HC Deb 17 February 1905 vol 141 cc481-539

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [14th 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. Mount.)

Question again proposed.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said that last year, when the Transvaal Labour Ordinance was before the House, there were grave misgivings expressed, and not alone by men on one side of the House, lest we might be committing ourselves to a policy which would be fraught with great evil to the future of the Transvaal. To allay this apprehension the Colonial Secretary gave certain assurances, and without them the Ordinance would hardly have been passed. But as the session went on it became painfully clear that these assurances were not being carried out, though no discussion of the subject in the House was possible, because of the appearance on the Order Paper of a very remarkable variety of ingenious blocking Motions. They had consequently to fall back on the unfruitful task of bombarding the Colonial Secretary with questions. He did not think that under the circumstances the right hon, Gentleman would now complain because he had deliberately seized this opportunity of raising the whole question. The first grave apprehension was that, if the Chinese coolies went to the Transvaal unaccompanied by their women-kind, we should be setting up in the heart of our newest colony a cesspit of Oriental immorality. The Bishop of Worcester on that matter wrote a powerful letter to The Times on October 7th last year, in which he said— I am informed by some who appear to speak with knowledge that the transportation of a great number of Chinese to the mines, especially apart from their women-folk, is certain to result in the establishment of demoralisation of a sort which I do not care to characterise more exactly.'' The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Rochester and many others in an other place expressed pretty much the same view, and in order to meet this anxiety, Lord Onslow gave an assurance that facilities would be offered, in the freest possible way, at the cost of the importer for the passages of the wives and children of the coolies. On February 16th, in the House of Commons, the Colonial Secretary in reference to the arrangement thus foreshadowed said— Manifestly it would be most wrong that they should go without their women-folk. I undertake on behalf of the Government that all the coolies who wish to take their wives and children shall have the opportunity of doing so. That reassured hon. Members. But what had proved to be the sequel? The right hon. Gentleman gave a Return on January 10th this year which showed that down to October last there were 12,965 coolies on the Rand; on Saturday last there were 27,182; and in a short time there were to be 34,000. Of all these thousands two only had brought their wives with them. He could not accept the excuse that the Government were not to blame, as they had provided all facilities, and he would tell the right hon. Gentleman why. In the first place, in the first draft of the Ordinance of December 5th, 1903, there was provision made for bringing the wives and children of the coolies. In the second draft—that of January 25th, 1904—that provision was dropped out, because, as he suggested, the mineowners looked upon it as an expensive, troublesome, and intolerable nuisance. Then the Bishops began to get apprehensive, and the provision was reinstated, in order, as he suggested, to allay the tender susceptibilities of the Episcopal conscience. He did not believe, however, that the Government, when the reinstatement was made, thought that it was worth the paper it was written upon. The Colonial Secretary would no doubt remember a letter sent to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton from a Chinese missionary, the Rev. Mr. Arnold-Forster, alleging that the recruiters were making no endeavour to inform the coolie that he might bring his wife and children. The Colonial Secretary promised, on August 1st, to send that letter to Lord Milner for his observations. Had these observations reached the right hon. Gentleman?


Not from Lord Milner himself; but I have had information on the subject.


said that the undertaking was given six months ago, and yet no observations from Lord Milner had arrived. Lord Milner had said that he did not care twopence for the opinion of people 6,000 miles away; but it was about time to make him care. He had in his possession a facsimile of the advertisement issued by the recruiting agents of Tientsin. He did not pretend to understand the document, but the translation of it showed that there was no hint of facilities being provided for the coolies taking their wives and children with them. Even the Colonial Secretary and the Archbishop of Canterbury could find no hint of that in the hieroglyphics. He would be interested to know what answer the right hon. Gentleman had to make to the charge that this particular assurance of his had not been carried out. Was the right hon. Gentleman quite easy in his mind when he thought of all these thousands of coolies cooped up together without their women-kind? "concerning whom it would be manifestly most wrong that they should come without their women folk."

Now, the next assurance which he held had not been fulfilled was with reference to the wages paid to the Chinese coolie. When they were discussing the Ordinance, a great many of them expressed the apprehension that the competition of the coolie would be used to make the Kaffir work for less than 2s. a day. But the Colonial Secretary repeatedly denied this. On March 21st the right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would not be a deplorable thing to prevent the coming of a Chinaman who is anxious and willing to work, and who would receive in the Transvaal "at least 2s. a day." They were very pleased to hear that, and said "Put it in the Ordinance," to which the right hon. Gentleman replied— I do not consider it necessary or desirable to specify a minimum wage, but I have no fear that the standard of wages of the Chinese will be lower than that of the Kaffir labourers. That was perfectly clear and unmistakable. The coolie was to have at least 2s. a day, and he was not to be paid a lower wage than the Kaffir. What was the sequel? On June 22nd, after the Ordinance was passed, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that, while the minimum wage of the Kaffir was 45s. a month, that of the Chinese labourer was 30s. a month; but he added that after the first six months the minimum was to be increased from 30s. to 45s. a month. The six months had expired, but the minimum still remained at 1s. a day. In that matter he submitted a grave charge rested against the Government for having got this Ordinance by the assurance that the coolie would not undercut the Kaffir and would get at least 2s. per day.

The third point to which he had to refer had reference to the nature of the work which the coolie had to do on the Rand. They were assured in the House any number of times that the coolie was to be engaged wholly and exclusively on unskilled labour. These were the precise words of the Colonial Secretary on May 2nd— The indentured Chinese are restricted under the Ordinance to unskilled work in the mines, such as is usually performed by natives. This restriction would appear to exclude the Chinese from work of the class in which white men have hitherto been engaged. On June 8th the right hon. Gentleman said that Section 9a of the Ordinance read in conjunction with the first schedule, made it clear that Asiatics were not excluded from acting as overseers, and that the actual gangers would probably be Chinese. On that point he desired to make a serious complaint. Before the Ordinance, under no circumstances were Asiatics to touch anything but unskilled work or act as overseers; immediately the Ordinance had been sanctioned the announcement was made that they could be overseers and gangers—positions which before the Ordinance were specially reserved for the white men. Then there was the assurance, without which the Ordinance would probably never have been passed, that the coming of the coolie would mean a large increase in the opportunities of employment for white men. Lord Milner stated in a letter that every ten Chinamen introduced would mean employment in mining operations for one more white man, and there was not a Unionist platform last year on which that declaration was not repeated. What were the facts? There had been an increase of white labour to the extent of 1,600 or 1,700 since the introduction of the coolie, but they had been engaged, as the Colonial Secretary admitted, not in mining work, but in the building of compounds and other incidental occupations which would disappear almost immediately. Moreover, the increase in the number of white men employed was going on at a rapidly diminishing rate, and would soon be extinguished. In a month, at the end of 1904, there were ninety-two additional white men employed on the Rand, while the number of coolies introduced during the same period was 5,583, or one white man, not for every ten, but for every sixty Chinamen, and there was no assurance that even those white men had been employed in mining operations. Never was a greater fraud perpetrated upon the British public than when they were assured that the introduction of the coolie would mean increased opportunities for the permanent employment of white men in the mining industry. These were four specific points as to which he would be glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Last year if any hon. Member ventured to whisper the echo of a doubt that all would be well, the Colonial Secretary waxed very indignant indeed, laying his hand upon his heart, and soundly rating his opponents for doubting the word of a British Minister. In fact, there was just a little too much "hand-upon-the-heart" about the Colonial Secretary's attitude. On February 22nd last year, the right hon. Gentleman specifically stated— I have given pledges in this House, a breach of which, if I should be so base as to depart from them, can be visited on me by this as well as by that side of the House, with the condemnation which I shall be worthy to receive if I do break them.'' He did not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's word or his honour; what he doubted was his capacity to make the Rand magnates carry out his pledges. The Colonial Secretary was an English gentleman and a first-class sportsman, and he must often have thought that the way in which his pledges had been handled was not precisely "cricket." The right hon. Gentleman had one of two things to do—either to make the Rand magnates carry out the pledges given to the House or to resign his office as Colonial Secretary. He further complained that no attempt had been made to test the opinion of the Transvaal on the question of the introduction of coolies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham took up an absolutely correct attitude on this point when, in a letter on April 21st last year, he wrote— You are aware that while I was Colonial Secretary I laid down the principle on which I proposed to deal with the question—viz., to offer no opposition on the part of the Imperial Government to the employment of Asiatic labour if it were clearly shown that such employment was desired by the great majority of the white inhabitants of the two Colonies. … I assume that the Government have satisfied themselves that the condition I laid down is now fulfilled, and that the feeling of the white inhabitants is strongly in favour of the proposed employment. That assumption was the absolute reverse of the fact. The present Colonial Secretary had flatly departed from the policy laid down by his predecessor. The Prime Minister himself had taken up a most amazing position on this point. In a letter to the electors of Chertsey, on July 5th last year, the right hon. Gentleman stated— All fair-minded men will remember that these labourers, who came willingly on the terms offered to them, have been introduced into the Transvaal at the express wish of the white population. Allowance had to be made for everybody at election times, but this suggestion of the Prime Minister was what the Americans call "rather steep." What evidence was there of the "express wish of the white population?" The Government would doubtless answer that the Legislative Council, by twenty-two to four, I adopted the Ordinance. But who were the Legislative Council? That body consisted of twenty-seven persons, not one of whom was elected, there being thirteen Government officials and fourteen selected outsiders, and to say that the act of such a body represented "the express wish of the white population of the Transvaal" was the climax of effrontery. But there was some expression of the wish of the white people. First of all there were the Boers. ["Oh."] The Boers were now British subjects, and their opinion was surely worth some consideration. Two hundred delegates attended an important Congress at Pretoria on May 23rd, and unanimously passed the following resolution— This meeting expresses its approval of the cable sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the Boer leaders with reference to the importation of Chinese labourers for the mines, and expresses the feeling of the Boer population that this step is a very dangerous one, which should not, under any circumstances, be taken without the constitutional approval of the people of the Transvaal. The other section of the white population was the British, and at a congress in April last, British working-class representatives unanimously resolved— That this council, comprising the whole of the trade unions of the Rand, carpenters 'engineers, engine-drivers, typographical union, plasterers, bricklayers, boiler-makers, miners, bakers, masons, confectioners, shop-assistants, musicians, do hereby protest against the importation of Asiatics, being firmly convinced that it will ultimately result in a reduction of white labour, and thereby be detrimental to the State. And the conviction of these men had been amply confirmed by the figures officially supplied. He was surprised that they were able to hold that meeting without being smashed up. They had all heard of that historic meeting in the Wanderers' Hall, Johannesburg, in favour of a referendum, which was smashed up by ruffians hired for the purpose at 15s. a time. Referring to this incident the South African Guardian said— The day following the meeting at the Wanderers, a scene was witnessed in Johannesburg the like of which it may be safely said has never occurred before in a British colony. This was the paying off of the men engaged to attend the meeting to prevent Mr. Quinn getting a hearing. This was done in the building at the corner of two streets. On Friday afternoon hundreds of people congregated in front of the building, the crowd stretching right across the road. At the entrance to the room and standing in the street were two constables to preserve order in the admission of applicants, one by one, for the 15s., the pay of the night. The doorkeeper stood inside, and, with the door slightly ajar, took the name of each man, and admission was not granted until an inspection had been made of the register inside, which had been signed the day previously. Amongst the onlookers exclamations of surprise at the utter shamelessness of the proceedings were heard on every side. If the Colonial Secretary would like to go further into this matter he could let him see a photographic reproduction showing those gentlemen receiving their 15s. for having broken up that meeting. Then there had been expressions of opinion from Australia. Lord Northcote, the Governor-General of Australia, had forwarded to the Government the following Resolution passed in both branches of the Federal Legislature— That this House records its grave objection to the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal until a referendum of the white population of the colony has been taken on the subject, or responsible government is granted. The Colonial Secretary's reply to that was curious—"The Government adhered to the policy of treating the Transvaal as a self-governing colony."


