CLASS II.

HC Deb 31 July 1906 vol 162 cc729-808

1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £29,050, 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, 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration."

*THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,) Manchester, N.W.

It is my duty this afternoon, on behalf of the Government, to lay before the Committee the outline and character of the constitutional settlement which we have in contemplation in regard to the lately annexed colonies in South Africa. This is, I suppose, upon the whole, the most considerable business with which this new Parliament has had to deal. But although no one will deny its importance, or undervalue the keen emotions and anxieties which it excites on both sides of the House, and the solemn memories which it revives, yet I am persuaded that there is no reason why we should be hotly, sharply, or bitterly divided on the subject; on the contrary, I think its very importance makes it incumbent on all who participate in the discussion—and I will certainly be bound by my own precepts—to cultivate and observe a studious avoidance of anything likely to excite the ordinary recriminations and rejoinders of Party politics and partisanship. After all, there is no real difference of principle between the two great historic Parties on this question. The late Government have repeatedly declared that it was their intention at the earliest possible moment —laying great stress upon that phraso— to extend representative and responsible institutions to the new Colonies; and before His Majesty's present advisers took office the only question in dispute was, When? On the debate on the Address, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham—whose absence to-day and its cause I am quite sure are regretted in all parts of the House—spoke on this question with his customary breadth of view and courage of thought. Ho said— the responsibility for this decision lies with the Government now in power. They have more knowledge than we have; and if they consider it safe to give this large grant, and if they turn out to be right no one will be better pleased than we. I do not think that, although important, this change should be described as a change in colonial policy, but as continuity of colonial policy. If, then, we are agreed upon the principle, I do not think that serious or vital differences can arise upon the method. Because, after all, no one can contend that it is right to extend responsible government, but not to extend it fairly. No one can contend that it is right to grant the forms of free institutions and yet to preserve by some device the means of control. And so I should hope that we may proceed in this debate without any acute divergences becoming revealed. I am in a position to day only to announce the decision to which the Government have come with respect to the Transvaal. The case of the Transvaal is urgent, for it is the nerve-centre of South Africa. It is the arena in which all questions of South African politics—social, moral, | racial, and economic—are fought out; and this now country, so lately reclaimed from the wilderness, with a white population of less than,300,000 souls, already reproduces in perfect miniature all those dark, tangled, and conflicting problems usually to be found in populous and i old established European States. The case of the Transvaal differs fundamentally from the case of the Orange River Colony. The latter has been in the past, and will be again in the future, a tranquil agricultural State, pursuing under a wise and tolerant Government a happy destiny of its own. All I have to say about the Orange River Colony this afternoon is this—that there will be no unnecessary delay in the granting to the Orange River Colony of a Constitution; and that in the granting of that Constitution we shall be animated only by a desire to secure a fair representation of all classes of inhabitants in the country, and to give effective expression to the will of the majority.

When we came into office, we found a Constitution already prepared by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover-square. That Constitution is no more. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not suspect mo of any malevolence towards his offspring. I would have nourished and fostered it with a tender care; but life was already extinct. It had ceased to breathe oven before it was born; but I trust the right hon. Gentleman will console himself by remembering that there are many possibilities of constitutional settlements lying before him in the future. After all, the Abbé Sieyes, when the Constitution of 1791 was broken into pieces, was very little younger than the right hon. Gentleman, and ho had time to make and survive two new Constitutions. Frankly, what I may, for brevity's sake, call the Lyttelton Constitution was utterly unworkable. It surrendered the machinery of power; it preserved the whole burden of responsibility and administration. Nine official gentlemen, without Parliamentary experience, and I daresay without Parliamentary aptitudes, without the support of that nominated majority, which I am quite convinced that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had always contemplated in any scheme of representative government, and without the support of an organised party, were to be placed in a chamber of thirty-live elected members who possessed the power of the purse. The Boers would either have abstained altogether from participating in that Constitution, or they would have gone in only for the purpose of wrecking it. The British party was split into two sections, and one section, the Responsibles, made public declarations of their intentions to bring about a constitutional deadlock by obstruction and refusing supplies, and all the other apparatus of Parliamentary discontent. In fact the Constitution of the right hon. Gentleman seemed bound inevitably to conjure up that nightmare of all modern politicians, government resting on consent, and consent not forthcoming. As I told the House in May, His Majesty's Government thought it their duty to review the whole question. We thought it our duty and our right to start fair, free, and untrammelled, and we have treated the Lyttelton Constitution as if it had never been. One guiding principle has animated His Majesty's Government in their policy—to make no difference in this grant of responsible government between Boor and Briton in South Africa. We propose to extend to both races the fullest privileges and rights of British citizenship; and we intend to make no discrimination in the grant of that great boon between the men who have fought most loyally for us and those who have resisted the British arms with the most desperate courage. By the Treaty of Vereeniging, in which the peace between the Dutch and British races was declared for ever, by Article 1 of that treaty the flower of the. Boer nation and its most renowned leaders recognised the lawful authority of His Majesty, King Edward VII., and henceforth, from that moment, British supremacy in South Africa stood on the sure foundations of military honour and warlike achievement, far beyond the reach of any transference of one or two seats, this way or that way, in a local Parliament. This decision in favour of even-handed dealing arises from no ingratitude on our part towards those who have nobly sustained the British cause in years gone by. It involves no injustice to the British population of the Transvaal. As will be seen from the statement I am about to make, we have boon careful at every point of this constitutional settlement to secure for the British every advantage that they may justly claim. But the future of South Africa, and, I will add, its permanent inclusion in the British Empire, demand that the King should be equally Sovereign of both races, and that both races should learn to look upon this country as their friend.

Now, Sir, at the beginning of the session the Prime Minister announced that he had decided to send a Committee of Inquiry to South Africa. That Committee has now returned. I would pay some tribute to the work it has accomplished. From every side, from the Boer leaders, from the Progressive Association, testimony has come to the tact, patience, and courtesy and fair dealing which have been exhibited by the members of that Committee. I am not prepared to admit on behalf of the Colonial Office that the Committee brought us back new information on points on which we should have been properly informed. But the Committee has brought us back most valuable intelligence as to the position of the different South African parties, and of their opinions in regard to the various constitutional solutions which have been proposed. The Report of the Committee has only this day been laid before us, signed and complete, but we have had before us from time to time while the Committee was at work in South Africa, and since it returned, very full and detailed information of all their doings and all their opinions, and we are consequently enabled to make a statement of policy in anticipation of the publication of their Report which has not yet been in its final form considered from that point of view by the Cabinet. When I last spoke in this House on the question of the South African constitution, I took occasion to affirm the excellence of the general principle, one vote one value. I pointed out that it was a logical and unimpeachable principle to act upon; that the only safe rule for doing justice between man and man was to assume—a large assumption in some cases—that all mem are equal and that all discriminations between them are unhealthy and undemocratic. The principle of one vote one value can be applied and realised in this country, either upon the basis of population, or upon the basis of voters. It makes no difference which is selected; for there is no part of this country which is more married, or more prolific than another, and exactly the same distribution, and exactly the same number of Members would result whether the voters or the population basis were taken in a Redistribution Bill. But in, South Africa the disparity of conditions between the new population and the old makes a very great difference between the urban and the rural populations, and it is undoubtedly true that if it be desired to preserve the principle of one vote one value, it is the voter's basis, and not the population basis that must be taken in the Transvaal—and that is the basis which His Majesty's Government have determined to adopt.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had proposed to establish a franchise qualification of £100 annual value. That is not nearly such a high property qualification as it would be in this country. I do not quarrel with the right lion. Gentleman's constitution on the ground that his franchise was not perfectly fair, or not a perfectly bona fide and generous measure of representation. But it is undoubtedly true that a property qualification of £100 annual value told more severely against the Boers than against the British, because living in the towns is so expensive that almost everybody who lives in the towns, and who is not utterly destitute, has a property qualification of £100 annual value. But in the country districts there are numbers of men, very poor but perfectly respectable and worthy citizens—day labourers, farmers' sons, and others—who would not have that qualification, and who consequently would have been excluded by the property qualification, low as it is having regard to the conditions in South Africa. Quite apart from South African questions and affairs, His Majesty's Government profess a strong preference for the principle of manhood suffrage as against any property qualification, and we have therefore determined that manhood suffrage shall be the basis on which votes are distributed. It is quite true that in the prolonged negotiations and discussions which have taken place upon this question, manhood suffrage has been demanded by one party and the voters' basis by the other, and there has been a tacit, though quite informal agreement that the one principle should balance the other. But that is not the position of His Majesty's Government in regard to either of these propositions. We defend both on their merits. We defend one vote one value and we defend manhood suffrage strictly on their merits as just and equitable principles between man and man throughout the Transvaal. We have therefore decided that all adult males of twenty-one years of age, who have resided in the Transvaal for six months, who do not belong to either the officers or the soldiers of the British garrison—because that is a provision, as the right hon. Gentleman recognises, which was manifestly necessary if injustice is to be avoided—should be permitted to vote under the secrecy of the ballot for the election of Members of Parliament

Now there is one subject to which I must refer incidentally. The question of female suffrage has been brought to the notice of various Members of the Government on various occasions and in various ways. We have very carefully considered that matter, and we have come to the conclusion that it would not be right for us to subject a young colony, unable to speak for itself, to the hazards of an experiment which we have not had the gallantry to undergo ourselves; and we shall leave that quesion to the new legislature to determine.

