§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £28,920, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the 683 Colonies, including a Grant in Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration."
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
said he wished to correct a statement he made earlier in the evening. He spoke of the new piecework contract and said he had questioned the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the New Comet Mine. It should have been the North Rand-fontein Mine. He would again move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ SIR BRAMPTON GURDON,
resuming his speech, said he had always looked on Ministerial promises as to the payment of the £30,000,000 war loan as mere rhetorical flourish. That had, however, been the suggested return for sanctioning the use of Chinese labour in mines which were only started in order to dump shares on credulous share buyers in this country, which would never otherwise have been started, and which would soon cease working. When Chinese labour was first introduced into the Transvaal a great deal was heard from ministers of religion as to the grand opportunity that was given for missionary work among the Chinese. What missionary work had really been done? The Government had ruined South Africa. They had not really annexed the Transvaal; they had simply put the Opposition into office. The country was governed by the mine-owners, and the Government pledges to the British labourers had been broken, while thousands of aliens had been admitted to the Transvaal at the very moment legislation was being passed to exclude them from this country.
§ MR. JOHN STROYAN
(Perthshire, W.) said no doubt the hon. Member for the Cleveland Division had made his startling statements in good faith. He had listened to them with much astonishment, and thought the House would do well not to accept them without some proof being adduced, 684 There was, no doubt, a large increase in Kaffir labour, one of the causes being that the Kaffirs had got rid of the money they obtained during the war, and another that competition had been stimulated by the advent of the Chinese. But they were still short of unskilled labour, and this arose from the great extension and the further discovery of large mining areas, such, for instance, as the Premier Diamond Mine, from which the Government of the Transvaal would derive a very large income, it being entitled to six-tenths of the profits of the mine. It would be a great mistake to curtail the mining industry by stopping the supply of Chinese or coloured labour, as the entire development of the country depended upon a full supply of unskilled labour. Every working man in South Africa depended directly or indirectly on the mining industry for his living. Since the establishment of the industry some of the ports had risen from insignificance to very great importance indeed, and thousands of miles of railways had been constructed for the use of, and to carry goods to, the gold-mining industry, and upon that industry depended the future development, prosperity, and welfare of the country. A plentiful supply of unskilled labour would result in more work for the whites as overseers, on farms, in stores, in connection with the railways, at the ports, and in fifty other directions. The unskilled labour in the mines was not suitable for white men. It was true that Mr. Cresswell said it was, but every mining expert and engineer in South Africa held the contrary view.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS
(Carnarvonshire, Eifion) asked whether Mr. Cresswell's view was not based on personal experience, while the opinions of the experts were based only on theory.
§ MR. JOHN STROYAN
submitted that when all the best mining experts in the world were on one side with only one man on the other there could not be much doubt about the matter. As to the proportion of white labour to coloured labour, an hon. Member opposite had led the House to believe that it had 685 dwindled from one in eight down to one in twenty-five.
§ MR. BRIGHT
said that his statement was that of the new men who had come in the proportion was one white man to twenty-one coloured and Chinese.
§ MR. JOHN STROYAN
said that as a matter of fact the true proportion was one in 8.5, which was exactly the proportion that existed in 1899 before the war.
§ MR. BRIGHT
said that according to the Blue-book the number of whites had increased from 13,127 in May. 1901, to 16,232; and coloured, from 77,519 to 107,756. There were 35,575 Chinese. If the new men ware totalled up it would be found that there was one new white man to twenty-one new Chinese and coloured.
§ MR. JOHN STROYAN
said the fact still remained that the proportion of whites to coloured was one in eight, the same as before the war. There seemed to be an impression that the white working men were unable to look after their own interests. They were educated men, perhaps the most able and enterprising of their class, and if they were badly treated or the proprietors departed from their undertakings, they would say so very quickly and plainly for themselves. It was not true that the Chinese were doing skilled. labour. Hand-drilling was not skilled labour, and had always been done by Kaffirs. Their was a large amount of machine-drilling immediately after the war, but that was because unskilled dabour was unprocurable. Machine-drilling was very expensive as compared with hand-drilling, but notwithstanding that, in order to relieve the distress that existed, the mineowners on the Rind put men into the mines who did not earn their pay, and worked the mines without profit for a considerable time. No Chinaman had ever been asked to do skilled labour; if he had, they would have heard of it from the whites. It was true that emigration had fallen off. Whenever a country was advertised as South Africa had been, there was a great 686 rush. Many men went out with the idea of picking up money without working, round men went out to fill square holes, and a number came back. But there was no return of skilled miners. Six or eight months ago there was a large number of skilled labourers unemployed, but as the Chinese had come in, openings had been found for these men, and to-day he was informed on excellent authority, there were no skilled labourers out of employment. The Chinese had rever been so well treated, well fed, and well housed in any other country as they were in the Transvaal, and they, had never been paid anything like so high wages. As to piecework, the fact was that instead of earning 1s. 6d. a day. Chinamen of experience were able to make from 3s. to 4s. a day. The British Indian was utterly unsuited for work in the mines, nor could he stand the rigours of the Rind winter. As to the alleged flogging of Chinamen, it was absolutely untrue. Personally he had never known a case of flogging, either of Kaffir or of Chinaman, on the Rand. He was absolutely certain that such a thing had never occurred, and that the mineowners in their own interest would not allow it. If any compound manager were to flog a Chinaman or a Kaffir he would lose his situation as soon as the fact was known to his employers.