I do not think that is an accurate account of what I said, and I should prefer the hon. Member to quote the words from my telegram.


said as far as he could remember it was to that effect. The Colonial Secretary appeared in this instance to have broken all records by his classic official evasion. With regard to the opinion of Australia Mr. Deakin, the Federal Parliament Premier, made a very important statement. He said— Australia had been told that the war was a miner's war, but not for Chinese miners; a war for the franchise, but not for Chinese franchise. The truth, if it had been told would have presented a very different aspect, and would have made a very different appeal to Australia. Associated with Mr. Deakin was the Leader of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament, Mr. Reid, who said— The Chinese stimulant to Empire-building is peculiarly offensive to Australian sentiment. It lowers the best Imperial standards to put capitalistic interests before colonising ideals. Slow progress under better auspices is best. Next came the New Zealand Legislature, which had made urgent representations to the home Government in the following terms— The Government of New Zealand foresees grave perils, racial, social, political, and sanitary, in the introduction of coolies. The Ministers of Cape Colony said that the importation of Chinese— Will greatly hamper, if not altogether prevent, the federation of South African Colonies. They plead for patience as the wise means of solution, and are assured that native labour in plenty will be forthcoming if a fair wage be offered and considerate treatment in the way of housing and food be accorded. And all this time, while the Government were flouting colonial opinion upon this question, the ex-Colonial Secretary was going about the country on a pilgrimage as the missionary of Empire, insisting that they must, upon another question now before the country, respect colonial opinion. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham started his fiscal campaign in 1903 at Glasgow, he said— Our children are calling to us. With them rests, as with us, the maintenance of the traditions of which we are proud—the continuance of the glorious history of our past. They invite you to co-operate with them. They stretch their hands to you across the seas. Will you not grasp them? Will you not do all in your power to make this vision real and hand down undiminished and untarnished the sceptre of that great dominion, and the recollection of that glorious past which we have received as an inheritance, due to the courage, the tenacity, and the self-sacrifice of our ancestors through many generations. This flamboyant exhortation was all very fine, but they had to forget altogether the coolie on the Rand while they were saying it. They had also got to forget those appeals from the Colonies in protest against the introduction of Chinese labour to which they had to turn a deaf ear of cynical disregard. The ex-Colonial Secretary, in a speech at Birmingham on November 4th, said:— For my part I say when I remember how the Colonies responded to our appeal, when I remember how when we were in stress and difficulty they sent us men in thousands and tens of thousands, how they paid money; when I remember how, when every one's hand seemed raised against us, we relied and rested on the moral support that we had from these great growing States across the sea—I for one am not prepared to treat their proposals with contempt. As a Colonial born he agreed with that, for they had no right to treat proposals from the Colonies with contempt; but if that was good enough in regard to imaginary offers relating to trade preference, it was equally good in respect of the protests from the Colonies in regard to the shameful sequel to a war in which our brothers across the sea freely and even eagerly spent their blood and treasure. He begged to move.

MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland),

in seconding the Motion, said that in some quarters this question appeared to be regarded as a mere Party agitation on the part of the Opposition with no reality or substance in it, as a question taken up solely in order to win support in the constituencies. He assured the House that that was not so, for many of them felt a profound conviction that the introduction of Chinese labour under the conditions in which it had been introduced in the Transvaal was unnecessary for the economic development of that country, was injurious to British labour, opposed to the future well-being of South Africa, and deleterious to those principles of liberty to which this nation had long been profoundly attached. Would those who regarded this merely as a Party agitation explain why our great Colonies, who were far removed from any such considerations, had expressed opposition to the introduction of Chinese labour even more emphatically than it had been expressed in this country? They had now had six months experience of Chinese labour. 27,000 coolies had been introduced into the Transvaal and another 7,500 were upon the sea bound for the Transvaal mines. He thought the time had now come when they could review the results of this experiment. He had heard no complaints with regard to the feeding and housing of the Chinese coolies, and they seemed to be in this respect well treated; but there was still the essential evil, the essential blot upon the whole scheme, that this was an attempt to keep in isolation and subordination a vast body of men in the midst of the surrounding population. They had this helot community established in the midst of the surrounding white and black population on conditions degrading to those who suffered them, and still more degrading to those who inflicted them. Never in the history of the world had there been such an attempt as this to keep isolated and separated from the rest of the community a vast body of tens of thousands of labourers.

The Colonial Secretary said that he had done no more in this matter than previous Liberal governments had done in the case of the West Indies. The employment of coolies in the West Indies was essentially different in principle to that of the Chinese coolies in the Transvaal, because there had never been any attempt to isolate them from the rest of the community. Nor were they limited to unskilled labour. The great majority of Indian coolies in the West Indies ultimately settled in the country—to the extant of about 62 per cent., and they were regarded as most valuable members of the community. This experiment of keeping 30,000 men within a ring fence was bound to break down. It was an impossible undertaking. There had been numerous cases of riots as a result of the conditions under which the Chinese labourers were confined. According to Mr. Harold Strange, the Chairman of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, there were in January last 168 coolies in jail, twenty-one had deserted and 685 had died or had been sent back again to China. It was reported that these riots had occurred largely on account of conflicts between the Kaffirs and Chinese, because the Kaffirs were defending their women-folk from interference by the coolies. Last night the Prime Minister deprecated cross-examination across the floor of the House, but, nevertheless, he should like to ask a single question, which he thought would be considered pertinent and legitimate. Did the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the view that it would be manifestly most wrong that they should go without their women-folk?


I wish to point out that what I said is perfectly clear if the whole sentence is read. With the context the sentence makes it perfectly clear. I said it would be wrong for the coolies to go without their wives if they wished their wives. That is perfectly clear from the pledge I gave immediately afterwards.

SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

Is it quite right to desert their wives?


I am answering the question of the hon. Member. I say that the context of the sentence which he read shows that what I said was that it was wrong that the coolies should go there without their wives if they desired to bring them. I gave pledges that they should have the opportunity, and full opportunity, of bringing them. I asked hon. Members whom I was addressing afterwards if they could make any suggestion whereby that facility could be increased. From that day to this I have heard none. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean showed that he understood the pledge which was given in that sentence.


said he had not the whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in his hand, but he had one or two sentences which came before the one he had quoted. The right hon. Gentleman said— I entirely agree that the provisions for the reception and accommodation of the wives and families of these people should be clearly made. We were advised in this matter by men the most experienced in the whole Empire on the subject of Chinese labour. We were advised that the coolies would not go without their women-folk. Manifestly it would be most wrong that they should go without their women-folk. I undertake that if they wish to bring their wives and families they shall be allowed to do so. ["All of them?"] All of them … I undertake, on behalf of the Government, that all the coolies who desire to bring their wives and families shall have the opportunity to do so. He did not know what was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but he had always thought until this moment, and he thought the majority of the Members of the House were of the same opinion, that he regarded it on moral grounds objectionable that these Chinese should be herded together in large celibate communities on account of which certain practices were notorious. He had had the benefit of the advice of a man who was equal as an authority to any of those the right hon. Gentleman had consulted. This man, who had been for many years the Protector of the Chinese in the Straits Settlements, assured him that the Chinese would not take their woman-folk with them when they when temporarily, and the result was that in the Malay Peninsula there occurred the abhorrent evils which they thought must occur in South Africa. That was one of the grounds on which hon. Members on his side of the House had opposed the introduction of Chinese labour in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be manifestly most wrong that the Chinese should go there without their women-folk. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he now proposed to take to stop what was a manifest wrong.

*There was a second result which was important. In the six months from June to December there were 1,600 more white workman employed on the Transvaal mines. His hon. friend had pointed out on the authority of an answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to a Question that a proportion, but he did not know how large a proportion, of these men were employed, not as miners, but as builders in providing accommodation for the Chinese, who were being imported at the rate of 5,000 or 6,000 a month. His hon. friend had pointed out that these white workmen were rapidly decreasing, and that while in December 5,500 Chinese arrived, only ninety-two additional whites were employed. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, and those who supported him, said that the effect of Chinese labour was to increase the number of white workmen. They on the other hand said that the effect of Chinese labour was to reduce the labour of the whites. Contradictory as it might seem, both these statements might be true, and both were true. We were increasing the number of supervisors, but we were excluding the labourers. We were increasing the employment of white men by hundreds, but shutting them out by thousands. A great deal turned on the question whether or not whites would work in the mines as unskilled labourers. That was a matter of controversy on the platforms throughout the country, and hon. Gentlemen opposite based their case on the statement that white men would not work in the Transvaal mines. On February 16th last year the Colonial Secretary said— It is, I think, more than unfortunate, but still an undoubted fact, that white men in Africa will not do the work which black men do.'' Again and again they had proof that white men actually did this work in South Africa, not indeed side by side and in the same gangs with the Kaffirs or Chinese. No one had ever suggested that. The hon. Member for Chester had made an offer to his constituents that he would send out a certain number of selected men if they would undertake to work side by side in the Transvaal mines with Kaffir labourers. That offer was entirely beside the mark.

MR. YERBURGH (Chester)

said one reason he made the offer was because his statement that white men would not work side by side with Kaffirs was challenged.


said the offer made by the hon. Member had fallen through, for local reasons, but the hon. Member was quite right in his contention that whites and blacks would not work together. No one had proposed that as a solution of the Transvaal Labour problem. But either in the mines or on the surface whites and blacks would work separately at unskilled labour. In his report for 1903, the Government mining engineer said— In the majority of the crushing mills the native has been entirely replaced by the European. If white men would not do black men's work, how did the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the black men had been replaced by the white men? On June 16th last the Colonial Secretary stated, in reply to a Question— Lord Milner has furnished me with a statement showing that the number of white employed in the Witwatersrand Gold Mines on unskilled labour, which prior to the war was performed by Kaffirs, is 998. If, again, white men could not be got to do Kaffir work, how was it that there were 998 so employed in June last? They might say that it was uneconomical to employ white men, or that it was undesirable for social or political reasons. That was a question of argument. But as to the white men being unwilling to do work which black men do was a question of fact and not of argument, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had been absolutely disproved. These labourers had been rapidly displaced since the Chinese went there. In the Village Main Reef Mine, of which Mr. Creswell had been manager, white men were employed, and after Mr. Creswell was removed they were even increased; but as soon as Chinese were introduced in the Simmer and Jack Mine the blacks were sent from there to the Main Reef Mine, and the white men were dismissed. He had here a letter in which Mr. Strickland, the secretary of the Witwatersrand Trades and Labour Council, said— These 200 boys were engaged by the Village Main Reef, and the two contractors are now lashing and tramming certain drives of the V.M.R. on contract with their boys, and at least 140 white men have been discharged. I interviewed the men, some young fellows who had fought through the war. They had hoped to have saved sufficient to pay their passage home. Now all they saw before them was the same hopeless struggle for work, and destitution staring them in the face. It was a most depressing interview. Others were Dutchmen, mostly living at Vrededorp. One old man named Steyn had been successful in getting the job and he had taken a part on contract, the whole male portion of his family were working with him and making a living, and I feel safe in saying that at least 1,000 members of the community have been deprived of their only hope of sustenance by the shifting of contract natives from one mine owing to the introduction of Chinese. Mr. Albu, one of the leaders of the mining industry, speaking at Johannesburg in December, at a meeting of the Rand Collieries Gold Mining Company, said— After careful calculation, the general manager of the Van Ryn mine has reported to me that with 2,650 coolies, which allows 12 per cent. for idlers and contingencies, he will be able to operate the whole 160 stamps, crush 24,000 tons per month, sort 25 per cent., and do the whole of the mining, stoping, and developing with hand labour, discarding all machine drills, But hand labour was the work of the coolies, the machine drills gave employment to the whites.