I come now to the question of electoral divisions. There are two alternatives before us on this branch of the subject— equal electoral areas or the old magisterial districts. When I say '-old," I mean old in the sense that they are existing magisterial districts. There are argu- ments for both these courses. Equal electoral areas have the advantage of being symmetrical and are capable of more strict and mathematical distribution. But the Boers have expressed a very strong desire to have the old magisterial districts preserved. [An HON. MEMBER: Of course they do.] I think it is rather a sentimental view on their part, because upon the whole I think the wastage of Boer votes will, owing to excessive plurality in certain divisions, be slightly greater in the old magisterial districts than in the electoral areas. But the Boers have been very anxious that the old areas of their fomer constitution of their local life should be interfered with as little as possible, and that is a matter of serious concern to His Majesty's Government. Further, there is this great advantage, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, though he may not recognise the value of the other argument, will not deny, that there is a great saving of precious time and expense in avoiding the extra work of new delimitation which would be necessary if the country were to be cut up into equal mathematical electoral areas. The decision to adopt the old magisterial areas, which divides the Transvaal into sixteen electoral divisions, of which the Witwatersrand is only one, involves another question. How are you to sub-divide these magisterial districts for the purpose of allocating Members? Some will have two, some three, some a number of Members, and on what system will you allocate the Members to these divisions? We have considered the question of proportional representation. It is the only perfect way in which minorities of every shade and view and interest can receive effective representation. And Lord Elgin was careful to instruct the Committee as a special point to inquire into the possibility of adopting the system of proportional representation. The Committee examined many witnesses, and went most thoroughly into this question. They, however, advise us that there is absolutely no support for such a proposal in the Transvaal, and that its adoption—I will not say its imposition—would be unpopular and incomprehensible throughout the country. If a scientific or proportional representation cannot be adopted, then I say unhesitatingly that the next best way of protecting minorities is to go straight for single Member seats. Some of us have experience of double-barrelled seats — a not very pleasant experience—in this country; there used to be several three - barrelled seats. But I am convinced that if either of those two systems had been applied to the electoral divisions of the Transvaal, it would only have led to the swamping of one or two local minorities with which single Member divisions would have returned just that very class of moderate, independent Dutch or British Members whom we particularly desire to see represented in the new Assembly. Therefore, with the desire of not extinguishing these local minorities, His Majesty's Government have decided that single Member constituencies, or man against man, shall be the rule in the Transvaal. But I should add that the sub-division of these electoral districts into their respective constituencies will not proceed upon hard mathematical lines, but that they will be grouped together in accordance with the existing field cornetcies of which they are composed, as that will involve as little change as possible in the ideas of the rural population, and in the existing boundaries

The Committee will realise that this is a question with an elusive climax. It is like going up a mountain. Each successive peak appears in turn the summit, and yet there is always another pinnacle beyond. We have now settled that the Members are to be allotted to single Member constituencies based on the old magisterial districts according to the adult male residents there. But how are we to apply that principle? How are we to find out how many adult males there are in each of the districts of the country and so to find the quota of electors or proper number of Members for each division? The proverbial three alternatives present themselves. We might take the Lyttelton voters' list. We might take a new voters' list, or we might take the census of 1904. Now, how are we to choose between these alternatives? We have been much urged by some of the leaders of the Progressive Party to adopt the Lyttelton voters' list. We are told that it is comparatively recent; that it was framed on official authority; and that it would be easy to add to it the extra voters under the extended suffrage. It is calculated that thirty-six Members would be accorded on that list to the Rand, against thirty-four from the rest of the country, or an absolute majority from the Rand against a 1 other interests and districts in the country. Whether that would be a desirable conclusion to our labours I do not say; but I am bound to admit that the Lyttelton voters' list lies under grave suspicion. I do not make any charge against my right hon. friend in this respect. I am quite certain that he would not lend himself to any electoral fraud, however pious; but it is undoubtedly a fact that one of the political parties in the Transvaal has made strenuous exertions to have as many electors as possible put on the electoral list, and that these exertions have received such a very singular measure of success that there are 3,000 more voters with a property qualification on the electoral list than there were adult males in the same area in 1904. In reply to that curious observation we are told that the population has increased since 1904. We are further told that although during the last eight months there has been a shrinking, a diminution of the population, yet that in the preceding period between the census and the accession of the Liberal Government to power the increase was so large that it exceeded the decrease which has since taken place. Well, I am bound to say that the Committee, the Secretary of State, and the Cabinet as a whole, having carefully examined this matter, cannot feel convinced in regard to this increase. I believe that there had been some small net increase but not sufficient to justify the figures of the Lyttelton voters' list. Certainly it has not been sufficient to remove the suspicion with which that voters' list is regarded. It would be fatal to our whole policy in South Africa if we were to weaken our grant of self-government by founding it on a system open to grave suspicion. The Boers have urged that if this list is adopted it should be carefully scrutinised. The "Responsible" section of the British Party holds the same opinion. The Committee have told us that they have not been able to resist the fairness of such a request. Lord Selborne, although not admitting any irregularity, is of the opinion that it is indispensable that if that list is to be employed as the all-important basis for the allocation of seats, it should be scrutinised and revised. And if it is to be revised, and if there are to be added to it supplementary voters, Lord Selborne has pointed out to us that it might take just as long a time as to make a new voters' list, which would occupy seven months. So that with the necessary interval for the arrangements for election, ten months would elapse before the Transvaal would be able to possess responsible institutions. I think we shall have the assent of all South African parties in our desire to avoid that delay. I am sorry that so much delay has already taken place, but it was necessary. The responsibilities we have incurred in this matter are very great. We are quite prepared to bear them. We do not seek to shelter ourselves behind the Committee, or behind South African parties, or behind the High Commissioner. The responsibility rests with the Cabinet and it was necessary that the Cabinet should secure complete information. But to keep a country seething on the verge of an exciting general election is very prejudicial to trade. It increases agitation and impedes the healthy process of development. We are therefore bound to terminate the uncertainty at the earliest possible moment; and we have therefore determined to adopt the census of 1904.