§ MR. BURT (Morpeth)
said that the hon. Member had declared that flogging did not exist on the Rand. He did not think that the Colonial Secretary would utter a universal negative in such an emphatic way as the hon. Member had done. Questions had been put to the Colonial Secretary on this subject, and it was notorious that the compound manager of the Croesus Mine at an inquest which was held admitted that he had repeatedly flogged Chinamen. He had privately brought cases at another mine to the attention of the Secretary of State, who, accepting his assurances that his informant was thoroughly straightforward and trustworthy, had cabled to Lord Selborne to make inquiries, and the right hon. Gentleman had declared in that House that Lord Selborne was fully alive to the importance of the question, and was making a thorough investigation. That 687 was a sufficient Answer to the hon. Member.
§ MR. JOHN STROYAN
There may be one blackguard on the Rand, but one swallow does not make a summer. [Cries of "You said there was no flogging."] I said that I have never known a case.
§ MR. BURT
said that was a specimen of the hon. Gentleman's logic ! Because he had never known a case, therefore no case existed! As a mode of punishment he thought flogging was hateful; he regarded it as an indignity to our common humanity and a degradation to everybody concerned. If he did not carry the Committee with him in that view, he was certain they would all agree that if inflicted at all it should be only in the very gravest cases after thorough investigation, and under the strictest supervision.
He wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the great mortality in the mines. In the case of Chinese, Mr. Evans, superintendent of the Foreign Labour Department, stated that up to the end of January the death rate was 23.16 per 1,000 per annum, or, excluding deaths from beri-beri, 15.4, "which compared favourably with the great towns in England." That was a most extraordinary comparison. The death rate in our great towns was enormously swelled by infant mortality, and it included deaths at all ages and under all conditions, whereas those in the Transvaal were picked men in the prime of life. In the case of the natives the death rate was even more serious. In January last, the President of the Chamber of Mines in a speech at Johannesburg stated that, in the ten months of 1902 the deaths of natives were at the rate of 51.25 per thousand; in 1903,80.92; in 1904, from accident and disease,48.02; from accidents alone,4.05. In this country the death rate in mines from accidents was 1.34, so that where we lost 1,000 lives per annum in our coal mines, if the rate were as high as in the underground gold mines of South Africa we should lose 3,000 or 4,000. That was a matter requiring very careful investigation. Certainly the high death rate 688 was no inducement to the natives to come and work in the mines. He believed the high death rate from disease was due largely to climatic conditions. There was a much lower percentage of mortality on the part of those who came from the Transvaal and the Cape Colony than prevailed among the natives of the more tropical parts of the country.
He had not discussed the general question of bringing the Chinese to the Rand. He had very strong opinions upon the subject. He thought it was an evil day for this country when they were introduced, an evil day for our traditions and our liberties as Britons. Having introduced them, he thought that at any rate they ought to do what they could to treat them humanely and considerately until the time came for their departure, and that would be a welcome day not only to the people of this country, but to a great number of the workers in the Transvaal itself. There was not, as was generally supposed, anything like an unanimous opinion among them in favour of the importation of the Chinese. He saw scores and hundreds of the workmen when he visited the Transvaal, and he attended a good many of their trade union conferences and their executive committees, and he found miners, engineers, railway workers, and mechanics of all kinds, in fact all the organised workmen of South Africa, unanimously and very determinedly hostile to the introduction of the Chinese. That opinion was strongly held at the present time, and he felt that at any rate the Government ought to have waited until the people of the Transvaal had representative and responsible government before they made that evil and hateful departure from our previous policy.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
I always listen to the hon. Member who has just sat down with the greatest possible interest, and I think the method in which he has addressed the House to-night compares most favourably with other methods of controversy which have been pursued on this topic. It is perfectly true, as my hon. friend behind. me said in reference to the two points before me at present, and on which he has addressed the House, that there is 689 no convincing evidence before me at present that any flogging has taken place. When I say that, I am not unmindful of the fact that Mr. Stewart, compound manager of the Crœsus Mine, stated in his evidence at the inquest, that he had frequently caused un-authorised floggings to take place in the mine: but it ought to be remembered that Mr. Stewart was a dismissed servant of the mine, and it ought not to be forgotten that he was charged—I do not say for a moment whether justly or not—of inciting the Chinese to murder the white men. [A LIBERAL MEMBER: He was acquitted.] It was at that time, when he was under the charge, that he made the statement. He, very likely, and very likely quite justly, resented the charge. At any rate, though I do not say a word against his veracity, under the circumstances I say he is a man whose testimony would be required to be closely watched and tested before an absolute belief was accorded to what he said. I do not say one word more than that.
But this evidence, which I think is fairly open to those remarks, has been supplemented by the statement of the hon. Member for Morpeth, made to me in private, viz.: that a correspondent in whose straightforwardness and trustworthiness he has thorough reliance has stated to him that unauthorised flogging has taken place on the Rand, and anybody whom the hon. Gentleman speaks of in those terms, I am quite satisfied would not endeavour to mislead him or me. I considered upon that statement alone it was fully worth while, indeed I felt it was incumbent upon me, to make special investigations, and I telegraphed to Lord Selborne asking him that very special investigations should be made into the allegations which I had heard. That is all I can say or do at present with regard to the truth of these allegations, because it is a fact that Lord Se. borne has telegraphed to me within the last few days that he has been unable to trace any such instances as the hon. Member has referred to. But that does not by any means prove that the allegations are not true. We hope we have in London 690 one of the best systems of police in the world, but that does not prevent the grossest crimes being committed in the Metropolis. We think we have an admirable system both of law and of supervision in the Transvaal under the Ordinance, which only permits flogging of Chinese for assaults with violence, and permits those only on conviction by a magistrate and on confirmation of that sentence by the Supreme Court. That is the law, and that will be satisfactory to hon. Members of this House. I do not think anything further can be asked.