Mr. Gillam, Chairman of the Van Ryn Company, speaking in London on 18th January last, said— When the Chinese had become thoroughly proficient workmen it was the intention of the management to resort more and more to hand drilling. There had been two courses open to the Rand mining industry, either to become more and more dependent on high-grade labour and high-grade methods as in the United States and in Western Australia, or to depend on low-grade labour and low-grade and primitive methods. The mineowners had always been determined to rely on the latter, not, he believed, for economic reasons, but for political reasons. They feared the power of the white man through his trade union and through his vote. According to an answer given by the Colonial Secretary to a Question, the ratio of white men per 1,000 coloured labourers employed was in 1897, 137; in 1898, 130; in 1899, 119; in 1902 after the war, 250; and in 1903, 174. In the first half of 1904 the figure was fairly stationary. There was a scarcity of labour in the middle of the year. The ratio per thousand in January was 170; February, 164; March, 159; April, 161; May, 169; June, 177; July, 183; August, 183. Then the Chinese began to come in; September, 170; October, 158; November, 150; December, 143. So that there had been an exceedingly rapid decline. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had always proceeded on the theory that the amount of white labour I was proportioned to the amount of coloured labour—that the more coloured labour there was employed the more white labour would be engaged, and that the scarcer the coloured labour the smaller would be the proportion of white labour employed. Now these facts proved precisely the contrary—that the more plentiful the coloured labour the smaller was the proportion of white labour employed. The outcome of all this was very obvious. There was in London an Emigrants' Information Bureau, which was under the Colonial office and the officials provided very reliable information to intending emigrants. In their last circular, issued in January, they said, m regard to the Transvaal—that was six months after the Chinese had been introduced there, and when there were 23,000 in the ecountry, which ought on the Colonial Secretary's theory to have had a considerable effect on white employment. They said— There is a considerable amount of distress in the Transvaal, both in the towns and in the country districts, owing to the general want of employment, so that, persons are warned against going there at the present time in search of work. There is no demand for white miners, of whom there are large numbers on the spot without work.'' That was the result of the Chinese Ordinance so far as the white miners were concerned. What was the result to the mineowners? He had been looking at the price of the shares some of the mining companies in the Transvaal. He had not taken all, for they were very numerous; but he had taken the twelve largest, all those with a subscribed capital of over £1,000,000. He had taken the price of the shares of these companies at the end of the last half year, December 31st, and at the end of the previous half year, June 30th. Of the twelve companies, the shares of eleven of them had risen as the result mainly, of course, of the introduction of Chinese. The increase in value of the shares of all twelve in six months was £14,699,000, and that was on a total subscribed capital of £22,000,000. Well, it was worth taking a great deal of trouble to make a profit of £14,699,000 in six months. It was worth while conducting a prolonged political agitation for that. It was worth while packing a good many meetings on the Rand, and taking trouble to arrange petitions. It was worthwhile dismissing a good many mine managers and newspaper editors for a profit of £14,000,000.

He wished to refer very briefly to one other point. They had said from the very beginning that it would be possible to get a largely increased supply of Kaffir labourers if they were properly treated and cared for. He thought that all credit should be given to the Transvaal mining industry for the fact that the death-rate had recently very largely decreased. It was a matter for gratification that while in the first eight months of 1903 the death rate was 72 per thousand, the death-rate in the first eight months of 1904 was 40 per thousand, or a redaction of 32 per thousand in one year. It was, indeed, still far too high. Lord Harris, Chairman of the Consolidated Gold Fields, had claimed that the death-rate was not now excessive, for that at Cape Town among the coloured people it was 50 per thousand; but he forgot that that included all the coloured people in the Cape—infants and aged, while the Transvaal figures only included able-bodied men in the prime of life engaged for six or twelve months at a time. This reduction had been achieved by better treatment, better feeding, and by not allowing the coloured people who arrived in a weakly state to work in the mines until they were fit. But why had not these measures been taken long before? It was not until the debates took place in this House, not until Lord Milner had found that the death-rate was the "weakest point in out armour." There had been a reduction of 30 per thousand amongst the 100,000 employed; that was, 3,000 lives had been saved. He thought that those of them who had taken a part in this matter ought to feel some satisfaction at the result. The reporter's gallery in the House of Commons was a wonderful sounding board; it enabled a whisper to be heard all over the world. The discussions in that House had had their effect in the compounds on the Rand. They who were interested in this matter had had to meet with many unfair attacks; they had been accused of false sentimentality, of exaggerating evils, of doing injustice to their own fellow-countrymen in the Transvaal. Yes; but they were right. They said that the death-rate was unnecessarily high, and the event had proved it. In the consciousness that they had done some little to save 3,000 lives by their action last year they had their reward.

Now, what was to be done with the Chinese now in the Transvaal? The Government started with the policy that the Transvaal should be treated as a self-governing colony and that the opinion of the colony should decide the matter. That policy—the Colonial Secretary would contradict him if he was wrong—had been frankly abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman said he had not abandoned it, but the Prime Minister had. The Prime Minister on Tuesday, said— If it should be found that the immigration of these labourers from any point of view was on the whole producing a balance of ill, the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we without hesitation should prevent any augmentation of their numbers. That was, not the people of the Transvaal, but "we," the British Ministry. If a Liberal Government stopped the importation of the Chinese that would be a monstrous trifling with Imperial interests and making a colonial question a plaything of Party; but if a Conservative Government prevented the augmentation of their numbers that was a very proper proceeding. For his own part, he had always been content to leave the main issue to the people of the Transvaal themselves. England, indeed, had a right to a voice in the matter if she chose to exercise it. They had bought that right with £250,000,000, and, what was far more precious, with the lives of 20,000 of our soldiers. The other Colonies were also entitled to be heard for similar reasons. Nevertheless, they were willing to leave the ultimate decision of the question to a referendum of the people of the Transvaal. He trusted that when a Liberal Government came in they would stop the importation of the Chinese at once. If necessary that could be done by Executive Act. No Act of Parliament was requisite; no repeal of the Transvaal Ordinance was required. It could be done by the Lieutenant-Governor of the Transvaal by a discontinuance of the licences to import. It might be necessary to appoint an Imperial Commission to investigate the practicability of employing white labour in the Transvaal, and to state fully the facts of the case. Then let the matter be referred to the free voice of the white people in the colony, not confusing it with other issues, such as the relations between Boers and British, and nor allowing the declaration of public opinion to be manipulated by financiers whose interest in South Africa was limited to the interest they drew out of it, but leaving it to the free, unfettered decision of the whole white population.

Amendment proposed— At the end of the Question to add the words 'But humbly represent to Your Majesty that the facts now made known in respect of the importation of indentured Chinese coolies into the Transvaal show that Your Majesty's Government gave, during the discussion of the Transvaal Labour Ordinance in this House, assurances which have not been fulfilled; and represent further that this House expresses its regret that nearly a year has elapsed since the promulgation of the Ordinance without securing the opinion of the people of the Transvaal on the question of the policy of the Ordinance, especially since the opinion of the British Colonies generally, so far as officially expressed, appears to be vigorously opposed to that policy.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)

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


said he trusted that hon. Members on the other side of the House would not assume, because one might take a different view of this question from those hon. Members who had spoken, that one was necessarily swayed by what might be called the capitalist interest. He supposed that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and the hon. Member who seconded it would credit him with the same amount of honesty of conviction by which, he believed, they were possessed in moving the Amendment. He had lately been in the Transvaal and had travelled a good deal in the Transvaal and in South Africa. He did not pretend that his knowledge or information was complete, because none of them were infallible; but he had had the opportunity of seeing the working of Chinese labour in the mines; he had seen the working generally of the mining industry, and he would dispute some of the statements made by hon. Members opposite. Some of them were, he thought, not in accordance with real facts. It was interesting to know, as the seconder of the Amendment had stated, that he and his friends affirmed that a Liberal Government, if they came into power, would stop the importation of Chinese into the Transvaal. He presumed that they might consider that to be the intention of the Liberal Party. Well, it was quite possible that if a sufficient number of Chinese had been brought into the Transvaal to give that command of labour necessary for the proper development of the mines, that that might be a reasonable proposition. He did not disagree with it. But he held that it was a mistake to say that they should arbitrarily perform that act in spite of the local conditions which obtained. He also suggested that some of the references to the death-rate were inequitable. He wanted to put this point, because it might appear to play into the hands of his friends opposite—that in accounting for the very considerable death-rate of the natives in the Transvaal there had to be considered the natives from British Central Africa and from the Lower Zambesi. For himself, he spoke quite candidly on that point. He thought it was a very grave error to import natives from these tropical parts and it ought not to have been done. He visited the compounds when these natives were brought into the Transvaal. Fifty per cent. of the natives from these districts were Suffering from cold and pneumonia. That accounted for the heavy death-rate among the natives. He did not pretend to be an authority on the question—a great many people who were unimportant professed to be authorities—but he maintained that the death-rate was due to an importation which ought never to have been carried out.

As regarded the question of white labour in the Transvaal, hon. Gentlemen opposite, he knew, presented their case with all sincerity, but what were the facts. He himself was not an authority: but he would quote an authority. Mr. Drummond Chaplin, in this month's National Review, discussed the question. He instanced the Simmer and Jack Mine, and showed that in May last the supply of unskilled labour was only 2,138 out of a total complement of 5,430. Now, 1,769 natives, 3,242 Chinamen and 575 Europeans were employed. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment stated that the increase in the employment of white skilled labour in the mines was due to the putting up of compounds and similar work. In May, 394 skilled Europeans were employed; now there were 575 employed. That was a difference of 181; yet the number employed in the special work of erecting compounds was only seventy-three. It was only fair that the case should be presented fully. Every hon. Member knew that the permanent staff of a mine was kept up, no matter what the proportion of unskilled labour might be. The same amount of skilled labour was kept in a mine even when the unskilled complement was reduced to a minimum. There could be no increase in skilled appointments until the balance had been struck between skilled and unskilled labour. But as soon as that had been arrived at there would be an increase in the number of skilled appointments. Mr. Chaplin stated that in November the proportion of Europeans to unskilled coloured labourers employed on the Rand was one to six, although the aggregate number of Europeans employed had increased by 1,663. In the same way at the Simmer and Jack Proprietary Mines the proportion in May was 1 to 5.5, and in November 1 to 8.7, though the number of Europeans employed had increased by 181. Further, he stated— Every mining company, if it is working at all, has to maintain a regular staff of Europeans whose numbers do not appreciably vary in proportion to the number of unskilled labourers on the mine. Their services are equally necessary whether the complement of unskilled men be complete or 50 per cent. below its strength. In the latter case the proportion is simply abnormal. It gradually rights itself as the complement of natives or Chinese approaches towards completion. As to the statement that there was lack of employment and that the Emigration Office had advised emigrants not to proceed to the Transvaal, he accepted that. If he were asked to-morrow whether it was wise to go to the Transvaal he would say "No." Why? Because every unemployed man who could pay his way went there from every other portion of South Africa. The Secretary of the Rand Aid Association informed him that they had there useless people—"wasters" they were called—from every other part of South Africa. That was common to every mining community. It attracted the worst and the best. There would be found the loafer as well as the man who went to make his fortune. If the latter failed, he resumed his legitimate trade or occupation. At present the Transvaal was in a transitory condition. It could not yet absorb all the skilled labour, it would absorb eventually. Hon. Gentlemen had presented one side of the case; not the other.