Let me ask the Committee now to examine the sixteen magisterial districts. I think it is necessary to do so before allocating the Members amongst them. In all the discussions in South Africa these have been divided into three areas—the Witwatersrand, Pretoria, and the "Rest of the Transvaal." Pretoria is the metropolis of the Transvaal. It has a very independent public opinion of its own; it is strongly British, and it is rapidly increasing. It is believed that Pretoria will return three, four, or five Members of the Responsible Party, which is the moderate British party, and is inde- pendent of and detached from the Progressive Association. The "Rest of the Transvaal" consists of the old constituencies who sent Boer Members to the old Legislature. There will, however, be one or two seats which may be won by Progressive or Responsible British candidates, but in general the rest of the country will return a compact body of Members of Het Volk. Having said that I now come to the Rand. We must consider the Rand without any bias or prejudice whatever. The Rand is not a town or city, but a mining district covering 1,600 square miles, and whose population of adult males practically balances the whole of the rest of the country. The Rand population is not as some people imagine a foreign population. The great majority of it is British, and a very large portion of it consists of as good, honest, hard-working men as are to be found in any constituency in this country. But there are also on the Rand a considerable proportion of Dutch. Krugersdorp Rural is Dutch and has always been excluded from the Rand in the discussions that have taken place in South Africa and included in the "Rest of the Transvaal." But in addition to that there are the towns of Fordsburgh, which is half-Dutch, Elsbury, which has a considerable Dutch population, and another suburb which also has a Dutch population; and it is believed that the e will afford seats for Members of the Responsible British Party with the support of Het Volk. I must say further that the British community upon the Rand is divided into four main political parties. There is the Transvaal Progressive Association, a great and powerful association which arises out of the mining interest. There is the Responsible Government Association; there is the Transvaal Political Association—a moderate body standing between the Responsibles and the Progressives—and there are the labour associations, which are numerous. There are three main labour associations, or really four—the Independent Labour Party, the Transvaal Labour League, the Trade and Labour Council of the Witwatersrand, and the Trade and Labour Council of Pretoria. The first two of these, I understand, are now amalgamating to form a more consolidated and powerful independent labour party. Why do I bring these facts before the Committee? I do it because I feel it necessary to establish these solid and concrete facts in order to show how impossible it is to try to dismiss the problems of this complicated community with a gesture or to solve their difficulties with a phrase, and how unfair it would be to deprive such a community, in which there are at work all these counterchecks and rival forces that we see here in our own political life, of its proper share of representation in the country. Applying the adult male list in the census of 1904 to the three areas I have spoken of, I should allot thirty-two members to the Rand, six to Pretoria, and thirty to the rest of the country; or, if you include Krugersdorp Rural in the Rand, it would read thirty-three to the Rand, six to Pretoria, and twenty-nine to the rest of the country. Arrived at that point, the Committee in South Africa had good hopes, not merely of arriving at a just settlement, but of arriving at an agreement between all the parties. I am not going to afflict the House with a chronicle of the negotiations which took place. They were fruitless. A great deal of what took place was without prejudice, and much of what was said and of what was written may be said to be privileged. Although His Majesty's Government and the Committee have no apprehension whatever in regard to anything that may be published, we will not ourselves be the origin and source from which disclosures of the negotiations and the abortive discussions are made, unless we are provoked thereto by partial publication. It is enough to say that there were good hopes that if the Progressive complaint, that the adoption of the census of 1904 did not allow for the increase in the population that has taken place since the census was taken, could be met, a general agreement could be reached. The Boers, whose belief that we were going to treat them fairly and justly has been a pleasant feature in the whole of these negotiations, and will, believe me, be an inestimable factor of value in the future history of South Africa—the Boers with reluctance and under pressure, but guided by the Committee, with whom they were on friendly terms, were willing to agree to a distribution which allotted one more seat to meet this increase of the population in the Witwatersrand area, and the proposal then became 33, 6, and 30, or, including Krugersdorp Rural, 34, 6, 29. The Responsible Party agreed to that. The Progressives hesitated. The great majority of them certainly wished to come in and come to a general agreement on those terms. Certain leaders, however, stood out for one or two or three seats more, and, although Lord Selborne expressed the opinion that the arrangement proposed, namely, 33, 6, 30, excluding Krugersdorp Rural, was a perfectly fair one to the British vote in the Transvaal, those leaders still remained unconvinced and obdurate, and all hopes of a definite agreement fell through. The Committee returned to this country, bringing with them the recommendation that the Government on their own responsibility should fix the allocation of seats at that very point where the agreement of one Party was still preserved and where the agreement of the other was so very nearly won. And that is what we have decided to do. We have decided to allocate thirty-four seats, including Krugersdorp Rural, to the Rand, six to Pretoria, and twenty-nine to the rest of the country. Lord Selborne wishes it to be known that he concurs in this arrangement. He has this day telegraphed:— the distribution of seats represents as nearly as possible the distribution which would result on the basis of voters in equal electoral districts from the formation of a new voters' roll based on adult male British subject franchise, and, this being so, the adoption of these terms should save several months' delay, and the advent of self-government should be antedated by several months.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no agreement there.

*MR. CHURCHILL

I should say Lord Selborne has telegraphed saying he agrees that this is a fair and just settlement.

MR. LYTTELTON (St, George's, Hanover Square)

As to this point?

*MR. CHURCHILL

As to the number of seats distributed between the different areas, which is the vital point of the whole discussion. Now I am quite ready to admit that every Constitution ought to rest either upon symmetry or upon acceptance. Our Constitution does not rest upon either symmetry or acceptance but it is very near symmetry and very near acceptance, and in so far as it has departed from symmetry it has moved towards acceptance, and is furthermore sustained throughout by fair dealing, for I am honestly convinced that the addition of an extra member to the Witwatersrand areas which has been made is justified by the increase of the population which has taken place since the census.

On such a basis as this the Transvaal Assembly will be created. It will consist of sixty-nine Members, who will receive for their services adequate payment. I believe it will be £200 and so much for every day's attendance; but I must not be understood to speak with any authority on that point. They will be elected for five years. The Speaker will vacate his seat after being elected. The reason for that provision is that the majority in this Parliament as in the Cape Parliament, with which the Government is carried on, is likely to be very small, and it would be a great hardship if the party in power were to deprive itself of one of the two or three votes which, when parties are evenly balanced, are necessary for carrying on the Government. It would be a great disaster if we had in the Transvaal a succession of weak Ministries going out upon a single vote, one way or the other. And it is found that when parties have a very small majority and are forced to part with one of their Members for the purpose of filling the chair, they do not always select the Member who is best suited to that high office, but the Member who can best be spared.

Now let me come to the question of language. Under the Constitution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, the Members of the Assembly would have been permitted to speak Dutch if they asked permission and obtained permission from the Speaker. We are not able to lend ourselves to that condition. We are of opinion that such a discrimination would be invidious. The recognition of their language is precious to a small people. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon who, at Question time the other day, invited me to work myself into a passion because in some part or other of the Cape Colony there were some Dutch people who wished to have Dutch teachers to teach Dutch children Dutch. We should regret intolerant action of any kind; and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would do so, in theory at least. But on this side of the House we have not so poor an opinion of the English language, with its priceless literary treasures and its worldwide business connections, as not to believe that it can safely be exposed to the open competition of a dialect like the taal. We believe that the only sure way to preserve in the years that are to come such a language as the taal would be to make it a proscribed language, which would be spoken by the people with deliberation and with malice as a protest against what they regarded, and would rightly regard, as an act of intolerance. Therefore we have decided to follow the Cape practice and allow the members of the Transvaal Parliament to address that Assembly indifferently in Dutch or English. I shall be asked what will be the result of the arrangement that we have made. I decline to speculate or prophesy on that point. It would be indecent and improper. I cannot even tell in this country at the next election how large the Liberal majority will be. Still less would I recommend hon. Gentlemen here to forecast the results of contests in which they will not be candidates. I cannot tell how the British in the Transvaal will vote. There are a great many new questions, social and economic, which are beginning to apply a salutary counter-irritant to old racial sores. The division between the two races, thank God, is not quite so clear cut as it used to be. But this I know—that as there are undoubtedly more British voters in the Transvaal than there are Dutch, and as these British voters have not at any point been treated unfairly, it will be easily within their power to obtain a British majority if they decide or desire to obtain it. I am one of those who share the hope that the Government that will be called into life by these elections will be a coalition Government with some moderate leader acceptable to both Parties, and a Government which embraces in its Party Members of both races. Such a solution would be a godsend to South Africa. But whatever may be the outcome, His Majesty's Government are confident that the Ministers who may be summoned, from whatever Party they may be drawn, to whatever race they may belong, will in no circumstances fail in their duty to the Crown. I should like to say also that this Parliament will be of a high representative authority, and it will be the duty of whoever may be called upon to represent Colonial business in this House to stand between that Parliament and all unjustifiable interference from whatever quarters of the House it may come.

There are several subordinate but important matters which require the close attention of the Committee. First of all there is the position of the Inter-colonial Council. That council consists of twenty-six members, of whom sixteen are officials and ten—six from the Transvaal and four from the Orange River Colony—are unofficial, and members of the Legislative Councils of these two Colonies. This body deals with the railways in the two Colonies, is responsible for the administration of the guaranteed loan and the payment of the interest on that loan, and it also administers the constabulary. We value the Intercolonial Council because we see in it the nucleus of that federation which may some day settle many South African questions, place native issues beyond the range of local panics, and secure a steadier and more generous administration. But we feel that it would be inconsistent with our views of responsible government to tie the hands of the local Assemblies in dealing with the Intercolonial Council; and we have therefore inserted a clause in the Letters Patent which enables either colony to recede from and consequently determine the Intercolonial Council on giving, I think, one year's notice.

