, J. Compton Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Rigg, Richard Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Mansfield, Horace Rendall Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs). Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Mooney, John J. Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Robson, William Snowdon Weir, James Galloway
Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Roche, John White, George (Norfolk)
Morley, Rt. Hn. Jn. (Montrose) Roe, Sir Thomas White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Moulton, John Fletcher Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Murphy, John Rose, Charles Day Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Nannetti, Joseph P. Runciman, Walter Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Newnes, Sir George Russell, T. W. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Schwann, Charles E. Wilson. John (Durham, Mid.)
Norman, Henry Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Shackleton, David James Wood, James
Nussey, Thomas Willans Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'd
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Young, Samuel
O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Yoxall, James Henry
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sheehy, David
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Shipman, Dr. John G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Slack, John Bamford
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Boulnois, Edmund Colomb, Sir Jn. Charles Ready
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bousfield, William Robert Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Allsopp, Hon. George Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Compton, Lord Alwyne
Anson, Sir William Reynell Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Arkwright, John Stanhope Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Cripps, Charles Alfred
Arrol, Sir William Brymer, William Ernest Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bull, William James Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H Burdett-Coutts, W. Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Butcher, John George Cust, Henry John C.
Bailey, James (Walworth)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow Dalkeith, Earl of
Baird, John George Alexander Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Balcarres, Lord Carlile, William Walter Davenport, W. Bromley
Baldwin, Alfred Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Cautley, Henry Strother Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Haml'ts
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Dickson, Charles Scott
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Banbury, Sir Frederick (George Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.
Beckett, Ernest William Chapman, Edward Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Bignold, Arthur Charrington, Spencer Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Bigwood, James Coates, Edward Feetham Duke, Henry Edward
Bill, Charles Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Blundell, Colonel Henry Coddington, Sir William Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Cohen, Benjamin Louis Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)
Faber, George Denis (York) Knowles, Sir Lees Roberts, Jamuel (Sheffield)
Fardell, Sir T. George Laurie, Lieut.-General Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Fison, Frederick William Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N.R. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Flower, Sir Ernest Llewellyn, Evan Henry Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Forster, Henry William Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Saunderson, Rt.Hn. Col. Edw.)
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.
Fyler, John Arthur Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.) Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Galloway, William Johnson Lonsdale, John Brownlee Sharpe, William Edward T.
Gardner, Ernest Lowe, Francis William Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Garfit, William Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Macdona, John Cumming Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside
Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn Maconochie, A. W. Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South M'Calmont, Colonel James Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Spear, John Ward
Gore, Hn. G.R.C. Orms.-(Salop Malcolm, Ian Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk
Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc) Manners, Lord Cecil Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Martin, Richard Biddulph Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Graham, Henry Robert Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E (Wigt'n Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh. Stock, James Henry
Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton Stroyan, John
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Grenfell, William Henry Mitchell, William (Burnley) Talbot, Lord E. (Chicheter)
Gretton, John Molesworth, Sir Lewis Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf' d Univ.
Greville, Hon. Ronald Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Thorburn, Sir Walter
Hall, Edward Marshall Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Thornton, Percy M.
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Tollemache, Henry James
Hambro, Charles Eric Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw, M.
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Morrell, George Herbert Tuff, Charles
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry Morrison, James Archibald Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheffield
Hare, Thomas Leigh Mount, William Arthur Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Walker, Col. William Hall
Haslett, Sir James Horner Muntz, Sir Philip A. Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Heath, A. Howard (Hanley) Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Wanklyn, James Leslie
Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N.W.) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Webb, Colonel William George
Helder, Augustus Myers, William Henry Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Newdegate, Francis A. N. Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Nicholson, William Graham Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Hickman, Sir Alfred O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hoare, Sir Samuel Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E Parker, Sir Gilbert Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightsde Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Horner, Frederick William Percy, Earl Willox, Sir John Archibald
Hoult, Joseph Pierpoint, Robert Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.
Houston, Robert Paterson Pilkington, Colonel Richard Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Plummer, Walter R, Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath
Hunt, Rowland Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Pretyman, Ernest George Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Jameson, Major J. Eustace Purvis, Robert Wylie, Alexander
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred. Pym, C. Guy Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Randles, John S. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H Rankin, Sir James Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. Denbigh) Ratcliff, R, F.
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Reid, James (Greenock) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Kerr, John Remnant, James Farquharson
Keswick, William Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)
Kimber, Henry Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Main Question again proposed.

And, it being after Midnight the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.