It was said that with the introduction of the Chinese native labour would decrease. During the war the natives made a great deal of money; and were not inclined, in consequence, to return to the mines. They had wives and cattle, and were enjoying themselves. It was said that the Chinese would drive out native labour; but they had really increased it. In June, 1904, the number of natives in the mines was 68,174; in December, 1904, it was 76,611. That was a matter which ought to be taken into consideration. There had been a decrease in the death-rate, but he agreed with hon. Members opposite that the discussions in this House had brought that pressure to bear which was desired. He did not believe that any class of public men did their duty towards the public unless they were pressed. He did not impeach the mineowners for not having done their duty as regards the treatment of the natives, but he admitted that reasonable pressure brought to bear where the public might think that the natives were not being well-treated, was proper and right. Since the war the native administration had done a great deal to improve the condition of the natives. That was no argument against the present Administration of the Transvaal, but against the old conditions of things under the Boer Government. It was said that there had been riots among the Chinese and that they were a source of danger because of quarrelsome dispositions. While he was in the Transvaal he had read telegrams which had been sent from this country dealing with the subject, and he was astounded to see the sensational statements made as to the riots. They were described in these telegrams as "a war,'" and one paper announced that a battle had take in place among the Chinese on the Rand. No doubt there had been a certain amount of disturbance, but it was not serious. There were faction fights among the Chinese, just as there had been similar fights among the natives and he could cut out from South-African papers reports of faction fights among the natives, which were more serious than those of which so much had been made in connection with the Chinese, of which nothing was known outside South Africa. Hon. Gentlemen did not trouble about them. They were more concerned with what advantaged them in their constituencies. Why, when these things occurred among the natives, did not hon. Members opposite raise the same question? [Cries of "We do."]

Stress had been laid on the opinion of the Colonies on this subject; but Canada had expressed no opinion because it was not subject to emotional prejudices in the same way as some other portions of the Empire. It was more easy to understand the position of Australia. He had lived in Australia and he could explain the position there. In Australia the Chinaman was admitted as a citizen and permitted to compete in the skilled labour market, and therefore the prejudice in Australia against the Chinaman was well founded. Canada had imported Chinese labour as long as it needed it. British Columbia had been developed practically by Chinese labour; but the colonists put a limit to the importation, as he believed a limit would be placed upon the importation of Chinese labour in the Transvaal. [OPPOSITION cries of "When?"] Hon. Members had quoted Canada, but they must remember that the Canadians were a shrewd and sensible people who wore not going to throw themselves into any controversy which they had not made their own. The conditions of South Africa were totally different from those which obtained in every other colony, and hon. Members approaching this question from a colonial point of view did themselves a great injustice. They impeached their own knowledge Everybody who knew the Transvaal knew that the ratio of unskilled to skilled labour was seven to one, in spite of the ambitions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were as ambitious to put as many white people as possible into the Transvaal as those who sat on the Unionist Benches.

He took the view, and still adhered to it, that white skilled labour did not work in the mines to any great extent. Mr. Creswell's experiment showed that the stay of white men in the mines was on an average seventeen days. Grievous pictures had been presented to the House about the conditions of Chinese slavery in the Transvaal. Hon. Members, however, must admit that their prophecies as to slavery had not come true. He had been in the Transvaal mines and had seen the Chinamen at work underground. They earned their wage of 2s. a day with comparative ease, for there had been established in the mines a rising scale of wages according to the amount of work performed. The House had been told that when these men, who had worked hard in the mine, had come out and enjoyed their luxurious bath, for they had as comfortable quarters as anyone in the House, they were apt to go abroad on an orgy of immorality and debauchery. He knew of no men who were less likely to do anything of the sort. Never in his life had he seen a more healthy-looking lot of men, and he did not see why the Chinamen should be suspected of greater immorality than British or any other workmen living under the same conditions of work. Would any Gentleman opposite say it was impossible for a race to avoid immorality, because, if that were so, he would be casting an imputation on a great many thousands of people who were not married, and others who were sent abroad for years on their country s business. Certainly his view was that hon. Members opposite were too apprehensive in the circumstances. He admitted that there were dangers, but they were not of that sensational character mentioned by hon. Members. The conduct of the Chinese had been exceptionally good, and he did not himself think that faction fights were the worst things that could occur with regard to the mines themselves and these so-called compounds, so little did they look like compounds, and so large were they that it was difficult to see the fences at all, and the, Chinese went about them and were apparently as free as anyone. While there was discipline in the compounds there was also a relaxation of it, and he had met scores of Chinese outside their compounds interested in all that they saw. Indeed, there was as little an appearance of slavery as any one could imagine. The Kaffirs in the Kimberley compounds were under much more severe restrictions than the Chinese coolies, but no political agitation had been raised on their account. There the restrictions were so severe that he could hardly imagine even natives accepting them. The only thing was that there the natives stayed a less time. In the Transvaal compounds the restrictions did not keep the Chinese in any sort or terrorism or anxiety, and there had never been a protest from any of them since they entered the compounds. As to the attitude of the Boers in the two colonies, it would be impossible to get a dozen farmers to advocate the abolition of the Ordinance, because the Chinese labour set free Kaffirs for the farms. The Boor politicians were moved by the desire to put spokes in the wheel of the present Administration. Their action was political, and was not based upon the merits of the case. They were fighting for self-government, not with a view to co-operation with us, but to achieve that political domination which would in some degree compensate them for the loss of territorial domination. In conclusion, he did not believe the vote to be taken on this Amendment would be against the Government, but would support them in securing for a period the benefit of Chinese labour in the mines of the Transvaal.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

thought that the mover and seconder of the Amendment had made out a good case against the Colonial Secretary, and had shown that the promises the right hon. Gentleman had made to the House had been violated. He did not for one moment accuse the right hon. Gentleman of breaking faith. No doubt he made the promises in good faith, but anyone who had gone into the matter closely knew how impossible it was to trust to any assurance obtained from the authorities in the Transvaal. It was very weak on the part of anyone to suppose they would obey any order sent out from this country. Lord Milner had said he did not care sixpence for public opinion here, and no doubt he included in that the opinion of any Colonial Secretary who suggested anything of which he did not approve. The mover of the Amendment had suggested that the Colonial Secretary should resign. Well, they had been urging the Government to dissolve, which was much the same thing, but he did not think any hope could reasonably be entertained that any Minister would resign because the Opposition asked him to. But the right hon. Gentleman, having given these pledges to the House, ought to insist on their being carried out, and should make the authorities in the Transvaal understand that when a Minister in that House, with the full approval of the Chamber, promised that certain action should be taken it must be carried out, and not ignored by Lord Milner and his myrmidons in the Transvaal.

The only speech in support of the Government that day had been the one delivered by the hon. Member for Gravesend, and he had listened to it with great interest, hoping to find something in it to which he could reply. But he had been disappointed. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have taken the Colonies generally under his wing. He had, in the past, had much to say about Canada, and no doubt he would now be often on his legs discussing South Africa. The hon. Member for Gravesend had made some extraordinary statements. Hs had said that the British would get on exceedingly well in the Transvaal, but he advised no Briton to go there, not because of the presence of the Chinese, but because of the number of loafers from all parts of Europe who went there and were unable to get work. The fact of the matter was, that the hon. Member perceived that it was useless for any sensible British working man to go to South Africa with the expectation of getting work; he had to get some reason for it, and somebody had told him that cock-and-bull story. He had also stated that the best way to get the mines worked by natives was to fill them with Chinese, a proposition which on the face of it was absurd. There had also been repeated the old story of what an elysium the compound was. According to the directory, the hon. Member inhabited a fine house in Carlton House Terrace, and yet he declared that the miners in the compounds were lodged as well as he was! The hon. Member, together with the Colonial Secretary and others, did not really grasp what was the objection of the Opposition to this Ordinance. They did not care whether it was profitable or unprofitable. With the assent of the Chinese or without, the employment of these people under existing conditions was against their principles. Technically, and to a lawyer's mind, it was not slavery; but they considered that the status of these men was such that its existence in any country over which floated the British flag was derogatory to the name and honour of the nation. It was all very well to say that the Chinese desired to go. Everybody knew what China and her mandarins were; the House had been informed by a Blue-book of what happened in connection with similar contracts between Peru and the Chinese Government; and they knew that, through the intervention of the British Government in the name of morality and civilisation, those contracts were put an end to. Even though it were with the free assent of the Chinese, he should object to British colonies being made a dumping-ground for chattels of this description. No man could contract himself out of his inherent rights under the British flag.

What was the position of the Chinese when they reached the Transvaal? He totally denied that they were free men. They were shut up in compounds, flogged if they would not work, liable to arrest if seen wandering about, given a small pittance, and not allowed to return to their own country until the expiration of the term of their contract unless they paid their expenses, and that to men earning a shilling a day was practically an impossibility. He was a so-called "Little Englander;" he was a parochial Englishman. He looked to the worker of the United Kingdom and the leading Colonies, and did not trouble himself about what went on outside the British Empire. He had a certain sympathy for the suffering and oppressed of other lands, but considering the greatness of the Empire and the importance of this country, he thought a Member of the House of Commons had his hands full if he tried to look after the interests and the well-being of the people under the British flag. The presence of chattels of this description under the conditions existing in South Africa he regarded as harmful to the body politic, likely utterly to demoralise the public sense of right and wrong, and to attack the dignity of labour.

He also denied the soundness of the policy on economical grounds. There were in South Africa the three races of the Boers, the Britons, and the blacks. Every day the blacks were increasing in numbers and becoming more civilised, and the great danger to South Africa as a British colony was the vast numbers of the subject races already there. It was perfect madness that we should go out of our way to introduce the yellow race also. In the time of Boer rule there was undoubtedly a racial oligarchy in the Transvaal. The Boers were determined to remain political masters of the country. We made war on them because the miners were said to be treated as helots and so forth—a story which was somewhat exploded now. He did not contend that the Boer's was a perfect Government, but if he had to choose between living under the oligarchy of the Dutch Boers and living under the present autocracy of the mineowners, he would certainly select the former. The idea of the mineowners seemed to be that they should form themselves into a cosmopolitan class of rulers simply because they were wealthy, and that all manual labour should be done by serfs.