I now approach the question of the Second Chamber. That is not a very attractive subject. We on this side of the House are not parti- cularly enamoured of Second Chambers, and I do not know that our love for these institutions will grow sweeter as the years pass by. But we have to be governed by colonial practice; and there is no colony in the Empire that has not a Second Chamber. The greater number of these Second Chambers are nominated; and I think that the quality of nominated Second Chambers, and their use in practice, have not been found to be inferior to those of the elective bodies. His Majesty's Government desire to secure, if they can, some special protection for native interests which is not likely to be afforded by any electoral arrangement, I am sorry to say; and we are encouraged in that respect by what took place in the Second Chamber of Natal. The poll tax as sent up by the Lower House was imposed solely upon natives, and the Second Chamber, taking a broader view of the question, removed at any rate the invidious character of the tax, by extending it to all males in Natal. We are unable to countenance the creation in a permanent form of a nominated Second Chamber. But for the first Parliament only, in view of the position of native affairs, in view of the disadvantage of complicating the elections, to which all classes in the Transvaal have been so long looking forward, and most particularly because of the extra delays that would be involved in the creation of an elective body, the Cabinet have resolved for this Parliament only and as a purely provisional arrangement, to institute a nominated Legislative Council of fifteen Members. They will be nominated by the Crown, that is to say at home, and vacancies, if any, by death or resignation, will be filled by the High Commissioner, on the advice of the responsible Minister. But during the course of the first Parliament in the Transvaal arrangements will be completed for the establishment of an elective Second Chamber, and if necessary further Letters Patent will be issued to constitute it.

Now I come to the question of the natives. Under the Treaty of Vereeniging we undertook that no franchise should be extended to natives before the grant of self-government. I am not going to plunge into the argument as to what "native" means or as to its legal or technical character, because in regard to such a treaty, upon which we arc relying for such grave issues, we must be bound by the interpretation which the other Party places upon it; and it is undoubted that the Boers would regard it as a breach of that treaty if the franchise were in the first instance extended to any persons who are not white men as opposed to coloured people. We may regret that decision. We may regret that there is no willingness in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony to make arrangements which have been found not altogether harmful in Cape Colony. But we are bound by this treaty. Meanwhile we make certain reservations. Any legislation which imposes disabilities on natives which are not imposed on Europeans will be reserved to the Secretary of State, and the Governor will not give his assent before receiving the Secretary of State's decision. Legislation that will effect the alienation of native lands will also be reserved. It is customary to make some provision in money for native interests, such as education, by reserving a certain sum for administration by the High Commissioner or some other political or Imperial official. I am not yet in a position to state what form that provision will take; but the Government arc fully alive to their responsibilities in that matter. We propose to reserve Swaziland to the direct administration of the High Commissioner. Everyone who is acquainted with South African affairs knows that Swaziland is in a condition of unrest; and that very vexatious difficulties have arisen from the abominable and foolish concessions that were granted on all sides by the late King Umbandine. A Commission has sat to try to regularise these concessions and to limit or define the evils lying behind them. I would recommend hon. Members to read the White Paper published last week giving an account of Lord Selborne's tours in Bechuanaland, for it is in pleasing contrast with a good deal of the literature we have been forced to read in connection with South Africa. That Paper shows the keen and lively interest which Lord Selborne takes in this aspect of his onerous duties, and proves that the Secretary of State has acted wisely in authorising him to deal personally with the difficulties which have arisen in Swaziland, with the limiting provision that no settlement he may make is to be less advantageous to the natives than the existing arrangement.

I come now to the question of Chinese labour. I have been asked a great many questions about the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. That association was a voluntary union of all the employers of native labour on the Rand, and it enjoyed practically a monopoly of recruiting. Lately there have been complaints from certain mines. They wished to break away from this association and to recruit independently. The Government have no intention or desire to reinstitute what is called free recruiting. The evils of that system to the natives and the abuses which follow in its train are patent to us all. But we think that between free recruiting and a monopoly of recruiting there ought to be a middle course, and room for several respectable and reputable recruiting bodies. We have received requests from the Robinson group of mines that they should be allowed equal facilities with the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. Lord Selborne has satisfied himself of the respectability of the agents whom it is proposed to employ. My right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary has approached the Portuguese Government, who have met us with great courtesy and with more than diplomatic celerity, and the Governor-General of Mozambique has been instructed to extend to this recruiting body the same facilities as were enjoyed by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. It is to be hoped that this arrangement will have the effect of increasing, without abuses, the supply of native labour, and in the expectation of such an increase the Robinson group of mines have notified us that they will forthwith surrender the 3,000 outstanding licences for Chinese which they hold, so that I think we shall be able to say, with the heavy wastage going on and which will be increased by the vigorous repatriation of bad characters, that the coolie population on the Rand will not have been greatly increased during the difficult transition period in which we shall have been responsible for the administration of the Ordinance. It will be possible with the increase, if any, of native labour, to employ a larger proportion of white men in association with Kaffir labour, we cannot say how large a proportion—whether 20, 30, or 40 per cent,; but an experiment is going to be tried on one of the Robinson mines to see how high a proportion of white labour can be profitably employed in association with Kaffir labour. The Government will watch that experiment with interest and sympathy, and the Rouse will realize that it wil be an honest and bona fide experiment when I say that the man to whom it is to be entrusted is Mr. Creswell.

Now I return to the general drift of my argument. On November 30, 1905, the arrangement for recruiting Chinese in China will cease and determine, and our consuls will withdraw the powers they have delegated, and I earnestly trust that no British Government will ever renew them. A clause in the Constitution will provide, in accordance with the pledge given by the Chancel or of the Exchequer, for the abrogation of the existing Chinese Labour Ordinance after a reasonable interval. I am not yet in a position to say what will be a reasonable interval, but t me must be given to the new assembly to take stock of the position and to consider the labour question as a whole. I said just now there would be a clause with regard to different al legislation as between white persons and other, and to this clause will be added the words— No law will be assented to which sanctions any condition of service or residence of a servile character. We have been invited to use the word "slavery" or the words "semblance of slavery," but such expressions would be needlessly wounding, and the words we have chosen are much more effective, because much more precise and much more restrained, and they point an accurate forefinger at the very evil we desire to prevent.

I have still a threefold project, to expain to the House. Attention has been drawn to the case of the settlers under the and settlement schemes in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. In the Transvaal land settlement has been only a qualified success, but in the Orange River Colony, where more elaborate methods have been tried, good results have been obtained; and quite apart from the economic results, a new and valuable element of population has been introduced into the country which tend to m t gate the asperity of racial distinctions by creating a class of British farmers whose interests are similar to and associated with those of their Boer fellow-subjects. The settlers have expressed anxiety in regard to the constitutional arrangement we are making. We do not share that anxiety, but we are anxious to remove it. It would be a great pity if, through the discouragement of the settlers, results which have been obtained at great cost were to be wasted and swept away. Now we should desire to interpose an administrative screen between the mortgagor and mortgagee in such a way as to secure to the settlers that sympathetic administration which is an integral and essential portion of the original conditions under which they received their land and undertook their holding. We believe that machinery can most easily be provided by the creation of a Land Board under the High Commisioner to administer the funds allocated to the purpose of land settlement. What are those funds? There were £3,000,000 allotted out of the guaranteed loan. Of this sum £2,500,000 have been expended in the purchase of land or employed for the time being in loans to settlers. The law officers of the Crown have expressed the opinion, and it is an important ruling, that in proportion as those sums of money are repaid by the settlers they must be devoted to further purposes of land settlement to which they were ear-marked, or else they must go in diminution of the total debt charge of £35,000,000, of which this country is the guarantor. That is a very important fact which will be appreciated in South Africa; but we should not think it right to erect the machinery of such a Land Board without receiving satisfactory assurances that its creation was agreeable to all parties in the two colonies. But if general consent be obtained, I am confident that real benefits will be secured to South Africa if, instead of these sums of money as they are repaid going to the amortization of the debt, they remain devoted to South African purposes, arid continue to add year by year to the population and development of the rural districts.