But you will say the law is no use unless the administration of it is well safeguarded. I can only say that the utmost vigilance has been enjoined upon those who are superintending in the mines, and we have now, as the result of the telegram I sent to Lord Selborne, and as the result of the misgivings which the information of the hon. Member for Morpeth undoubtedly gave me, an addition of five new inspectors in the mines. We propose that the Superintendent of the Native Labour Departments and these inspectors shall be given the powers of magistrates, that the offences which may be committed by the Chinese shall be tried by them judicially, that their sentences shall require the corroboration and confirmation of the Supreme Court in the event of their ordering flogging, and that the flogging shall be confined purely to the offences I have mentioned. I think those provisions, coupled with the determination which Lord Selborne has expressed to me, and which I have myself emphatically expressed to this House, that any system under which illegal floggings have taken place should be absolutely put an end to, suffice to show that we have taken every precaution we can reasonably take at the present moment, and I can assure the House that if anybody can suggest any other method by which these unauthorised acts can be stopped, and which commend themselves to me, I will most carefully consider them. Let me say in justice to those who are at present on the mines, and I trust I shall not be misunderstood, that at present we have taken this abundant precaution merely on the uncorroborated evidence which the hon. Member has been able to give 691 us, so highly do we rate the information he has given us.
He went on, and I thoroughly sympathise, too, with his object in the matter, to mention the mortality in the mines. The figures that I have before me do not absolutely coincide with his. I must give them from memory, but I can give them accurately without decimals. My figures show that in 1903 the mortality was more than 70 per 1,000 among the natives. Great exertions were used by the medical officer; at my instance and Lord Milner's instance, measures were taken ar. d wore put through by the mineowners with great willingness and energy, and the result was to reduce the mortality from 70 odd to 43 per 1,000, a reduction of very nearly half. I urged Lord Milner to take counsel with his advisers, I said I did not think we ought to be satisfied until the mortality was reduced below 40 per thousand. That has not been obtained yet, but I think the mortality for the present year is 44 per 1,000. We must bear in mind that these mines are not coal mines. I always understood that coal mining was a very healthy occupation, and I think comparison between coal mines and metalliferous mines is not just. I shall not, however, be satisfied until the mortality is below 40 per 1,000.
May I say in this connection that the High Commissioner of British Central Africa has informed me that the conditions in the Transvaal mines have been so very greatly improved that the distaste for emigration from British Central Africa to the Transvaal has entirely worn off, and there is now the greatest desire on the part of the natives of British Central Africa to engage in that employment. I quite recognise that it is quite desirable, wherever you can with clue regard to health, to employ the natives of South Africa, and even perhaps of Central Africa, but I still think it is a very doubtful question whether it is advisable to bring from Central Africa, and from the tropical parts of Africa, natives who you may depend upon it are far more subject to the climatic dangers of the Rand than those who are at present engaged there. I merely 692 mention these things because the fair inference to be drawn from Central African experience is that the treatment of the natives in the Transvaal mines has enormously improved. At the same time I wish to press upon the House that it is unwise to bring natives from Central Africa if there are those more suited to the climate available.
May I in this connection make this observation to the hon. Member for Morpeth? Is there any difference in principle between bringing African natives over hundreds of thousands of miles of land to the Rand and bringing Chinamen thousands of miles across the sea to the Rand? I venture to think there is no difference in principle, though I agree that the conditions must be considered. So far as what is called alien immigration is concerned, the Kaffir who comes from Portuguese Africa is just as much an alien to the Rand as the Chinaman. Take the view of general humanity in the matter, and contrast the mortality which prevails, and which prevails to a large extent unavoidably owing to the weakness among the Kaffirs, and the mortality which prevails among the Chinese. The fact is that, notwithstanding all the exertions which have been made, the death rate among the Kaffirs is still slightly over 40 per 1,000. I am speaking without the book for the moment, but I am sure I am accurate. The mortality among the Chinese is less than half that amount, and it has actually gone down in some mines to as little as 12 per 1,003. I think I am right in saying that it has never exceeded a little over 20 per 1,000. If you consider merely the wastage of life that takes place in this industry, I put it to the House whether it is not incomparably better that Chinese should be employed in this labour than that the natives of Central or Portuguese Africa should be employed with a loss of life more than twice as great.
An observation made by the hon. Member for Morpeth as regards the accidents, I think I must notice. He has made a comparison between the accidents which take place in these mines among the natives, and accidents which take 693 place among English miners in coalmining parts of this country. I have only to put to him this consideration to convince him that that comparison is not wholly a just one. I consider the miners of this country are among the finest of the population and among the most intelligent, and I do not think you can compare the skill which they exercise in doing their work with the skill exercised by the Kaffir of Central or South Africa. Therefore, when the hon. Member points cut that the mortality from accidents is great, I must point out to him that the mortality in their own kraals would probably be as great as in the mines, so at least I have been informed by great experts in the matter. In the next place the care you can expect from these men in dangerous employment is incomparably less than you both expect and obtain from skilled white miners engaged in coal mining in this country.