The falsity of the statement that the employment of Chinese would lead to greater employment of white men had been conclusively shown. What was really wanted was to attract a British population to the colony, and that unquestionably would not be done by the present policy. The reason Englishmen would not work in the mines was that the owners would not pay proper rates of wages. The owners pleaded that it higher wages were given the mines would not pay. Then why work them? There were many coal seams in the mines of England that might be worked if Chinese labour were employed. ["You could employ them."] The working men of the country would have a very strong word to say on that matter. People did not sufficiently realise that, although there were some honest men connected with the South African mining industry, speaking generally the whole thing was more or less of a swindle. The present market value of the shares of the different companies totalled up to about £300,000,000; only £50,000,000 had been bona fide spent on plant and so forth, so that £250,000,000 had gone into somebody's pocket. According to the returns for last year, gold to the value of £l6,000,000 was extracted, and dividends to the amount, of £4,000,000 were paid. Considering the character of the investment, a person ought reasonably to have 10 per cent. on his money in the mines. To pay 10 per cent. on the capital drawn from the British public would require the extraction of gold to the value of £120,000,000. But the total produce of gold all over the world was only £78,000,000, and it was estimated that at their present rate of output the mines would be exhausted in from twenty-five to thirty years. Would any mineowner venture to say that £120,000,000 worth of gold could be drawn from the mines in the Transvaal in a year? Therefore he submitted that the whole thing was more or less of a swindle, in the sense that the money had been obtained by persuading the public that the mines would yield an absolutely impossible return. The mineowners had made their mines, not but of the mines, but out of the public, and when Parliament was asked to do this, that, or the other, it should be borne in mind that the so-called mining industry was really a doubtful species of roulette table. Immediately the war was over the mineowners claimed the right to tax the natives in order to compel them to work in the mines. It would be just as reasonable to tax landowners to such an extent as to compel them to work in their own fields for a portion of the year. So sure were the mineowners that they were masters of the situation that they reduced the already paltry wage, and then complained that the natives would not work. That dodge having failed, they fell back on the Chinaman, thinking he would be more profitable than the native, in that he would be paid less and would work the whole instead of a portion of the year. The object was simply to get rid of the shares on their hands, to bring out more companies, and to draw more money out of the British public.

But there was another objection to the presence of British working men. The miniowners feared the introduction of "the serpent of trade unionism" and the necessity of having to give British working men votes, the granting of which might result in the loss of their oligarchical hold of the country. It was not thus that our great Colonies had been built up; a community would not thrive if controlled by a comparatively small dominant class while the manual labour was supplied by subject races. What surprised him was the positive impudence of these millionaires. They forgot what we had spent to acquire the Transvaal. We got it and were not going to give it back; but it was not theirs. The millionaires wanted to rule there entirely and be the dominant factor in the State, while the British workmen, who had to pay largely through indirect taxation for the war, were to be kept out of the country because they would introduce trade unionism into the Transvaal and would require votes. He wondered why it was that such men had such influence with His Majesty's Government. Was there some dark secret connected with the Raid? He knew that when during the inquiry they were getting near to the question of the late Colonial Secretary being connected with the Raid he was stopped. With regard to the Government, to use a common expression, they knew enough about them to hang them. He noticed that a great deal of money was being spent by the Tariff Reform League. He should like to see the subscription list of the Tariff Reform League, for it would be well worth—


Order, order! The hon. Member is referring to matters which are not in order upon this Motion.


said they were being asked to bribe the Colonies and invite them to join in a conference with us to discuss public affairs, but when those same Colonies protested against the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa the Government would not listen to them. This policy was foolish from an economical point of view, because although by adopting it they might do a little business and obtain a spurious prosperity for a little time, when they considered the permanent interests of the Transvaal and the Empire as a whole, they would find that they could not possibly do a worse thing than introduce Chinese labour. He did not know exactly when the Liberals would come into office, but he knew it would be as soon as the electorate had a chance of turning the Government out. The members of the Government stuck like limpets to their places, and he believed that they would go on to the end of the septennial epoch, and probably at the end of that time they would bring in a Bill to continue in office. They had considerable difficulty in understanding whether the Prime Minister represented his own Party's views or not, but at any rate they knew he did not represent, and never would represent, the views or the intentions of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House. The Prime Minister had rightly said that if they asked for support for this Motion on the ground that they considered the introduction of Chinese labour a moral crime, and yet refused to reverse this policy, they would be hypocrites. The hon. Member, after quoting an extract from the Johannesburg Star, concluded by expressing the hope that the time would soon come when there would be a Ministry in power that would show these millionaires that they were not our masters, as they seemed to be under the impression, but that the Government were the masters of the situation.

MR. WORSLEY-TAYLOR (Lancashire, Black pool)

said he had had the opportunity of trying to inform his mind upon this question during a very recent stay of two mouths in the Transvaal. He approached the consideration of it without any preconceived ideas or bias of any kind, having no investments whatever in South Africa, and no connection with its finance, and by no means approving of the financing and the speculation with which a legitimate industry had unfortunately been overlaid. In answer to the contention that the introduction the Chinese was unnecessary in the interests of the mines themselves, he pointed to the shortage of labour, which seriously imperilled the white wages, and to the report of the Government mining engineer—which was absolutely conclusive to his mind—that a supply of labour could not be obtained from Africa. He laid emphasis on the fact of the heavy cost of procuring outside labour. When the mineowner had brought his Chinamen into the country, and housed them, and finally returned them, he would not have much left out of £20 a head. Applying that to 50,000 labourers—the number contemplated by next June—it was at once obvious that a very serious sum was being risked, because they did not know how the experiment would turn out. That was some proof that the mineowners felt there was good reason why they should seek for labour outside Africa. As to the point about employing white labour, nobody who knew the conditions had been honestly suggested it. It had been honestly tried. The mineowners had tried to get white labour at 5s., 10., and even 15s., and yet they could not get white men. Here, we could not appreciate the intensity of racial feeling out there. The Kaffirs lived under such conditions that when white men got out there, having gone out with the honest intention of accepting unskilled work, they would not work with the Kaffirs. When the white man realised the actual state of things he said, "I am not going to take on this Kaffir job," and he generally threw it up. The result was that white men generally stayed at this king of unskilled work about seventeen days on the average, and they could not be induced to stay longer. White labour, therefore, had been tried and it had failed. Black and white labour could not be got to work together, and there was no other course available except the importation of labour from outside.

A great deal had been heard about the treatment of the Chinese. He had used the opportunities which had presented themselves to him of examining into the treatment of the Chinese labourers. It was his experience, as it was the result of the experience of every Englishman whom he had consulted there, that from the day when the labourer landed in Durban to the day when he was set to work and thenceforward he was treated well and liberally in every respect. Every mine was thrown open to inspection, and all information and statistics were placed at the disposal of the inquirer. He could wish nothing better than that the mover and seconder of this Amendment should go out and inspect the mines for themselves, and he at any rate would be bound by their report. The compounds were not narrow prisons. They were wide and spacious open squares, with good buildings round them. The rooms were comfortable, warm, well-ventilated, with baths and good sanitary arrangements. One of the complaints of the mineowners, indeed, was that the sickness rate had increased among the Chinese because they could not induce the men to take advantage of all the opportunities given to them to change their wet for dry clothes. He had examined the various kinds of food eaten by the labourers and tasted several of them. In quantity it was ample, and of good qualify, so that no one could doubt that the men were well housed and well treated. The term "Helotism" had been applied to the Chinese because they were confined in compounds. They were not truly ''confined" in compounds. The men were allowed to wander at will over the property of the company, and in some cases the property extended to hundreds of acres. When they wanted to go into the town they applied for a pass, and unless there were urgent reasons to the contrary the pass was granted as a matter of course. The treatment, indeed, was not practically different from that which had been meted out to thousands of Kaffirs as to whom no one had uttered a syllable of complaint.

Then it was said that promises had been broken with regard to wages. The Chinese were better off in this respect than the Kaffirs. There was no minimum wage for the Kaffir; there was for the Chinese. Again, the Chinamen had the opportunity to bring their wives with them. He challenged any lion. Member to say that what was done for the Chinese labourer in this respect was done for any other imported labourer in any part of the world. Everyone sympathised with the men who had been obliged to have their wives and families, but this experience was not peculiar to the Chinese. There were thousands of our own fellow-countrymen in South Africa in precisely the same position. He travelled home with a professional man who had not seen his wife and children for two years, and there was an officer who had been kept away by duty from his family for five years because he could not afford to bring them out to South Africa. But it was not the Ordinance which restricted the Chinese from taking their wives with them. On the contrary the Ordinance did all it could in this respect, for it gave the Chinese the opportunity of bringing their wives with them if they so desired.


The coolies were never told that.


said the Chinese were pretty cute in their business transactions. He had watched them in the mines when their wages tickets were being marked, and if hon. Members could only see this for themselves, they would be very much surprised at their sharpness and intelligence; and if there happened to be the slightest error they noted it at once and went off to their interpreter. He ventured to think that if these Chinese felt that they had been brought to the Transvaal under false pretences, and that the promises made to them had been broken, they would very soon have protested. Allusion had been made to the advertisements, but the hon. Member for North Camber-well did not give the date.


It was the 14th of March, 1904.


said if the hon. Member had inquired, he would find that that was explained by Mr. Perry, who was the principal agent in China of the Labourers Association for the importation of these labourers.


Why were they recruiting coolies before the Ordinance had been passed?


said that provisional arrangements were being made before the Ordinance was passed because there was urgent necessity for this labour. Hundreds of thousands of copies of the full terms of the Ordinance had been circulated in the districts where these Chinese labourers were recruited as soon as the terms were settled. So much for the charge of bad faith on the part of the mineowner.

In looking at the economic results of Chinese labour, he thought that no one would dispute the plain fact that it caused a great and decided increase in the output from the mines. The total output at the end of last year overtopped any previous record. At the end of December last there were 1,250 more stamps running than in the same month of the previous year. That was an increase of 25 per cent. But the most serious charge against the importation of Chinese was that it had been injurious to the employment of white labour. The white wages bill in the year before the importation was £4,500,000. Salaries and wages paid to white men amounted altogether to £4,500,000. There was not the shadow of doubt that the importation of Chinese labour assured that. Without that it would have been decreased. He ventured to say that if the importation of Chinese had done nothing more than that, it might be regarded as having done something considerable. But since that time it had also increased the number of white men employed by about 2,000, which meant another £500,000 of white wages. By June next it was in contemplation to have 50,000 Chinese at work, involving, according to the best estimates, the employment of another 5,000 white men. But even putting the figure at 4,000 it represented another £1,000,000 in white men's wages. He was putting it at a much lower figure than those on the spot. He had got a calculation from Mr. Evans, the manager of one of the large mines, putting the total additional expenditure at £7,000,000, and of that he calculated that the white men's wages would be £2,000,000. That was no inconsiderable addition to the income of white men now there, or who intended to go out there. But the matter did not stop there. It had been proved by experience, both before and since the war, that for every white man employed on the mines there were ten other white persons living on the Rand in some capacity. So that this importation of Chinese labour would increase the white population of the Transvaal by 40,000 or 50,000. He ventured to say that those who desired to see an increase, in the voting power of the white men would have their desire fulfilled, and it would be fulfilled owing largely, mainly, in fact, to the importation of Chinese labour. Last year, largely moved by the prospect of imported labour, orders to the extent of £3,250,000 were given for new machinery, of which the greater part was for extensions. That would increase in future; and why should not the manufacturers and workmen of this country get their share of these orders?