I come to the second point. It has been brought to the notice of my noble friend that there are a certain number of hard cases which have arisen out of the settlement of war losses and compensation claims. His Majesty's Government admit no liability in the matter. The injuries of war are irreparable and incommensurable, and it is idle to suggest that afterwards we can go round and liquidate them by money payments. This country has already provided, quite apart from the guaranteed loan, £9,500,000 for various purposes of enabling the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony to regain their condition of economic prosperity, and we are not prepared to ask the House of Commons to vote any more. Anything like a general reopening of these compensation claims would be disastrous to South Africa and would be viewed with consternation by all those responsible for its government. Nevertheless, I am willing to admit that there are certain special cases where persons have suffered, or suppose themselves to have suffered, injustice through the perfectly honest working of the rules which guided the Central Judicial Commission, and that the decisions of that Commission have involved certain persons in acute physical want and suffering. We should earnestly desire that these cases should receive the further consideration of the Colonial Governments.

Now I reach the third point. The House will remember that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was in South Africa he obtained a promise from certain influential gentlemen in Johannesburg to pay a sum of £30,000,000, and that this would be a debt charge on the Transvaal, with a smaller sum of £5,000,000 on the Orange River Colony, and that this should go in diminution of the war debt created in this country. Such a promise had, of course, no regular authority. These gentlemen had no representative right to speak for the population of the Transvaal. But it is an undoubted fact that it was in consideration of this promise, and in virtue of this undertaking, this House was persuaded to give the British guarantee to the £35,000,000 guaranteed loan, and as a result of that guarantee the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony budgets have been benefited to the extent of at least £350,000 a year. There would seem, therefore, to be not a legal obligation, but something in the nature of a moral or honourable obligation, upon these colonies in respect of this contribution. I should like also to point out that while the British Government do not waive, formally, their claim to payment under these heads, the borrowing powers of both Colonies will be sensibly impaired, if not, indeed, entirely suspended. We do not desire to deal in a grasping spirit with the youngest colonies in the British Empire. Suggestions have reached us from various quarters, Boer and British, that a release from this obligation would be gratefully welcomed by all parties in South Africa. We have been asked whether the guarantors—those who promised to underwrite the first £10,000,000 at 4 per cent.—would not transfer their obligations to a loan necessarily much smaller, to be expended, not in relieving the British taxpayer or in reducing the National Debt, but on certain South African objects which are agreeable both to the British and Boer populations, and in which His Majesty's present advisers take a keen and lively interest. I am not prepared to make, on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, any offer or promise of a definite or final character, but we are convinced that there are in these proposals the elements of an arrangement that would withdraw some of the embarrassing and perplexing questions from South African politics, and effect their settlement in a manner agreeable to all parties concerned. We propose, therefore, to instruct Lord Selborne to ascertain by immediate inquiry what the views of South African statesmen upon the outlines of the arrangement which I have proposed are likely to be.

I have now finished laying before the House the constitutional settlement, and I should like to say that our proposals are interdependent. They must be considered as a whole; they must be accepted or rejected as a whole. I say this is no spirit of disrespect to the Committee, because evidently it is a matter which the Executive Government should decide on its own responsibility, and if the policy which we declare were changed new instruments would have to be found to carry out another plan. We are prepared to make this settlement in the name of the Liberal Party. That is sufficient authority for us; but there is a higher authority which we should earnestly desire to obtain. I make no appeal, but I address myself particularly to the right hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite, who are long versed in public affairs, and not able to escape all their lives from a heavy South African responsibility. They are the accepted guides of a Party which, though in a minority in this House, nevertheless embodies nearly half the nation. I will ask them seriously whether they will not pause before they commit themselves to violent or rash denunciations of this great arrangement. I will ask them, further, whether they will not consider if they cannot join with us to invest the grant of a free Constitution to the Transvaal with something of a national sanction. With all our majority we can only make it the gift of a Party; they can make it the gift of England. And if that were so, I am quite sure that all those inestimable blessings which we confidently hope will flow from this decision will be gained more surely and much more speedily; and the first real step taken to withdraw South African affairs from the arena of British Party politics, in which they have inflicted injury on both political parties and in which they have suffered grievous injury themselves. I ask that that may be considered; but in any case we are prepared to go forward alone, and Letters Patent will be issued in strict conformity with the settlement I have explained this afternoon if we should continue to enjoy the support of a Parliamentary majority.

*MR. LYTTELTON

I have always endeavoured to approach the consideration of this question, both in what I have spoken and in all I have written, in the spirit the hon. Gentleman has displayed at the close of his elaborate and able speech. But for the consideration of a subject of this magnitude some further preparation than the statement made by the hon. Member should, I think, in fairness have been granted. Is it right, without a single published Paper, that the discussion of this important subject should be relegated to one day in the dog days of July, when the Government themselves, through the Prime Minister, have admitted a few months ago that they themselves were wofully lacking full information upon it, and had appointed a Commission to supply that information, This information has been in the possession of the Government, and I think it would have been fairer, as well as more dignified, if the Government had placed in the hands of their critics the material which, at the public cost and in the public interest, has been supplied to them. It would be easy to make some Party capital out of the circumstance that the Government have omitted the Orange River Colony from these proposals. But I rejoice that the Government have done so, not because I do not wish well to the Orange River Colony, but because I am satisfied that in substance the Constitution it enjoys is best for the welfare, prosperity, and happiness both of Britons and Dutch in that colony. Here is a colony free from those influences that have made the Transvaal many times the despair of statesmen. Hero is a business-like Arcadia, with no mines and no shareholders, no opposition between town and country, a pastoral and agricultural colony where Britons give their skill and science to the cultivation of the land, and the Dutch give their long experience of the country. I believe that already much progress has been made in smoothing away the ravages of the war in that colony; I believe that both races are settling down; and therefore I applaud the Government for having taken the path of wisdom and left that which was well substantially alone. The statement of the hon. Gentleman that the constitution proposed by the late Government for the Transvaal was not a workable one was probably not serious and certainly will not be accepted by serious persons when it is remembered that it was a constitution which was promised at the settlement of the treaty, was promised over and over again in the House, and was scarcely challenged. There are precedents for it in every self-governing colony in the history of the Empire, and it has been received in the House and in the colony with very little dissent. Nothing has occurred to shake the opinion that in the circumstances it is a useful and necessary stage in the evolution of self-government in the Transvaal. What has been the strong motive for the establishment of such a constitution as distinguished from responsible Government? The late Government knew from all sides that the striking feature in the Transvaal during the last two or three years was that both races had co-operated in the honourable task of rebuilding the material prosperity of their country, and in doing so they had drawn towards a better understanding and feeling with one another. I am of opinion that we ought not to establish responsible government in a country unless we are satisfied that the two races lately at war and nearly equal in numbers are so far advanced in the process of fusion as practically to render the colony safe from racial cleavage that might lead to serious disturbance and friction. The reason that operated chiefly on the mind of the late Government was that it is impossible to start such a Government in the Transvaal at the present time without inevitably separating off the two races—just when they have begun in some measure to consolidate and fuse—in the bitterness of Party contest, and thereby to stereotype, emphasise, and en bitter with passion and party conflict racial division. Responsible Government really means Party Government as it exists in this country. No one can say that there are not disadvantages attached to Party Government even in this country, homogeneous, long-settled, with civil war far distant in the past, and, I think, we may say without vanity, with a population trained in Party Government above all other nations. We all know the passionate feelings that arise even at home by virtue of Party Government. Ministries stand or fill by the Vote of Parliament. That is the system which you intend to set up in South Africa when Britons and Boers are already drawing together, and when, but for this proposal which I cannot but think unhappy and inopportune, that process might continue, and much friction, passion, and conflict might be avoided. In any circumstances this is a step which would be serious. Has His Majesty's Government given that consideration to the topic which should have been given to it? Why, Sir, in Natal self-government was not conceded for five years after a Select Committee had considered it. We discussed it for three years before it was granted to the Cape Colony. In the great classic instance of Canada Lord Durham recommended the transition to be made deliberately and his recommendation were not carried out for nearly three years after they were made.