Another point has been made, and I am not surprised it has been made, of the comparatively large number of persons on the Rand who had been subject to prosecution and imprisonment. Allow me to analyse for a moment the figures given, I believe, by the hon. Member for Cleveland, which showed that 1,250 cases of imprisonment occurred in the course of last year. Of these imprisonments no less than 909 are for offences under the Ordinance, which really amount to breach of contract, that is to say, refusal to work and desertion from work. I am quite aware that that sounds a large number, but the House must remember that this Ordinance authorises the repatriation of the Chinese at the end of their term of service, and that costs something like £21. Naturally, and I think it will be agreed, if there were a general abstention from work without justification it would be ruinous in its consequence to those who employ the men. When you take out those 909 men who have been imprisoned for short terms for desertion and refusal to work, you reduce the convictions for assaults of various kinds, exclusive of riots, to 146. Cases of riots come up to 237, and of these 53 convictions occurred upon the occasion of one riot, and 69 upon the occasion of another. You have therefore, apart from these outbursts, 694 which no doubt are to be expected in the initiation of a great experiment of this kind, and which occurred not infrequently in days when there were only Kaffirs engaged in these mines, 146 assaults. If you include all the rioters you get a total of something like 400. The population of the Chinese now amounts to 43,000 odd, and it has averaged over the whole time about 20,000, and, if you bear that in mind, and if hon. Gentlemen will take the trouble to investigate the criminal statistics of our sea-port towns and great centres of population, they will find that the crimes of violence are neither surprising nor alarming.
Reference has been made by one hon. Member, the hon. Member for Shropshire I think, to convict labour. It is a common practice in South Africa to apply convict labour to all industrial purposes. I do not say it is a thing we do here, but I have myself seen in the self-governing Colonies—in the Cape Colony—convict labour so applied. It has been applied always, I believe, to a small extent in the Transvaal, and there was particular reason for the employment of it on the present occasion. As perhaps hon. Gentlemen know, there was great congestion in the prison at Johannesburg, which was in course of being enlarged.
There was also the point raised by the hon. Member for Cleveland, that none of the Chinese had exercised their power of returning to their own country at their own expense.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
I think the hon. Member will find he is not quite accurate. I myself saw Mr. Evans, who was the superintendent we appointed from the Malay States, and who had for twenty years been engaged in the school of Mr. Pickering, of the Malay States. I had three or four hours conversation with him, and, amongst other things, be told me that no punishment he had been 695 able to devise or that could be legally imposed under the Ordinance was deemed -to be half as severe as repatriating the Chinaman.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
I do not know what the hon. Member means. The fact is the Chinaman can go back to his own country if he pleases. When it is a question of repatriating him as a punishment, the expenses of his return trip have to be paid by the mines. Some considerable numbers have been repatriated under those provisions, and I have Mr. Evans' authority that no punishment is considered so severe as taking these men from a condition which I hold to be, after all, on the evidence. thoroughly satisfactory as a whole, and sending them back to their own country.
An astounding statement was made by the hon. Member for Cleveland, but it has been apologised for and withdrawn. He gave the House the impression that the minimum wage of 1s. 6d. a day, secured to the Chinaman under Clause 6 by his contract, had been reduced by force to a halfpenny.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I did not apologise for or withdraw any statement. What I did was to mention the New Comet Mine. I ought to have said the North Randfontein Mine. That is the only correction I have made.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
The fact is that all along it has been contemplated that the Chinaman would prefer piecework, because, being a good worker, he could earn considerably more than 1s. 6d. a day, amounting in some cases, I think, to as much as 3s. a day. That anticipation has proved correct, and a very large 696 majority of the Chinamen engaged upon the Rand have undertaken, after six months, to go on piecework. I believe the result will be that the general average among them will considerably exceed 1s. 6d.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
This afternoon the hon. Member had on the Paper three or four Questions addressed to me. They were not reached, and, therefore, the hon. Member was not entitled to any information from me except in the course of the debate, but in order that he might have them for the benefit of his speech, and have a few hours to consider them. I went out of my way voluntarily to hand across to him my Answers in writing. The return which the hon. Gentleman gave this courtesy was grossly to misrepresent the purport of one of the Answers and grossly to mislead the Committee on the subject of the wages paid to the Chinese.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
The right hon. Gentleman says that I have misrepresented him. I shall be greatly obliged if he will tell me, and I think I am entitled to ask, in what way I have misrepresented him.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
The Question I was asked was in regard to wages, and I am now dealing with the Question which the hon. Member himself raised. After I allowed the hon. Member an opportunity of going back from the position which he took up he persisted in the accusation that we have reduced the minimum wage under Clause 6 from 1s. 6d. I say that is absolutely untrue.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me. He used the word "untrue," which I do not think is Parliamentary language. I venture to ask him whether the new contract which is in force assures Chinese labourers anything more than ½d. an inch for any work they may do. Does he 697 mean to say that there is any minimum wage fixed at all? My contention is that the minimum wage for piece workers absolutely disappears.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
If a Chinaman, instead of taking a minimum wage of Is. 6d. for a day's work, chooses to take piecework, he may do so and earn more. It was contemplated from the beginning that those who wished to earn more should have an opportunity of doing so. If, on the other hand, he misdoubts his ability to earn more than 1s. 6d. a day, and prefers to go on the day-work system he is entitled for his day's work to 1s. 6d. I do not suppose that the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for the rights of the Chinese labourers would induce him to stand up in this House and say that a man should get 1s. 6d. a day for doing nothing. A Chinaman is expected, as all of us who receive remuneration for what we do, to do what he honestly can to earn his money, and if a Chinaman on the Rand chooses to malinger or wilfully to idle, of course he will not be entitled to claim Is. 6d. for a day's work. If there is anything in the nature of the work unduly or exceptionally arduous, if there is anything in the state of his health that makes him unfit to work, or if there is. anything defective in his skill, he would of course be entitled to have these matters considered under the Ordinance, but unless there is some such reason for not doing an ordinary day's work he would not be entitled to produce less. [An HON. MEMBER: What is an ordinary day's work?] An ordinary day's work is thirty-six inches, but some Chinamen can do from forty-eight to sixty inches.
