§ SIR H. COTTON (Nottingham, E.)I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the original draft of the Chinese repatriation notice was a simple statement to the effect that coolies who wished to return to China would be able to do so at the cost of the State; whether this draft was rejected by the High Commissioner; and whether the notice eventually published was submitted to the Chamber of Mines before its approval and publication.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,) Manchester, N. W.The original proposals for a draft were of considerable length and contained a number of detailed restrictions and precautions designed with the express purpose of giving exact effect to the intention of His Majesty's Government— namely, that coolies who earnestly desired to return to China should lie enabled to do so, but that no incitement or incentive should be offered which would be likely to provoke a general cessation of work on the mines. Lord Selborne, doubtless after full consultation with all parties concerned, proposed an alternative draft which was accepted by the Secretary of State as being an equal fulfilment of the intentions of the Government and for which we take full responsibility. The vehement opposition offered by the gold-mining industry to the posting of the resulting proclamation, shows how little they were able to forecast its effects and how unfounded is the suggestion that the Chamber of Mines was a consenting party to its publication.
§ MR. PAUL (Northampton)asked whether these Chinamen could be told they could return home without being threatened in the process.
§ MR. CHURCHILLWe are considering the question of issuing a new proclamation. As I have already told the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, I hope to be in a position to give him an answer to-morrow.
§ SIR H. COTTONMay we expect Papers to be laid at an early date?
§ MR. CHURCHILLYes, Sir, the Blue-book is far advanced in preparation.
§ SIR H. COTTONI beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the explanation of the superintendent of Foreign labour in the Transvaal to the effect that the words, tremblingly obey, are a stereotyped formula attached to every single official proclamation issued in China is accepted as satisfactory by His Majesty's Government; whether these words are ordinarily used in prohibitory proclamations only, and that their introduction into the repatriation proclamation 25 was directly calculated to discourse applications for repatriation there under; and, if so, what action His Majesty's Government propose to take in regard to the action of the superintendent under whose signature and authority the repatriation proclamation was issued.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)Why are the quotation marks omitted by the King's printers? It makes the Question unintelligible.
§ MR. SPEAKERI am told that it is not the custom to permit marks indicating that words are quotations in Questions, though I confess it seems to me it would have been very much simpler in this case if these marks had been used.
§ MR. CHURCHILLLord Elgin is informed by Sir Robert Douglas, of the British Museum, that the phrase " tremblingly obey" is commonly attached to official proclamations, and was originally used to add emphasis to an injunction. It is of such common application, however, that it has ceased to be anything more than a more form, and it is not by any moans confined to prohibitory proclamations.
§ MR. REESMay I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the files of the Pekin Gazette afford no support to the ingenious suggestion that the words " tremblingly obey" —[Cries of " Order ! "]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member seems to be about to give some information instead of asking it.
§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)Seeing that these words " tremblingly obey " are extremely offensive to British ears, will the hon. Gentleman take care that they are not inserted in any proclamation issued in any part of the British Empire?
§ MR. CHURCHILLIf a new proclamation is issued these words will be omitted.
§ SIR H. COTTONasked what action the Government proposed to take in regard to the action of the superintendent under whose signature and authority the proclamation was issued.
§ MR. CHURCHILLThe action of the superintendent with regard to the issue of the proclamation was in every way proper and correct.
§ MR. REESShould I be in order in asking the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this expression is used in proclamations such as might be issued by the most virtuous of Governments— for instance by His Majesty's present advisers.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe virtue of different Governments is a matter of opinion, and is hardly a subject for a Question.