But the mere direct addition to the number of whites employed in the Transvaal was the smaller part of the advantage which had been derived from this importation of Chinese. The Rand was the heart of South Africa, and if it were beating strongly it would send the life-blood coursing right to the extremities. Agriculture, the railways, the ports, and all the interests in South Africa were looking to the prosperity of the Rand, and were now convinced that that prosperity was assured. There might be difficulties, no doubt; and he approved of the Colonial Secretary keeping a watchful eye on future developments which might arise, and reserving power to deal with those developments. He understood his attitude to be that of satisfaction with the experiment so far as it had gone, and of watchfulness for the future. He entirely endorsed that attitude. The experiment had already proved itself a success, and if allowed to continue to a reasonable extent it would prove itself a still greater success.

The only other matter he desired to bring before the House had reference to public opinion—he meant instructed public opinion—the opinion of those on the spot who knew. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment referred to Mr. Albu, and he thought he might also quote the same Gentleman as showing the opinion of the mine-owners.


I did not quote him as an impartial authority, but only as an authority as to the intention of the mineowners.


said the opinion of the mineowners was worth listening to. Addressing a meeting of the shareholders of the Rand Collieries, Mr. Albu said— The employment of Chinamen on the Van Ryn and Aurora West has necessitated the engagement of a large number of additional white men on these properties, and I point this out advisedly, because it has been stated or hinted by the newspapers in England that the China men would be used to replace or oust the white labourer, a statement which we need hardly refute here. It has been amply proved that as fast as we have been able to obtain Chinese labour we have employed more white men … Furthermore, an additional influx of Chinamen—and I do not limit myself to any particular number—will enable us to start developing a good many mines which have lain dormant for years and years owing to the want of labour. Of course, for the first three or four years these properties will be in a state of development, and I need not point out to those conversant with working conditions on the Rand, that the proportion of skilled labour on developing properties is much greater than on working mines. It is quite possible that, for every hundred Chinamen we are able to import, we shall be able to employ at least ten additional white men. Moreover, I wish to point out to you, and to the public in general, that whereas before the war we had something like 95,000 natives with whom to carry on work, the industry in a short time will require over 200,000 unskilled labourers. This means, if we are allowed to import the additional labour needed, we shall within a year two be able to employ another ten or fifteen thousand white labourers on the Rand as a result of the introduction of the Chinaman. That was the opinion of the authority to whom his hon. friend on the other side had referred. In dealing with the matter of public opinion, he would refer hon. Members to one of the most outspoken and persistent opponents of Chinese labour before the facts were known. After he had had experience of it, Mr. Quinn said— With regard to the Chinese question (continued Mr. Quinn), which your esteemed president alluded to in words that seemed to indicate something about it—gentlemen, let me ask you to believe me at once when I say that as far as I am concerned, and I speak not only for myself, but also for others who agree with me—I make no apology. I cannot make any apology for my past action with regard to the introduction of Chinese into this country. If you expect an apology from me you are bound to be disappointed; I cannot. Whatever my faults may be, and unfortunately I know they are many, I have always endeavoured to say what I believed to be true at the time, and if tomorrow or the next day I have occasion from new information or knowledge to change the views I held last week, I trust I shall be man enough to come forward and say so. [Hear, hear.] As far as I am concerned—please understand I speak for myself—the Chinese are here, the Ordinance is passed, the people appear to be contented, there is no objection raised, and as far as I am concerned, in any politics I may take part in in the future the question is finished, and I ask most strongly, and every fair-minded man will sympathise with me, not to have this honest objection raised and dragged out, for the purpose of making an objection to my taking my part as a citizen, a part that I am entitled to take, in the politics of this country. That was the statement of a man who fought tooth and nail against the introduction of Chinese before he knew facts. One could not have stronger testimony in favour of Chinese labour than that. Then again, Sir H. Goold-Adams, governor of the Orange River Colony, said that 90 per cent of the thinking men in that colony were in favour of Chinese labour, as tending to release Kaffir labour for the farms. Sir Alfred Hime, ex-Premier of Natal, said— I have had every reason to believe that there will be a great trade revival in the near future. It largely depends upon the Transvaal mining industry. As your readers know, the lack of labour on the Rand, combined with the overstocking by merchants, was chiefly responsible for the recent depression, but the work of Chinese will remedy that. Once the mines are in full swing, all South Africa will feel the benefit, for money will circulate much more freely. Therefore they had testimony from the Rand, from the Orange River Colony, and from Natal. His own experience was that practically every man he talked to, no matter from what part of South Africa he came, agreed that, though he might have had objections to the Ordinance before he knew what the facts were, now the experiment had been tried there was no reason, up to the present at all events, for retaining those objections. Everyone was satisfied that the experiment had worked well and was promoting the prosperity of the mines and consequently the prosperity of the whole of South Africa. There was no point on which there was a stronger feeling in the Transvaal than the attacks made in the House of Commons and elsewhere on the policy of this Ordinance and the action of the mine owners under it. They felt that it was a matter which in its essence did not concern the interests or the honour of this country, but that it was a matter mainly for the Transvaal. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not allow the referendum?] He thought that in the interest of harmonious relations between the mother country and the colony it was right that these attack should cease, and that what had been a success in the past should be allowed to continue.

MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)

said the hon. and learned Member in his most lucid speech had shown that several things had taken place which he anticipated would take place—that, there being a shortage of labour, the easiest thing to do was introduce Chinese, and that the Chinese were in point of fact well treated on the Rand, as, indeed, was only likely in the circumstances of the case. But that was not the ground on which he and his friends opposed the Ordinance. They did so because they believed it to intrinsically wrong. They believed it to be wrong to break the solemnly pledged word of the country, and if there were any doubt whether that word had been broken, he would point out that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham solemnly pledged the honour of the Country that the importation of Asiatic labour should be conditional on its being clearly shown that the great majority of the white inhabitants of both colonies were in favour of it. Had it ever been clearly shown that this was so? There was not an hon. Member opposite who would stand up in his place and say that it had been clearly shown. They all knew that the trade unionists of the Rand had practically declared against the importation of Chinese labour, and that on May 23rd the Dutch unanimously and emphatically declared against it. All would admit that the great majority had not been clearly shown to be in favour of it. If, in spite of there being no clear expression of the will of the majority of the inhabitants in favour of such importation, the Ordinance had received sanction, then they had deliberately cheated the people of the Transvaal, and no amount of wealth derived from the importation could possibly excuse so gross a crime. He had frequently ventured to put this before great audiences of his countrymen daring the recess and he had never found a dissenting voice, and he would beg hon. members to believe that he regarded this matter in no Party spirit. As one who had bore a humble share in the war he must know something of the feelings and aspirations of the country. He thought hon. Members would admit that one who spent very many months in the company of his fellow-country men m the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies must got to know something of the reasons for waging the war. It was not for any Party reason that he spoke, but because he believed the thing was in itself wrong and challenged any hon. Member to contradict him.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

I certainly do.


submitted that it had not been proved that a great majority of the white inhabitants were in favour of Chinese labour. On the other hand, the people of this country and the people of the Transvaal bitterly resented it. It was wrong in itself, because it was against the law of this country, and of every civilised country, to confine men under these conditions, and he said that on the authority of the standing counsel of the Government of India. Would the Colonial Secretary tell them why the Government of India were opposed to allowing our Indian fellow-subjects to go to South Africa under these conditions? The fact was that that Government regarded these conditions as degrading. Hon. Members on his side of the House asserted that what was not good enough for the British-Indian subjects of the King was not good enough for any man under the British flag. It was argued that Chinese labour led to an increase in the production of gold. [Laughter.] It was easy for hon. Members to laugh, but if the thing was morally wrong no material wealth would make it right. He had nothing more to say except to point out that the damage done to our Imperial interests in this matter had been very great. He thought it would be admitted that the Colonies felt deeply on this matter, and all who knew the facts would admit that the feeling was not dying down. He asked the House to remember that, so recently as last month, the principal newspaper in New Zealand, speaking of the proposed Colonial conference, said that the memory of the hideous outrage that had been brought about in South Africa in this matter was too fresh in their minds for them to dance to any new Imperial tune at this moment. Therefore he would ask the House to reflect long and carefully before rejecting an Amendment which would tend perhaps to heal the sores created by this disastrous policy.


I agree with one sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Northampton. He said that we were a very long way from the Transvaal. It is obvious to me that a great many statements which have been made in the course of these debates would not have been made if we were not a long way from South Africa. I would ask hon. Members opposite to exercise their imagination as far as they can and try to place themselves in the situation of an English Government face to face with a demand—I will make this good afterwards—which is practically unanimous on the part of the white inhabitants of the Transvaal for an Ordinance of this kind. Suppose for a moment that I am discussing this matter with a Transvaal citizen who says, "We are ourselves substantially unanimous upon the question; we require this unskilled labour in order to restore the fortunes of our country, which for a time have been desolated by war; we require it in order to enable us to discharge the burden of debt, which, I believe, is greater upon the Transvaal, and in contingent liabilities is certainly greater, than that upon any British colony; we require it for the purpose of recovering the country." I do not think any hon. Gentleman opposite will deny that that is a strong plea. He will have to admit that in cases of Crown colonies which we absolutely dominate we have permitted indentured labour in all essential points upon similar conditions. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I know that that is disputed, and that the hon. Member for Poplar said that there is a cardinal distinction, inasmuch as in Trinidad and British Guiana no opposition is made to settlement at the end of five years, whereas the Transvaal Ordinance provides for repatriation at the employer's expense at the end of three years. I ventured to say at the time that that argument was shallow and unsubstantial, and I put it to hon. Gentlemen that the fact that the Member for Wolverhampton expressly declined shortly afterwards even to argue the point corroborated my view. I will take back the House to the dialogue I am imagining. If I said there were certain provisions in the Ordinance which I myself, were I an employer of labour, might dislike, what would be the force of such an argument? I might be told that it was not my affair—that I and my predecessor had promised to treat the Transvaal in all matters in which there were not vital Imperial interests concerned, as a self-governing colony. With what face therefore, our record being what it is in regard to these other Crown colonies, could I refuse a demand which is almost unanimous, and for which it cannot be contended that there is not grave and substantial reason? That is the standpoint from which I beg the House to approach this subject. I do not claim any elevation in opinion or character above any other human being. Personally, as a matter of taste, I would prefer that anybody who was serving me should be absolutely free from restrictions. But that is not the question. The question is whether I am entitled to advise His Majesty's Government to advise the King to veto this legislation, which has been prepared with the most scrupulous care, and which is being administered with a jealous desire for fulfilment of its provisions.