The present Government committed themselves before they knew the facts, and they have been compelled in haste to make good the promises which they gave with such rash precipitation. If this be so, is it possible for any man to say that the Constitution which they have framed will give in any sense a security for the predominance of either one party or the other? I do not think that any one can possibly say what the result of the arrangements which have been made will in point of fact be. You are, therefore, placed in this position, that a form of government for which there is no urgent reason whatever, and which might have been postponed, I believe, by the general agreement of all for some considerable time, has been cast down on the floor of this House by His Majesty's Government though the authors are not themselves aware of what the actual results will be, the state of the country being such that it is most important that those results, before such a step was taken, should be thoroughly and definitely ascertained. It seems to me that there were two courses open to the Government either of which might have been taken. If you had assured the predominance of British, then, at any rate, you would have taken a secure step, but you would, of course, have been confronted with the arguments of the Boers, whom you have attempted apparently to treat with very great cordiality, and that would have been a difficult position to have been placed in. The other course open was under a representative system, to hold the citadel as at present by means of the British Executive, and, under a democratic suffrage, to ascertain for your guidance the true will of the country. If that opinion when expressed was in conflict with the true interests you have in South Africa, then you might by means of the Executive and by means of the power of the Executive, have withstood any serious in road on British supremacy in the Transvaal. Either of these two courses was open to you, but you have chosen neither. You have chosen to throw away the advantage of the present situation which is being acquiesced in by the Boer's, and under which they are working with good will in many directions. Bonds of union are being formed, which will now be roughly and rudely disintegrated. What is the general situation in South Africa on which this experiment is to be launched? In Cape Colony there is almost an equilibrium of parties and races, but in a short time 10,000 disfranchised Boer voters will resume their place on the register, so that there may be a Boer majority in the Cape. In the Orange Colony there is an overwhelming Dutch predominance. In Natal, no doubt, a British majority prevails, but on the flank of this situation there is a formidable native question, and there is another matter which ought not to be omitted from consideration. In German West Africa there are 15,000 Regular troops, with seventy-three guns and transport, and a considerable number of Boer volunteers. Recently in the Reichstag a proposal was made by the German Government to bring a railway from the seat of war into Cape Colony. When that proposal was rejected the German Government offered as a concession to the economists to withdraw 5,000 troops if that railway were built. The Party of economy and peace there understood and alleged that the proposa1 meant that they had 5,000 more men there than were necessary for the fighting of a native tribe in South Africa. I merely make that observation because I think it is important to remember that, f there was a disturbance in Europe, the presence of such a large body of German troops with guns, Boers, and natives attached to their columns is an element which could not be lost sight of when considering the present state of South Africa. I venture to say that no experiments ought to be made n South Africa the results of which are left in conjecture and which expose us to hazards. I think t would be almost as suitable to make experiments in shot firing in a fiery mine, when the gas is hissing from the seams, as it would be to make an experiment in government without knowing precisely what the consequence would be in the condition of things which obtains throughout South Africa. We on this side of the House are in a position in which, notwithstanding any arguments that may be adduced, we are entirely powerless at the present moment to make arguments, or anything else, have any effect upon the scheme which has been propounded by the Prime Minister through the Under-Secretary. We have been informed that Letters Patent creating the Constitution will be shortly published, and that they will bring about a great change in South Africa. I entirely agree with the Under-Secretary when he said that there is no objection in principle on this side of the House to responsible government. The whole question is one of how, when, and where. Is it opportune now? What reasons have been given for self-government now? I have listened carefully throughout the whole of his long speech, and not one single argument did I hear from the Under-Secretary which attempted to justify the launching of so great an experiment amid all this explosive material. It is not right to institute responsible government merely in order to shirk our own responsibility. It is not right to institute responsible government in order to forsake the obligations of duty imposed upon this country. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe that Chinese labour is an iniquity and ought to be at once terminated, they have the power to do it. But it was quite rightly said that this is a question for the Transvaal people themselves to decide and you have the machinery under the old Constitution to decide it. Then, again, there are obligations which rest on the Government to prevent loss to the Civil servants of the Crown who have been taken from other parts and positions and placed in this country, and whom they now propose to trust to a new Government, not knowing whether it will be Dutch or of British extraction. Is that a prudent or just thing to do? I venture to think that responsible government such as this, given within four years of such a war between two races who were antagonistic, demands some solid justification. I believed, and it was always my hope, that the process of the fusion of the two races which has begun would eventually, and in no very long time, result in the Colony becoming a fairly solid block in which all Parties would have very much at heart the interests of the entire community. In that position responsible government might have been granted to the Colony without elaborate checks and the Government might have been indifferent whether the majority would be Boer or British. Any one who knows anything about South Africa must view the result of the election that is about to take place in the Transvaal with profound apprehension. I believe myself that within so short a time from the war and with the feeling which prevails at the present time it is not desirable to give to either Party such an absolute majority as to tempt them to advance only the interests of their own Party. The Under-Secretary does not deny that he would regret the placing of such power and such a position in the hands of a Dutch majority. The best we can hope for, therefore, is that neither Party will be in such strong predominance. Let me say then if I may speak on behalf of the Party that sits on these benches we take no responsibility whatever for the arrangement that has been come to by the Government. The responsibility is rightly that of the Government, because they have taken great care that we should not have even the materials on which we could make up our minds as to whether we should take any part or share in the responsibility. They have appointed this Commission. The Commission sat, I suppose by instructions, in the Cape Colony with closed doors, and not one word has been permitted to be published as to what their Report has been to the Government. Without the possession of maps, statistics, etc., the House is not able to take any part in the discussion of the wisdom or otherwise of the proposals of the Government. But there are one or two broad suggestions on which I desire briefly to comment. First of all there is the question of manhood suffrage. The Under-Secretary was good enough to say that the qualification set up by the late Government was a very low qualification and that it was absolutely bona fide. It was in the peculiar circumstances of the Colony lower than exists in the Cape Colony and Natal, and there was no reason for upsetting it. Why should they without any precedent in the whole history of the Empire, on first granting responsible government give universal suffrage? That is in contradiction to the practice of every other portion of South Africa. Before the Government did that they ought to have consulted Natal and the Cape Colony on the matter. This is a question which must affect vitally the future federation of South Africa. One would have thought that before giving in hot haste manhood suffrage in the Transvaal—a suffrage differing from that of Natal, the Cape Colony and all the other Colonies in Africa, the Government would have consulted these Colonies in view of future federation. The very peculiar position of the Boers had been very carefully considered by the late Government in the formation of their scheme of electoral qualifications. The Constitution given by the late Government showed not only fairness but generosity to the Boers; by retaining, independently of any other qualifications all of them who had been formerly on the electoral list. But the plan of the Government has complicated the settlement of federation and the difficult problem of the native vote by this unnecessary and ill-considered extension. In the next place the Government have elected to go back to the census of 1904, and have rejected altogether the voters' list which was completed so lately as March last, and against which, so far as I am aware, nothing of any weight has been said. The formation of the last voters' list was entirely regular, and we have Lord Selborne's view that there was nothing irregular in the construction of that list.

Mr. CHURCHILL

Hear, hear.

