§ MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)I beg to ask whether I am precluded by the notices which stand on the Notice Paper from asking leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the non-fulfilment of the undertaking given by Ministers in this House that the employment of Chinese labourers in South Africa will not lead to the exclusion of English workmen from forms of work hitherto performed by them."
§ *MR. SPEAKERI understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government and others haves suggested that 1083 one of the consequences of the importation of Chinese labour would be the employment of more white men, and that that will not turn out to be the result. That is obviously one of the matters to be discussed on the general question of the desirability of the imortation of Chinese labour, and is covered by the notices on the Paper.
§ MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)The point is whether a blocking Motion can cover a state of facts that had not arisen at the time it was set down. The point now raised is that as a matter of fact Chinese labourers are asked to do work hitherto done by white labour.
§ *MR. SPEAKERChinese labour whether performed by a foreman or undei a foreman is Chinese labour all the same.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)As I understand the question, my hon. friend does not intend to deal with the merits of the question of the importation of Chinese labour, but with the question whether a pledge given by a Minister of the Crown in this House has or has not been fulfilled. I do not think any hon. Member has yet put down a Motion which covers all the breaches of faith on the part of His Majesty's Government.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI have nothing to add to the Answer which I have given.