I come to the questions that were put by the mover and seconder of the Amendment, for the House will forgive me for saying that since these two hon. Gentlemen spoke no real contribution has been made to the discussion [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] on that side of the House, but on this side very important contributions have been made to the argument on that subject by the hon. Member for Gravesend and the hon. and learned Gentleman behind me. Both these gentlemen were eye-witnesses of that of which they spoke. The first criticism of the hon. Member for Camber-well was that the Government had broken its pledges with regard to the introduction of women. The history of that is this. Early last session the seconder of this Amendment asked me a couple of questions as to whether there was any objection to giving facilities to the labourers to bring their wives with them. Later on I went into the matter, and on 16th February I said that it would be manifestly wrong that the coolies should go without their women if they desired to have them, and I undertook that, if they wished to bring their wives and families with them, they should be allowed to do so. Again, I undertook, on behalf of the Government, that if more was desired, to consider fully and give effect to any reasonable demand in regard to the matter. But I do not suppose the mover of the Amendment would go so far as to say that I should impose any compulsion on coolies to bring their wives with them. The House has a sufficient sense of humour not to credit me with saying what, of course, would be entirely absurd, that I would compel Chinese labourers to bring their wives if they did not desire it. It was said that the coolies did not know of this provision. This was a most extraordinary statement, in view of the fact that no fewer than 4,000 coolies have registered themselves as married men and have registered their wives under the Ordinance, in order to have an opportunity, if they wish, of sending for them afterwards. I think I may ask on what ground the Member for Camberwell alleged that this matter was not brought to the notice of the Chinese. I think it was because of an article by the Rev. Arnold-Forster.


said he went further and showed the right hon. Gentleman a facsimile of an advertisement for coolies by a recruiting agent in which he understood, for, of course, he could not read Chinese, there was no hint whatever of facilities being given to the coolies for bringing their wives.


I thought it was so. The hon. Gentleman was misled by the mistake of the Rev. Arnold-Forster. I will explain exactly what happened. The Rev. Arnold-Forster, a missionary who lived 600 miles from Tientsin, saw in a newspaper in March, 1904, an advertisement which no doubt was an incomplete copy of the final form of the contract, and did not contain the provision in question. I will explain how that advertisement happened to be put in that paper. Before the final terms of the contract were settled a rough draft was circulated to certain firms; and one of these firms thereupon took steps to negative some of the preposterous falsehoods which were being circulated on the subject. That was in March, but before June, I am informed, thousands of copies of the full contract were sent into the districts concerned.


The first arrival of coolies in the Transvaal was on June 21st.


Precisely. June was the month I mentioned. In June there was recruiting. This précis was drawn up for circulation in January and was forwarded to Tientsin in March. It was published in March. Recruiting did not take place until it had been superseded by documents containing the full contract and published by thousands in Tientsin itself. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of any authority as to the fact that these men were not properly informed? Who would desire to mislead the coolies by placing an advertisement in an English newspaper costing ten cents, to which the coolies have no access at all and which they could not read? That shows the mare's nest which the hon. Gentleman has got hold of; and that is in keeping with what he says in regard to the substantial condition of the Chinamen who are now in the Transvaal. It is not easy to speak on the matter with plainness, and yet to speak with plainness is the only course. Innuendo and insinuation are only the more suggestive. I am asked to conjecture, because the coolies are unaccompanied by their wives, and though they are working ten hours a day on a vegetable diet, that they must be guilty of practices of the vilest kind. Not one single word even of gossip has been produced in this debate in support of this suggestion, although the compounds are open to everybody who likes to inspect them. The compounds are open to all ministers of religion in Johannesburg, and nobody can deny the inquisitional zeal of hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter, and yet with all the resources at their disposition they have not been able to produce a statement or the suggestion of a statement of that kind. I feel that I am entitled to say that the case is not only not made out, but not attempted to be made out. I would refer hon. Members to the Report of an inquiry made by a Royal Commission on Chinese Labour in British Columbia, a Report made by Commissioners who were intensely hostile to Chinese immigration there. The Report dealt with a society of something like 3,000 adult Chinamen, among whom were only twenty-eight women—practically a celibate community of the same kind. This is what they say, and it is better than conjecture. They say that Chinamen have many noble virtues and characteristics, and though there are customs which, from a moral point of view, are to be condemned, generally speaking Chinamen compare favourably with others in their observance of law and order, and that there is very little doubt that to the frugality of their habits can be attributed the absence of sensuality among them Only three cases of indecency were established against these men in fourteen years. If I may refer to the gentleman who has been quoted, the Rev. Arnold Foster, he stated in that particular article that every missionary of experience would agree as to the Chinaman's industry and carefulness, and as to the utter injustice of many of the charges brought against his moral character. In 1885 a Report was made by a Commission on the Settlement of Chinese in California, and it was there stated that the bad moral effects were grossly exaggerated. Hon. Gentlemen have had the whole world to gather evidence from as to the nameless vices which they have insinuated against the Chinese. I do not pretend to range over the whole world, but I think I have quoted enough to show there is no ground for these conjectures. The British Government cannot be asked to do more than they have done. They have done more, I believe, than any other Government have ever done—namely, to provide that this experiment should be made under conditions which enable a Chinaman, not only to take his wife at the expense of his employer, but actually, if he wishes to do so, to go out first himself and ascertain the nature of the place and the nature of the employment he is to have; and after that the employers will provide at their own expense for sending out the wives. I contend that it is premature to judge whether or not the Chinamen will send for their wives. I have argued the case on the footing that they might not, and I say that there is no evidence in the past or in the present on which it can be said that this experiment has been made on conditions any different, from the moral aspect, than those of any other.

The hon. Gentleman was solicitous on behalf of the Kaffir, and said that Kaffirs were the aboriginal inhabitants of the country.


British subjects.


And British subjects have a right not to be unfairly competed with by aliens. What are the facts? The facts are that since the Chinese came last June the native Kaffir workers in the mines have increased by almost 10,000, and are obtaining a higher wage now than they obtained in 1899, before the war. I appeal to the candour of the hon. Gentleman: is it not sheer nonsense to say that the Kaffirs have been undercut in their labour and unfairly competed with by Chinamen when the effect of that unfair competition is to increase their numbers in the mines and not to diminish their wages? No one would wish that even a mine-owner should pay unnecessary wages to a man who is malingering. There are a certain number of malingerers even among the Chinese, and if there is a high minimum wage it may encourage the malingerer; but if the minimum wage is put at 1s., and piecework is allowed at which some of the men may be able to earn, and have earned, as much as 2s. 9d., hard work would be encouraged and malingering discouraged. No one is hardy enough to say that the wages the Chinamen are obtaining at present are not six or seven times as much as the wages they can obtain in their own country. No one can pretend for a moment to say that in this House, whatever they may say out of it. Neither will any one contend for a moment that their situation, compared with that in their own country, is not one of affluence and comfort. I am supposed to have misled the House by saying that the Chinaman is not to be a skilled labourer. Hon. Members who are so jealous for the Chinaman's freedom and liberty are not content with the scheduling of fifty-four employments as employments in which he may not be engaged. He was to do unskilled work only. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment was not content with the restriction. He wished to knock off the ability of the Chinaman to become a boss boy. Boss boys among the Kaffirs are those who are employed to convey communications to those with whom they are working, and it is provided that the Chinaman should be able to take the place of these boss boys. The hon. Gentleman said that was purely overseer's work.


I said nothing on that point at all.


I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Look at the nature of the case. If it were not for the imperative demands of the white population of the Transvaal the mineowners need not have had this Ordinance. The only purpose of it is to impose certain limitations upon the introduction of Chinese. How does it work out? There is, if I remember right, a penalty of £500 on any evasion of the Ordinance prohibiting unskilled work. Should any Chinaman do skilled work, his employers are liable to a fine of £500. Who enforces that provision? The white men, the skilled men who work in the mines. The white men are there on the spot, and they have the greatest interest in the enforcement of the law. In them there is the most efficient police for carrying out this Ordinance that could possibly be found.

Then the Government are stated to have misled the House because they asserted that the importation of Chinese would bring a large accession of white skilled labour on to the Rand. I need not say a single word more on that subject than has been stated by my hon. and learned friend behind me. I would only point out that the increase of white labour in and about the mines has been 1,600 or more. It is perfectly true that a certain proportion of that increase is due to those who built and repaired the compounds, which is not an occupation for miners. It is perfectly true also that the ratio of the white men employed to the black men employed will somewhat diminish. That must obviously be the case. There must be a certain number of foremen in a mine who must be there whether 1,000 or 2,000 men are working in the mine. When a mine is opened up there will be a full establishment of white foremen, and the ratio of white men to black will be larger at first than it will be at a later stage when more black men are employed. But taking the broad fact, in 1899, before the war, the proportion of white men to black men in the mines was 119 to 1,000. It is to-day l43. Therefore, under the condition of things which now exists, in which Chinese labour has supplemented but not supplanted Kaffir labour, we have a higher amount of service and a higher proportion of wages for whites than before the war.

I think that exhausts all the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to give credit to hon. Members opposite for having taken their part in reducing the mortality among the blacks, which reduction every one must rejoice at. I am glad also to give credit to those on the Rand who have worked hard and spent money generously to this end. They have succeeded in reducing the mortality from seventy to under forty—nearly half. In my own opinion the introduction of Chinese has also been one of the means contributing to this admirable result. In the mines there was in a time of great shortage of labour a temptation to recruit from the blacks of tropical climates men who were unfitted to stand the rigorous conditions of the mines. Looking to the humanity of the thing, it was far better that the Chinaman should be doing the work at a far less cost of life than that the mineowners should be put to the temptation of enlisting men who, by reason of their health, physique, and the climate they had been brought up in, were not fit for the hard tasks of the mine. The Chinese mortality is very much lower even than the improved result obtained among the Kaffirs. The hon. and gallant Member asserted that the British Government had broken their pledges to the inhabitants of the Transvaal by not withholding their assent to the Ordinance. I do not deny that at other times and under other conditions and in a different state of opinion my predecessor might have said what my hon. and gallant friend has quoted, but I have a precise I statement subsequent to that read by the hon. and gallant Member which I have always regarded as my predecessor's undertaking. It was dated July 27th, 1903.


What I read out was written by the late Colonial Secretary in April, 1904.


My right hon. friend was not Colonial Secretary in 1904, and could not give a pledge on behalf of the Government. Moreover, unless I am mistaken, the Ordinance was sanctioned before that date. What my predecessor did say, in 1903, was that he believed that at that time the opinion of the Transvaal was hostile to the introduction of Asiatic labour, and that was why he would not assent to it if it were proposed; but he added that he thought it very likely that the opinion then hostile might not always be hostile, and he had received information that among the Boer farmers the pressure for labour was becoming very acute and a great change of opinion had taken place. The present Government believes that the opinion of the Transvaal is enormously in favour of this change, and the conditions, therefore, are changed from those under which that pledge was given. It seems to me an astonishing thing that any Member of the House should bring an accusation of this kind against the Government on these grounds.


Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that subsequent to the passing of the Ordinance, a census showed that the Dutch were opposed to it.


There is no evidence or pretence of evidence to that effect. Six or seven leaders signed a document in which they stated they were against it; but with reference to the representation from 200 Dutchmen, what weight did they themselves attach to it? They had passed, on the occasion referred to, some twelve or fourteen resolutions. They were invited by Sir Arthur Lawley to come and discuss them at Pretoria. They had there a full and long discussion, and this resolution on Chinese labour was thought so unimportant by the Boers themselves that they never even mentioned it. If the hon. Member thinks this important, the Boers did not.