Let me make this observation with regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Morpeth as to machine-drilling. Machine-drilling is not done by skilled labourers. The manual drilling which is—done by unskilled labourers is much less deleterious to health than machine-drilling. The great cause of miners' phthisis is the dust which comes from the mineral he is working, and, therefore, so far as the workers are concerned, it is a clear gain that hand-drilling should be sub- 698 stituted for machine—drilling. I am sure that the substitution which has taken place has not reduced the labour of white men at all. I would further remark in connection with the allegation that machine-drilling ought to be persisted in, that it is not the case that it employs more white men. I have shown that it does not employ white men. It is objectionable to return to that method, because the effect of machine-drilling is to bring down a larger quantity of debris, and to displace much more of the rock part of the seam than you require to get; it is also dangerous to those engaged in the workings, owing to the "falls" which are liable to occur.
The main principle which I should like to urge upon the House in connection with this difficult and complicated matter is this. The Opposition for two years have denounced the Government because they have not vetoed the Ordinance, but they have never attempted to prove that the Government have misjudged local opinion in the matter. I will prove that. I know that there were a few sporadic attempts made at the beginning to show that the opinion of the Transvaal white population was against the introduction of the Chinese. It was said, and it has been repeated again quite incorrectly by the hon. Member for the Cleveland Division, that all the self-governing Colonies were against the experiment. As a matter of fact, Mr. Deakin, the present Prime Minister of Australia, when Attorney-General, being approached on the matter and asked to express an opinion about it, said it was the business of the Transvaal itself. Natal has taken a similar line. Above all, Canada, which has a knowledge of this matter, and which has very strong views indeed in regard to the autonomy of the self-governing Colonies, has from first to last declined to express any opinion on the matter and said that it was entirely a matter for the Transvaal. The hon. Member for Cleveland was. therefore, incorrect in his statement that the self-governing Colonies were unanimous in this matter.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
I am in the recollection of the House, and I say that the word "unanimous" was used. Arc His Majesty's Government right in thinking, and were they right in giving it as their opinion last year, that the white population of the Transvaal are in favour of the introduction of Chinese labour? I say they are right, and I will give the House a reason. Mr. Quin, who was formerly a lending opponent of Chinese labour, has declared in favour of it since the Ordinance has been introduced. I give the substance of what ho said. He abjured any further opposition to it on the part of his friends. It was said that the Boers were against Chinese labour, but as a matter of fact it was beyond all possibility of doubt that the Het Volk, the Boer union, entered into an agreement with certain gentle men on the Rand who were agitating with them for responsible government, it being stipulated that no attempt should be made to repeal the Ordinance for seven years, and that agreement was made definitely and finally for five years. So much for the strong opinion of the Boers. In tie next place, no resolution. no petition, no communication indeed from anybody in the Transvaal, organised or unorganised, against the introduction of the Chinese has reached me, or, so far as I know, the Transvaal Government, for the repeal or discontinuance of the Ordinance. I commend this fact to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who may have to deal with this matter at no distant date. This question of practically unanimous local assent to this Ordinance will be and must be, in the course of a few months, put to the test of the Legislative Assembly, four-fifths of which will be elected on a democratic franchise. It is demonstrated that local opinion is on the side of the Ordinance; and although I do not like to prophesy, I will go the length of saying that I do not believe even a Motion will be made in the Assembly for the arrest or the denunciation of the Ordinance. I can imagine a dialogue between the representatives of this country and those of the Transvaal, who would say that they want this Ordinance for the well-being of their country and would ask why we want to stop it.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
Now supposing I were to make the answer which the hon. Member for Woolwich has been kind enough to suggest to me, the Transvaal representatives would say that for fifty years or more this country has deliberately sanctioned the system of indentured labour under close and restricted conditions. If I had the industry of the hon. Member for Poplar, I might suggest certain minute differences between the present Ordinance and the Ordinances which were sanctioned by himself, Lord Ripon, the right hon. Gentleman for Wolverhampton, and other Members of the Liberal Party, but do you think that would be convincing? Do you think that would be an argument which a Minister could use? The hon. Member for Shropshire took a more honest view of the subject when he declared that these Ordinances for the West Indies were repugnant to him and that he would sweep them out of the Statute-book. But that is not the attitude of hon. Members opposite. There has been debate after debate on this subject, and not a single Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench has had the manhood to declare that he is in favour of that policy. Although before audiences not fit to argue with him he talks about slavery, he knows that he is responsible for the organisation of Ordinances and statutes scarcely to be distinguished from this one in South Africa. The experiment, however, will never attain the dimensions that have been predicted. The measure of it will probably be the introduction of 50,000 Chinamen. I have been assured by a missionary that the introduction of Chinese and of the provision made for them has actually had the effect of raising the standard of living of all the natives.
The hon. Member for Morpeth has said that the ratio of white to coloured men employed in the mines has diminished This is not so. The white skilled workers in the last year have increased from 13,413 to 16,989, though some of the increase may be attributed to the increase of native labour. The success of the measures 701 taken to prevent the undercutting of Kaffir labour is shown by the fact that since the introduction of Chinese labour the number of Kaffirs employed in the mines has increased from 74,000 to 104,000, and the wages are substantially the same as before the war. It is true that there was a period just alter the termination of the war in which the ratio of white to black was rather higher. I think it was one to six for some time, and that, no doubt, was due to the experiment that was being made, not merely by Mr. Cresswell, of whom I wish to speak with the greatest respect, but to other experiments made on the Rand mines. These were honest experiments, and it would have been a happy thing for the Government, if, as the result, white unskilled miners could have been engaged in these mines. But what was the result of the experiment? There were required in the mines what I call 470 unskilled miners, and to maintain that constant throughout the year it was necessary to pass through the mines white men to the number of no less than 5,800. What is the meaning of those figures? That no white men would stay in the mines working alongside of Kaffirs more than a few days. The mineowners were put to enormous expense in the first place in paying the white miners much more than the natives. I venture to say, and I quote the great authority of the hon. Member for Morpeth, that it is an idle dream to suppose that you would ever get white men, citizens of this country, to work at unskilled work below ground alongside of Kaffirs.
§ SIR BRAMPTON GURDON
May I point out that what I asked was in regard to the working of these mines, whether many missionaries had gone into the Chinese compounds.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
I have no recollection of the subject at all; but it the hon. Gentleman will give me notice as to the number of missionaries who have gone into the Chinese compounds I shall be happy to answer him. I have never been under the delusion that it was either practical or desirable that the mines should be worked exclusively by white 702 men, and I entirely agree with the hon Member for Morpeth that that bears out the fundamental basis upon which this legislation has proceeded.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL—BANNERMAN
There are only two points upon which I wish to say a few words. The first is as to the question how far the employment of Chinese labour has the approval of the inhabitants of the Transvaal. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that it has. We have never dogmatised on the subject. We have never said it had not. We have always denied that there was any proof that it had. I remember an interchange of words between myself and the right hon. Gentleman last year, when he asked me what I should be disposed to do if representative government were given to the Transvaal and the Transvaal Legislature approved of Chinese labour. I said I should answer that when the occasion arises; when the thing is accomplished Well I think it is only reasonable to see whether representative government is given to the Transvaal in the first place, and then to see what the result of that change may be. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, on that occasion for the first time, intimated that this year we should. have an opportunity of expressing our decision upon that point, because before that time the Government would have conferred representative institutions upon the Transvaal. If those representative institutions are genuine and sound representative institutions, carrying with them responsible government, then, of course, for my part, I should bow to the decision of any such body.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
But until that has taken place we suspend our opinion—we suspend our judgment as to the real feelings and the intentions in this matter of the inhabitants of the Transvaal. If you constitute one of the Colonies a responsible item in the Empire, and give it that degree of independence, then, of course, we must accept the work of your own hands and allow them to deal with 703 this matter according to their own consciences. I pass from that, which is the mere answer to the inquiries as to the feeling of the Transvaal, of which we have as yet no definite and absolute knowledge whatever.
And now I would ask the right ton. Gentleman what is his attitude in the present temporary situation towards this Chinese experiment. I asked this Question at the beginning of the session, and I repeat it now—Is it an experiment, or is it a permanent policy, adopted and capable of extension to. any large degree? You have, now, I believe,40,000 Chinamen in compounds in the Transvaal. There are more than 40,000—there are 40,002, because I understand there are two women. Is that considered a desirable state of things? Can the right hon. Gentleman, or any one else on that bench, get up and say that they think that that is conducive to the best interests either of the country in which they work or of the men themselves; that these 40,000 men should be kept in compounds segregated from the rest of the world? If they think so, are they going to stop at 40,000, or are they going to allow it to go on to as great an extent as the mineowners desire? If it is a good thing, why do you stop at 40,000? If it is a bad thing, why do you allow it to go the length of 40,000? I repeat that Question. I do not see that we have ever had any definite or satisfactory reply to that Question-But, as far as the previous point is concerned, I base myself entirely, as far as I am concerned, on the opinion of the community in which this thing exists; and I say that if the inhabitants of the Transvaal, having full opportunity of expressing their opinion, deliberately endorse the 704 policy which has been adopted, I, for one, should not be disposed to interfere with them in that decision. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Although it is slavery."]
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
Where was the hon. Member far Woolwich when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking? The hon. Member conld not restrain his enthusiasm when my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary ventured to make certain observations upon the sort of indentured labour adopted by the Government of hon. Gentlemen opposite in various other pares of the British Empire. I think it was the hon. Member for Woolwich who interrupted, saying that under the British flag slavery could be committed nowhere.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
How sad are these differences in a united Party ! Did the hon. Gentleman hear the speech of his leader a few minutes ago?