I am now in a position to sum up the results. It has been alleged that a disastrous blow has been struck at white labour. The answer is that the figures show conclusively an increase in white labour. Whether the absolute facts or the relative facts are taken, both are in favour of the introduction of Chinese. It has been suggested that we have misled the House by not preserving the Kaffirs from undue and unfair competition. Chinese labour has not starved or undercut Kaffir labour, for there are between 9,000 and 10,000 more Kaffirs employed at this moment than were employed before the introduction of the Chinese, and their wages have not been diminished, they have been increased as between now and 1899, and they have not diminished since the introduction of the Chinese. As regards the supposed moral danger, previous official records from which I have quoted have shown that the conjectures which have been made have no foundation so far as the evidence as to the past went, and it is not pretended that there is a single rag of evidence so far as the present is concerned. It has been alleged that recruiting had been unfairly conducted, and this on the evidence of the Rev. Arnold Forster, who was proved to have been mistaken in supposing that a document was used which had not been used. Again, it has been said that this was done against the will of the people. With regard to that, I ask the House, to note the position of Mr. Quinn. Mr. Quinn, a worthy and zealous opponent, who was the protagonist in the fight against Chinese labour in the Legislative Council, and who is now living in the Transvaal, and is not a candidate for Parliament, states that people are content with the Chinese Ordinance, and that, so far as he is concerned, it is finished. Within a few months a representative Constitution will be granted to the Transvaal. If the Government are wrong—I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe they are—there will be an opportunity of correcting their mistakes; but hon. Gentlemen opposite know that there will not be a voice raised in any representative assembly against an introduction of Chinese, regulated as it is with scrupulous care, and which would never reach anything like the proportions which has been represented. The Government has a right to complain that, though the arguments in this House have been temperate and in good faith, it is not so and has not been so in the country. When my hon. friends on the Ministerial side described, from what they had seen, the health and comfort and sanitary conditions under which the Chinese were living in the Transvaal, there, were loud cries of "Agreed, agreed'' from the Opposition Benches. Did they cry "Agreed, agreed" to that in the country? Why, they talked of "slavery," and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition talked of "quasislavery." I hope none of them were responsible for one of the most infamous documents that exists in the world—a document that has been extensively circulated in the constituencies and has probably misled thousands of voters—a picture representing Chinamen in chains with ghosts of dead British soldiers protesting. If a tithe of what has been said about the Chinese in the Transvaal were true, then, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton stated at the beginning of this controversy, the only right and just and sincere attitude to take up is to say, if this is slavery, it ought to be swept away from the Statute-book, even if it had been passed by a self-governing colony. The Leader of the Opposition, when asked the question what he would do, replied across the floor of the House, "Put us in and we will tell you." Later he gave a considered answer and said— With regard to this topic, if and when the time comes for them to take over the responsibility of Government, he would only say in this confused matter that they would approach the question from the point of view of the permanent interests of the country and not merely from the point of view of the temporary exigencies of those who finance the gold mines. That is a model statement for the apostle of the unambiguous.


What is there ambiguous about that?


The House will judge of that. If, however, a tithe of the language used throughout the country were true, then it would be obvious that hon. Gentlemen opposite must sweep away the unclean thing. But there was no truth or sincerity in the language, and the declaration of their intentions showed that the leaders of the Opposition fully recognised the hollowness of the agitation.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 275. (Division List No. 4.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Crean, Eugene Hayden, John Patrick
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cremer, William Randal Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Crombie, John William Helme, Norval Watson
Allen,' Charles P. Cullinan, J. Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Ambrose, Robert Dalziel, James Henry Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Asher, Alexander Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Higham, John Sharpe
Ashton, Thomas Gair Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Holland, Sir William Henry
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Delany, William Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Atherley-Jones, L. Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Barlow, John Emmott Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-shire) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jacoby, James Alfred
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Dillon, John Johnson, John
Beamont, Wentworth C. B. Donelan, Captain A. Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Bell, Richard Doogan, P. C. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Benn, John Williams Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Jordan, Jeremiah
Black, Alexander William Duncan, J. Hastings Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)
Blake, Edward Edwards, Frank Kilbride, Denis
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Ellice,CaptEC(S.Andrw"s"B"ghs Kitson, Sir James
Brigg, John Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Labouchere, Henry
Bright, Allan Heywood Emmott, Alfred Lambert, George
Broadhurst, Henry Esmonde, Sir Thomas Langley, Batty
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Eve, Harry Trelawney Layland-Barratt, Francis
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Farrell, James Patrick Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Burns, John Fenwick, Charles Levy, Maurice
Buxton, Sydney Charles Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Lewis, John Herbert
Caldwell, James Field, William Lloyd-George David
Cameron, Robert Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Lough, Thomas
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Flavin, Michael Joseph Lundon, W.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Flynn, James Christopher Lyell, Charles Henry
Causton, Richard Knight Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cawley, Frederick Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Channing, Francis Allston Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Cheetham, John Frederick Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Crae, George
Churchill, Winston Spencer Grant, Corrie M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Clancy, John Joseph Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Kean, John
Cogan, Denis J. Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Harrington, Timothy Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Harwood, George Mooney, John J.
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Reddy, M. Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Moss, Samuel Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Thomas, JA(Glamorgan,Gower
Moulton, John Fletcher Reid,Sir R.Threshie (Dumfries) Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Murnaghan, George Richards, T. (W. Monmouth) Tomkinson, James
Murphy, John Rickett, J. Compton Toulmin, George
Nannetti, Joseph P. Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Newnes, Sir George Robson, William Snowdon Ure, Alexander
Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) Roche, John Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Roe, Sir Thomas Wallace, Robert
Norman, Henry Runciman, Walter Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Russell. T. W. WarnerThomeas Courtenay T.
Nussey, Thomas Willans Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Wason, Eugene,(Clackmannan)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Schwann, Charles E. Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Weir, James Galloway
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight) White, George (Norfolk)
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Shackleton, David James White, Luke (York, E.R.)
O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Sheehy, David Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Shipman, Dr. John G. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Dowd, John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Slack, John Bamford Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.) Smith, Samuel (Flint) Wills, Arthur W. (N. Dorset)
O'Malley, William Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Soares, Ernest J. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Parrott, William Spencer,Rt. Hn.C.R.(Northants Wood, James
Paulton, James Mellor Stanhope, Hon. Philip James Woodhouse,Sir JT(Huddersf'ld
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Stevenson, Francis S. Young, Samuel
Perks, Robert William Strachey, Sir Edward Yoxall, James Henry
Pirie, Duncan V. Sullivan, Donal
Power, Patrick Joseph Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Price, Robert John Tennant, Harold John Herbert Gladstone and Mr.
Rea, Russell Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.) William M'Arthur.
Reckitt, Harold James Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Burdett-Coutts, W. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Campbell,Rt.Hn.J.A (Glasgow) Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart
Aird, Sir John Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)
Allsopp, Hon. George Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Fardell, Sir T. George
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ. (Maner.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hon. H. O. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. Finca, Rt. Hon. George H.
Arrol, Sir William Chamberlain,Rt. Hn.JA (Wore. Finlay,SirR.B.(Invern'ss B'ghs
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Chapman, Edward Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H. Clare, Octavius Leigh Fisher, William Hayes
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Coates, Edward Feetham FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cohen, Benjamin Louis Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Baird, John George Alexander Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Flower, Sir Ernest
Balcarres, Lord Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R. Forster, Henry William
Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manch'r) Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)
Balfour,RtHnGerald W. (Leeds Compton, Lord Alwyne Galloway, William Johnson
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Corbett. T. L. (Down, North) Gardner, Ernest
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) Garfit, William
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Cripps, Charles Alfred Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin & Nairn
Beach,Rt.Hn.Sir Michael Hicks Cubitt, Hon. Henry Gordon,MajEvans-(T'r H'mlets
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cust, Henry John C. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-
Bignold, Sir Arthur Dalkeith, Earl of Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Bigwood, James Dalrymple, Sir Charles Goulding, Edward Alfred
Blundell, Colonel Henry Davenport, William Bromley Graham, Henry Robert
Bond, Edward Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Denny, Colonel Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)
Boulnois, Edmund Dickson, Charles Scott Greene,SirEW (B'ryS.Edm'nds
Bowles,Lt.-Col.H.F.(Middlesex Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)
Brown, Sir A. H. (Shropshire) Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers Grenfell, William Henry
Brymer, William Ernest Doxford, Sir William Theodore Gretton, John
Bull, William James Duke, Henry Edward Greville, Hon. Ronald
Hall, Edward Marshall Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon Alfred Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Hambro, Charles Eric Macdona, John Cumming Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)
Hamilton,Marq of(L'nd'nderry Maclver, David (Liverpool) Sandys, Lieut.-Col.Thos. Myles
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) M'Calmont, Colonel James Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Hare, Thomas Leigh M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh, W Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Majendie, James A. H. Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Malcolm, Ian Sharpe, William Edward T.
Haslett, Sir James Horner Manners, Lord Cecil Shaw-Stewart, SirH (Renfrew)
Hay, Hon. Claude George Marks, Harry Hananel Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Heath,SirJames (Staffords.NW Martin, Richard Biddulph Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Heaton, John Henniker Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)
Helder, Augustus Maxwell,Rt HnSirH.E (Wigt'n Smith,RtHnJ.Parker (Lanarks
Henderson,SirA. (Stafford, W.) Maxwell,W. J.H. (Dumfriessh. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Milvain, Thomas Spear, John Ward
Hickman, Sir Alfred Molesworth, Sir Lewis Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)
Hoare, Sir Samuel Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)
Hobhouse,RtHnH. (Somers'tE Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants). Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Horner, Frederick William Moore, William Stock, James Henry
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Hoult, Joseph Morpeth, Viscount Stroyan, John
Houston, Robert Paterson Morrell, George Herbert Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Howard,J.(Midd., Tottenham) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Mount, William Arthur Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Univ
Hudson, George Bickersteth Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Thorburn, Sir Walter
Hunt, Rowland Murray, Charles J. (Coventry Thornton, Percy M.
Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.) Myers, William Henry Tollemache, Henry James
Jameson, Major J. Eustace Nicholson, William Graham Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred. Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Parker, Sir Gilbert Tuff, Charles
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H Parkes, Ebenezer Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley Tuke, Sir John Batty
Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W Pemberton, John S. G. Turnour, Viscount
Kerr, John Percy, Earl Valentia, Viscount
Keswick, William Pierpoint, Robert Vincent,Col.Sir CEH (Sheffield)
Kimber, Sir Henry Platt-Higgins, Frederick Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
King, Sir Henry Seymour Plummer, Sir Walter R. Walrond,Rt.Hn.SirWilliam H.
Knowles, Sir Lees Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wanklyn, James Leslie
Laurie, Lieut.-General Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Warde, Colonel C. E.
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Pym, C. Guy Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E. (Taunt'n
Lawrence,SirJoseph(Monmouth Rankin, Sir James Welby,SirCharles G.E. (Notts.)
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Lawson, Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End) Ratcliff, R. F. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N.R. Reid, James (Greenock) Wilson, A.Stanley (York, E.R.)
Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham Remnant, James Farquharson Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Wilson-Todd,Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Renwick, George Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Ridley, S. Forde Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Wortley,Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Long,Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) Robinson, Brooke Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Lowe, Francis William Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Round, Rt. Hn. James TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Royds, Clement Molyneux Alexander Acland - Hood
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Rutherford, John (Lancashire) and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. John Redmond)—put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.