§ MR. CROOKS
The right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a delusion. I am here simply as a Labour man, and as such I stand up. I know what I talk about, and I will take care of myself.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought he recognised the right hon. Gentleman as his leader, but I understand I have been mistaken. I do not wish to bring into collision the views of the hon. Gentleman below the gangway and the views of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. After all, the views of the right 705 hon. Gentleman are sufficiently interesting by themselves to be taken without the commentary of any of his Party, And what are those views? They are that the system which my right hon. friend and the Government of which he is a member have sanctioned in the Transvaal is a system of slavery, an outrage against humanity, out of harmony with modern civilisation, destructive of those who come from China, and destructive of the population of the Transvaal among whom they come. But the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly prepared to sanction that slavery. [MINISTERIAL cheers and OPPOSITION cries of "No, no !"] The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly ready to sanction slavery. [Renewed MINISTERIAL cheers and OPPOSITION cries of "No, no !"] I hear dissent. Prom which of the propositions is there dissent? Is there dissent from the proposition that the system of indentured labour is a system of slavery? [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] That is accepted. [Some cries of "Hear, hear."] Is that accepted by the right hon. Gentleman? Very well. Is it denied that the right hon. Gentleman has just in the hearing of the whole House said that if he were convinced that the white population in the Transvaal desired it he would permit indentured labour? [OPPOSITION cries of "No," and MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I never said anything of the kind. [Ironical MINISTERIAL laughter.] I referred to circumstances in which the population of the Transvaal would have a responsible Government. If they have a responsible Government, we cease to be responsible. It should be no part, I 706 think, of the business of the Imperial Government to interfere with their action in such a domestic matter. [OPPOSITION cheers and MINISTERIAL ironical laughter.]
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
This is the first time I have ever heard a British statesman describe slavery as a domestic matter. Let us just analyse the principle of policy which is going to animate the next Radical Government. They consider that they are justified in giving responsible government to persons who they have every reason to believe—[OPPOSITION cries of "No"]—will abuse it—[OPPOSITION cries of "No"]—by instituting slavery.—[OPPOSITION cries of "No."]—Then I understand they are not going to give it. They are never going to give responsible government to the Transvaal unless and until [Renewed OPPOSITION cries of "No"]—am I not to be allowed to finish any sentence?—until they have reason to believe that the Transvaal will not permit slavery. That is an irresistible conclusion from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman [OPPOSITION cries of "No"] from which the right hon. Gentleman cannot dissent. Now is it not irresistible? [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Just consider. Indentured labour itself is slavery. If the Transvaal have absolute self-government and choose to maintain slavery [OPPOSITION cries of "No" and MINISTERIAL cries of "Order"] the right hon. Gentleman says that he considers he has nothing more to do with it. But it rests with the British Government to give them complete self-government. If we give them complete self-government in the full consciousness that they will use it to maintain slavery, without taking precautions that they 707 shall not so use it, we are responsible for the slavery. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear!"] And I can imagine nothing more contemptible than the position of the man [OPPOSITION ironical cheers] who, knowing perfectly well how the power which he confers is going to be used [OPPOSITION cries of "How? "]—knowing full well that it will be misused in the grossest manner, yet insists on conferring it, and washes his hands of the result. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] However, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman will fill a very authoritative position in the Councils of his Sovereign before the Transvaal has complete self-government, when it only has a representative Assembly, and when it will rest with His Majesty's Government to decide whether any Ordinance passed by that Assembly is accepted or not. It will be interesting to know, if the right hon. Gentleman should ever be in that position, how far he is going to condone what he describes as slavery—how far he is going to make himself a party to a system which the hon. Member for Woolwich truly says, if it be slavery, ought not to be permitted under the British flag—how far he is going to make himself the accomplice of those whom he cannot but regard as criminals.
asked whether the Prime Minister had not himself sanctioned the Ordinance which he now described as a system of slavery.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The hon. Gentleman's friends have been making so much noise that possibly he did not hear what I said. I do not regard the Ordinance as slavery, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition 708 does; and that is the difficulty which he is in.
said that the Prime Minister had pointed out that there was a great danger, if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had the reigns of power, that he might be faced with the dilemma to sanction a system of slavery. He would ask the Prime Minister on whom the special responsibility rested for that dilemma? The great responsibility rested on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who gave a specific promise that the importation of Asiatic labour would not be permitted unless it was clearly shown that. a great majority of the white inhabitants was in favour of it. He defied the Prime Minister [MINISTERIAL ironical laughter]—he appealed to hon. Gentleman opposite to listen to him; if they would not resign their seats he could not go on resigning his seat on this question [OPPOSITION cheers]—he defied the Prime Minister to say that that condition had. been fulfilled. No reasonable man. could positively assert that that condition had been fulfilled.
It was well known that the great majority of the white population of the Transvaal was against Chinese labour. The hon. Member for Norfolk, who had just visited the Transvaal, stated that hundreds of Englishmen there objected to Chinese labour. It was admitted that the Boers in the Transvaal were in the great majority. They held a convention at Pretoria in June last at which there were 159 delegates, and by a. unanimous vote they protested against the introduction of the Chinese. Why had the promise made by the right 709 hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham been broken? It had been pointed out by the Member for Shropshire, six months ago, that the effect of this experiment would not be for the economic good of the Transvaal, and that a system of servile labour in disguise would be bad for that country. The Blue-book showed that the result of the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal might have increased the production of gold, but it had not increased the revenue of the Transvaal. He and his friends were convinced that this system was, in itself, wrong, and they had the support of high legal authority that it was, in essence, slavery. The Standing Counsel for the Indian Government said that the Chinese indentured labourers were not free according to either English or Anglo-Dutch law, and that he could not conceive of any system, of jurisprudence in any civilised country where a contract of this kind could be enforced. Better still—and he drew the attention of the Colonial Secretary to this—he said that the contract was an indirect contravention of the accepted principles of the liberty of the subject. He did not say that that legal opinion was conclusive, but it should be tested. He maintained that the system of indenture of the Chinese labourers was wrong both legally and morally.
When complaint was made about the flogging of the Chinese labourers the right
§ hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, had airily dismissed the subject, but then they had the testimony of the hon. Member for Morpeth; and he held that a system like that could not be continued without some degree of cruelty supervening. The only reply of the Colonial Secretary was that when the mine-owners paid £21 per head to get these Chinamen, they ought to get their money's worth. He and his friends condemned this system of indenture root and branch. It was perfectly true that if responsible self—government were granted to the Transvaal it would be difficult to take away the right to import Chinese if the Transvaal Government so desired it. He quite admitted the difficulty. But a system like this, even making allowance for the natural humanity of Englishmen, could not continue without cruelty supervening. If a situation of difficulty and danger arose owing to any conflict of opinion between ourselves and the responsible governing authority in the Transvaal, on hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and on the Prime Minister, would for ever rest the responsibility, because they broke the word of this country.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 237. (Division List No. 314.)713
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Burke, E. Haviland||Cheetham, John Frederick|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Burns, John||Cogan, Denis J.|
|Allen, Charles P.||Burt, Thomas||Condon, Thomas Joseph|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Buxton, NE (York, NR, Whitby||Crean, Eugene|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)||Cremer, William Randal|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Caldwell, James||Crooks, William|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Cullinan, J.|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Causton, Richard Knight||Delany, William|
|Black, Alexander William||Cawley, Frederick||Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Chance, Frederick William||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Channing, Francis Allston||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Dillon, John||Lloyd-George, David||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Lough, Thomas||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Duffy, William J.||Lundon, W.||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Lyell, Charles Henry||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Edwards, Frank||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Rose, Charles Day|
|Ellice. CaptEC (S. Andrw'sBghs||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Russell, T. W.|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland|
|Emmott, Alfred||M'Fadden, Edward||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||M'Kenna, Reginald||Shackleton, David James|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford|
|Fenwick, Charles||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Mooney, John J.||Sheehy, David|
|Field, William||Muldoon, John||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Murnaghan, George||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Murphy, John||Slack, John Bamford|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Newnes, Sir George||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Gilhooly, James||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Norman, Henry||Sullivan, Donal|
|Grant, Corrie||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Taylor, Treodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr|
|Hammond, John||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Tomkinson, James|
|Harrington, Timothy||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Tully, Jasper|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Wallace, Robert|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Dowd, John||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Warner, Thomas (Courtenay|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||O'Malley, William||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fred.||O'Mara, James||Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney}|
|Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Shee, James John||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Partington, Oswald||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||Paulton, James Mellor||Whiteley, George (York, W. R)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Pearson, Sir Weetman D.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Kilbride, Denis||Perks, Robert William||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Labouchere, Henry||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Lambert, George||Priestley, Arthur||Woodhouse. Sir J T(Huddersf'd|
|Lamont, Norman||Rea, Russell||Young, Samuel|
|Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Reddy, M.|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Richards, Thomas||Herbert Gladstone and Mr.|
|Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)||Rickett. J. Compton||William M'Arthur.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J (Birm.)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bigwood, James||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Wore.|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Bill, Charles||Chapman, Edward|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bingham, Lord||Clare, Octavius Leigh|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Clive, Captain Percy A.|
|Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. HughO||Bond, Edward||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Brassey, Albert||Compton, Lord Alwyne|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Brymer, William Ernest||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Balcarres, Lord||Butcher, John George||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.||Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Davenport, William Bromley|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Carlile, William Walter||Dewar, Sir T. R. (T'r Hamlets)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Cautley, Henry Strother||Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Doxford, Sir William Theodore|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Kimber, Sir Henry||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Knowles, Sir Lees||Robinson, Brooke|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r||Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Finlay, RtHnSirR. B (Inv'rn'ss)||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Sadler, Col. Sir Samuel Alex.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Liddell, Henry||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-||Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Forster, Henry William||Lowe, Francis William||Skewes-Cox, Sir Thomas|
|Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Lucas, Reg. J. (Portsmouth)||Smith, RtHn JParker (Lanark|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Macdona, John Cumming||Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Maclver, David (Liverpool||Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Maconochie, A. W.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Goschen, Hn. George Joachim||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Manners, Lord Cecil||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)||Marks, Harry Hananel||Stroyan, John|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Gretton, John||Maxwell, Rt. HnSirH E. (Wigt'n||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Groves, James Grimble||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Milvain, Thomas||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)||Tritton, Sir Charles Ernest|
|Hamilton, RtHnLordG (Midd'x||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Tuff, Charles|
|Hamilton, Marq of(L'donderry)||Morpeth, Viscount||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Morrell, George Herbert||Turnour, Viscount|
|Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)||Morrison, James Archibald||Vincent, Col. SirC. E H(Sheffield|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Mount, William Arthur||Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliam H|
|Heath, Sir J. (Staffords., N. W.)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Helder, Sir Augustus||Nicholson, William Graham||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)|
|Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Percy, Earl||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hill, Henry Staveley||Pierpoint, Robert||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Hoult, Joseph||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Purvis, Robert||Wylie, Alexander|
|Hunt, Rowland||Randles, John S.||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Rankin, Sir James||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Ratcliff, R. F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Kerr, John||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Keswick, William||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Sir A. Acland-Hood)—put, and agreed to.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.714
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.