Mr. LYTTELTON

Is it, therefore, right or fair that an impeachment should be made of the bona fides of that list and those who made it, without any opportunity being given to the persons interested to be heard? I am told that although some impeachment was made of this voters list by certain gentleman before the Committee those objections were never brought before the persons who were alleged to be responsible, and that no opportunity from that day to this has been given to them of being heard. That is surely not the way to deal with a list which is the result of great expense and labour. It seems part of the policy of the Government, however, to keep back the facts from the House and from the people of the Transvaal itself. The Under-Secretary gets up and alludes to the fact that there are 3,000 more voters on that list than existed in 1904. That is an innuendo that there was something fraudulent about the preparation of the list. I it not obviously fair for us to know what the grounds of those allegations are? Then as I said before, I must decline, as the Under-Secretary has declined, to speculate as to what the results of the arrangement of seats and the delimitation of boundaries will be. I have no means of knowing. Electioneering is not an exact or a mathematical science, and the utmost I can say is that the majority one way or the other may be two, or three, or possibly four. I do not blame the Government for having preserved the old magisterial areas, because there is no necessity for the further expensive delay involved in creating new ones, but with regard to the abolition or the possibility of the abolition of the Inter-Colonial Council I have, I must say, most grave apprehensions. An infinity of time and labour has been spent upon the administration of the railways and of the Constabulary by the Inter Colonial Council which contains in itself the germ of federation. One of its principal merits is that it deals with the affairs of both the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal and provides a suitable and convenient form of administration of those affairs which are common to both Colonies. To take the Constabulary out of the hands of that body and vest the administration in the hands of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony cannot be economical and must detract from the labours of this body which has, in the opinion of most, worked harmoniously and well, over the area of both Colonies. When we consider the financial aspect, it certainly is unfortunate that the railway system which has been coupled up and worked in the interests of both Colonies should now be severed, and I fear that it is almost inevitable that jealousies will arise in respect to matters which are common to both Colonies. I pass on to the question of the Second Chamber, and so far as the creation of such a chamber is concerned, if it is possible to secure a good Second Chamber we are grateful for that advantage; but I would point out that as compared with the definite and solid power which was held by the executive Government under the old arrangement the creation of a Second Chamber of fifteen persons nominated by the Government for five years is, I am afraid, a somewhat illusory advantage. I was advised by those who know the country intimately that it would be difficult to provide more than thirty-five of sufficient ability and leisure to serve in the Transvaal Legislative Council, and although that number may now be slightly greater it is obvious in view of the immense weight of private business there that it cannot be indefinitely increased if w e are to keep the tone and ability of the assembly such as we should desire The number of members of the assembly has now been increased from thirty-five to sixty-nine, that is to say, it has been nearly doubled, and I am afraid that although there are many able men in the Transvaal there are few men of leisure. Having beaten out somewhat thinly the available talent for legislative purposes the Government propose either to withdraw from it the fifteen members who are to constitute the Second Chamber or to obtain from outside the Legislative Council fifteen men who by that very hypothesis will hardly be of sufficient weight and experience to have much influence as a buffer against any undesirable action of the elective assembly. Still, let me say for what it is worth, if you are able to get a sufficient number of men who will take that position and exercise the power it confers, though I am not sanguine that you will get any such number, considering the number of the Legislative assembly,it is better that there should be some such body. I have nothing to say with regard to the proposals made by the late Government as to reserving questions of legislation in regard to the natives. Neither have I anything to say but to applaud the decision as to the reservation of the administration of Swaziland to the High Commissioner. Though I deplore the decision the Secretary of State has come to in regard to Chinese labour I see no objection to somewhat expanding the labour recruiting agencies for natives, provided that adequate and careful measures are taken to secure that the work is in the hands of responsible and proper people. As to the so-called experiment to be made by the Robinson Mines, that is an experiment the worth of which has been tested on many occasions, and I do not think that there is much to be added to the general knowledge which we have already on that subject. Mr. Creswell will no doubt do his best. It is very well known that natives are desired where they can be obtained by the mine owners, and I do not suppose that there is much to be added to what is already known as to the undoubted capacity of the natives to do the work, if you are able to obtain sufficient to do it. The settled policy of the late Government was that the question of compensation for war losses should not be re-opened, and I am glad to hear that the present Government have adopted that action. It needs no further justification than has already been produced, and the mention of the fact that the sum of £9,500,000 has been spent in compensation to individual for injuries suffered from the war. I confess I did not quite follow what the Under-Secretary in his otherwise lucid speech said with regard to the £30,000,000. The position is this, that not merely the representatives of capital but some of the representatives of labour joined in giving the undertaking Of course they were not in a representative position, but it was the best undertaking that could be obtained from the country in its then condition of govern- ment. That undertaking was not that the mine-owners should pay £10,000,000 or £30,000,000 or any other sum, but that they should underwrite the issue of the first £10,000,000 of a loan to be raised in the Transvaal. They have on several occasions expressed their willingness to fulfil that bargain, but conditions have not obtained in which it is possible to call upon them to do so. I do not think that anybody who knows the Transvaal will believe that it is possible that £30,000,000 should be paid for war indemnity or for any purpose at the present moment. My own view is that some arrangement ought to be made by which a smaller sum shall be devoted to some purpose good alike for the Transvaal and for this country. I have no right to bind anybody in this matter, but speaking personally with regard to the proposals, which have been laid before the House by the hon. Gentleman, so far as I have been able on the spur of the moment to investigate them, I wish once again to make it clear that, whatever may be their results the Opposition have no responsibility whatever for them. The, conditions under which they are made seem to me to be of great hazard to South Africa and to the interests of this country. They seem to me to be likely to produce far more friction and passionate opposition between the races who have lately been at war than would have existed if they had not been made. They seem to have been made at a time inopportune for South Africa and inopportune here. They have been made in a manner contrary to every precedent in the whole Empire. They have been made in unseemly haste and in a manner contemptuous of the House of Commons. Not a paper or document or single fact has been presented to us by which we could authoritatively inform ourselves upon them. Surely, therefore, it is not unnatural that we should reserve entirely the right to say that we take no part or lot with the Government in responsibility for the ill-effects which I fear— though Heaven forbid—may flow from their proposals.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had, on behalf of his Party, repudiated all responsibility for this settlement. The great majority of those who sat on the Ministerial side repudiated all responsibility for the war out of which this settlement arose, and for the many evils which Sir William Barcourt prophesied would come from the war, with many of which this settlement was itself consistent. The Ministerial Party had decided that the time had arrived when this question should be settled, and there were some who desired that it should be settled by such a settlement as the Committee had heard outlined to-day. There were others who did not agree exactly with the policy put forward by the Government or with the policy of the Opposition when conducting the war, and since. He would like an opportunity to state some views shared by those. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had made a most dangerous speech. There was hardly a word of the speech of the Under - Secretary of State with which he (Sir Charles Dilke) did not agree, although he did not agree with some of the policies that the speech defended. The object of the last speech of the late Secretary of State for the Colonies was dangerous in the extreme, because its policy was a dangerous policy, and could only be supported by dangerous arguments. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of consulting the Cape and of federation. He agreed that federation could not be overlooked, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had a1ready said that his policy was one leading to federation. But when the right hon. Gentleman told them that they ought to have consulted the Cape, what would they have found if they had? They would have found absolute unanimity among both political parties there upon the subject of the franchise of the natives. There was not a leading politician at the Cape, of either side, who did not value the native franchise. The present Prime Minister had gone out of his way twice to declare that the Cape ought never to be called upon to make any alteration in the native franchise The right hon. Gentleman opposite quoted the Cape, and in that dangerous portion of his speech was led into the most injurious illustrations. Having quoted the Cape and suggested that we should ask their opinion, the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded to make a most mischievous allusion to the probability of Cape Colony, thinking only of one white race. He said that 10,000 rebel voters were about to be enfranchised in the Cape and that they would turn the scale. That statement was cheered by one supporter. It was almost horrible that such allusions should be cheered, when made thoughtlessly, tending as they did to perpetuate the difference between the two races. This House had to keep in mind the loyalty of South Africa as a whole, black as well as Dutch, the loyalty of the country as a whole, and of the whole Empire, which was mainly black and not white. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had objected that he whole arrangement was analogous to what occurred in Canada, and read a quotation, the applicability of which was not apparent, from a speech of Lord Durham. We had at one time apparently look d forward to loyalty dependent on British race, and the quotation read asked for a period of rest in Lower Canada until we had planted British settlers there. The loyalty of Lower Canada rested not upon the British but upon the overwhelming French-speaking population. With such a hopeless example of failure of policy before them, why select that as a ground when asking for delay in the present case? The right hon. Gentleman thought there was no precedent for imposing responsible Government on a colony without a long intermediate period. There was no precedent exactly for what had occurred in the case of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, which we had conquered and annexed against their will, and which had enjoyed a very highly developed form of self-government. It was not until after the rebellion of 1837, and until we recognised the self-government of French Canada, that we for the first time began to make the French Canadians really loyal. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the policy of counting heads, although he counted heads in the case of the Cape. He was one of those who were somewhat impatient of seeing the Liberal party and the Imperial Parliament follow the lead of Sir Percy Fitzpatrick and his colleagues by counting each constituency before the result, and he could not entirely excuse the Government from blame for the extreme minuteness with which they had gone into the question of the majority of one, and then were afraid it might be the Speaker, and there might be no majority at all. He believed the majority in this House repudiated this mere counting of heads. They had long ago taken up the position that we were going with all its risks to give responsible government, subject only to this one consideration, that it was impossible not to have a predominant regard to the native and labour interests involved in the settlement. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the results ought to have been more definitely ascertained in advance by a period of delay, as he seemed to suggest was the case in Canada. The case of Canada, however, as he (Sir Charles Dilke) had shown, pointed in the direction of the broad view which, he thought, the majority of this House were inclined to take, of not allowing considerations of the effect of a majority of votes here and there to stop them. In the case of of the Transvaal the Government had had to face a very powerful body of opinion in the Press and in another place, and that opinion, which was not that of the country, or the House of Commons, or the Liberal Party, had, he feared, to some extent prevailed not in the speech of the Under-Secretary but in the programme to which the Government had become committed. There was too much reason to think that in this settlement what was called the Progressive party —a name which he thought was abused —the party of gold magnates of the Rand—had obtained the point to which they attached most importance. These gentlemen had made no secret—in fact they had given away their case with the most stupid frankness—of their demand for British ascendency, which would require an Upper House to make it absolute. They seemed to have got far too much of their own way by what, from their point of view, was really a gerrymandering system. At all events they had got their nominated Upper House, which was the one point to which they attached supreme importance. Of course one reason which weighed with great numbers of hon. Gentlemen in this House was the fear that the ascendancy of that party in the Rand would force the Government into a violation of the pledges given to the constituencies upon the subject of Chinese labour, and that danger was entirely dispelled. Personally, he had always regarded the Chinese labour question as a temporary question, and he had always asserted that the native labour question was the permanent or predominant question, and one which we ought to have concerned ourselves most about, because it would be always there; and when the present Under-Secretary and the late Colonial Secretary agreed in attaching supreme importance to these native labour-collecting agencies which were to be worked by the Portuguese authority in the Portuguese territory, what he wanted to see was the native labour of the country itself developed— Kaffirs tempted by proper treatment, by a proper voice in their affairs, and by a proper wage into doing work which they were perfectly competent to do and did do where they were welcome. There had been some disappointment, he thought, with regard to the future as far as the other and greater labour question was concerned. The policy of these gentlemen, who had sent their deputations over here, who had so powerful a representation in the Press, and who expressed themselves with such force in the columns of all the papers, was backed by them—and he had no doubt honestly backed—with arguments to show that the Transvaal was the key of South Africa, and they had also developed a side argument to the effect that the Transvaal would be dominated by the Cape which they looked upon somewhat as disloyal. It had been suggested in some quarters that the existence of an Upper House in the Transvaal Constitution would be a security for this British ascendancy and for the future of South Africa. He was certain that the Under-Secretary of State did not believe that an Upper House in the Transvaal was needed in order to secure the permanence of British supremacy if the Transvaal were the key to South Africa. He was perplexed to find what part the Upper House was to play in the new Constitution. Two views had previously been put forward by Sir Percy Fitzpatrick and his friends at different times as to the necessity for a nominated Upper House. One reason was an insidious one in order to attract those who held the views he did, and it was that the Upper House would be a protector of the natives. That had been abandoned in the last few weeks, and another view had been put forward —that it was necessary to British ascendancy. The Government had rejected those views, but they had given no reason for the existence of the Upper House. Failing that reason he attached importance to the arguments of the late Secretary of State, who said there were not the number of men of weight and substance in the Transvaal to equip the two Houses of Legislature, and that the Upper House would be a very weak one or it would withdraw men who could be ill spared from the lower Assembly. In the absence of any reason for the creation of an Upper House, why create it? What part was it going to play in the new Constitution? What was it meant for? Whom was it intended to support or re-assure? So far as it re-assured certain interests it could only reassure them because it pointed the hope that it might be inclined to control the popular interest in the other House. But hon. Members ought not easily to accept this Constitution with an Upper House without knowing what interests it was intended to represent. They were not so enamoured of Upper Houses as to be anxious to create them. They had seen something of them in other colonies. They knew the troubles which in South Africa had been caused by a nominated Upper House at the Cape. Under these circumstances, and looking to a federation in the future, why create an Upper House? Ontario had never had an Upper House, and in Manitoba it was so conspicuous a failure that they abolished it by a unanimous vote and with the concurrence of the Upper House itself, These Upper Houses were very risky experiments indeed, and if they did not need this Upper House for the protection of some great interest, for Heaven's sake let them leave it out of the Transvaal. Sir Percy Fiztpatrick wrote— a nominated Upper House, or otherwise we sacrifice the British majority in the Transvaal and British supremacy in South Africa. These were not grounds upon which the British Parliament would ever create such an Assembly. He had already suggested that there were considerations in dealing with any portion of this South African problem which were enormously wider than those presented by the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony because of the interdependence of the South African states in native affairs, and also because of the future in the direction of federation. The present Government admitted to the full that they could not treat the British Empire as a white Protestant Empire. Our glory was that we had welded races together who were proud to live under us, and the experiment of trying to dissociate the white from the black was a mad experiment. They could not treat this question as though it lay between the two white races only, without regard to the map and to the fact that in some parts of South Africa the natives were 1,000,000 to 1,000 white people. While parts of South Africa might be a white man's country, there were enormous portions which never could be a white man's country, and they could not deal with this question by relegating the native side to a paragraph at the end of a Report. The natives were, and must always be, in numbers, and in connection with labour, the predominant race, and must always demand consideration. He was disappointed in the amount of concessional promises that had been given on the native question. He fully admitted that considerable promises were made. The promise of the late Government was a very strong one before the war began, and it was almost as strong at the time when they were told that the war was over, but was not over, and the first attempt at negotiation was initiated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said they would not consent to purchase peace by leaving the coloured population in the position in which they stood before the war. At the present moment it would not be denied that the position of the coloured population was worse than before. A large number of ordinances of the late South African Republic, which were a dead letter, had been enforced since we had been there, and whilst we had always protested in the case of that Republic, as we had protested and vetoed legislation in the case of many of our own colonies, against the creation of an absolute colour bar, there was a colour bar at the present moment in the Transvaal, and unfortunately we were forced to continue that colour bar for ever. It was a terrible thing to establish white man-hood suffrage with the total and apparently permanent exclusion from all share of liberty of every single member of the overwhelming majority of people of the country. There probably was no alternative for the present, but our influence with the new Government would be very great under the circumstances which the Under-Secretary had described. He believed that that Government would be a friendly Government and one in which our influence would continue to be great. It would require recklessness on the part of the Transvaal to make the relations otherwise than good. No one in this House with any sense of responsibility would set up the theory that in South Africa there was a rooted refusal to do anything for the native population. In the Cape there was an infinitely better state of things than formerly existed, but it had suffered horribly for its past action. The position of Natal by its own recklessness was on a small scale what the Cape once was. But the Cape had learnt wisdom, and had a native policy which, compared with Natal, was as heaven to hell. Was it impossible or hopeless for us to use on this occasion a friendly voice to a friendly people, to bring about a real recognition of the predominant race a regarded the labour policy of the future? be was glad to hear the Under-Secretary's statement with regard to servile conditions of labour. Be hoped it would be treated as a matter of friendly conference between us, with our ideals, in the interest of the Empire as a whole and the new government in the Transvaal, we urging them by all means and arguments in our power to support a policy on this native question which would be at least as good as that which prevailed in the the Cape. The Under-Secretary's recognition of Swaziland made him believe it might become a second Basutoland. As regarded future federation, whenever the policy of the new colonies should point in that direction the interest of the Imperial Government must be dominant in the consideration of the question. They had often heard South African gentlemen say that all they had got to do was to leave them alone, that they were going to look after the Transvaal, and that they would run their show, as they called it, in their own fashion. That was an impossibility. It was a dream, and the sooner they were told it was a dream the better. It was impossible for them to leave it to be settled by the white element in any of the colonies concerned. He did not wish to complicate the matter by introducing any fresh question, but he would point out that there was a small minority of white population among whom a dangerous state of panic prevailed from time to time, causing acts which were most dangerous to the Empire, to South Africa, and to the neighbouring colonies. It was not disloyalty to the Empire, therefore, but a service rendered to the Empire, to point out these facts. He read portions of an appeal in respect of East Africa, addressed to hon. Members, setting forth claims and considerations by a few hundred white men to treat that territory as a white man's colony, though there were hundreds of thousands of natives living in the area. The idea underlying the claims contained in that document was that self-government should be granted, and that a few whites should be allowed to dominate the hundreds of thousands of natives. It was an unjust and indefensible policy, and it was horribly dangerous to the Empire. The Empire could not be run on such principles; but, if it were attempted, then he was certain that the whole fabric would collapse. It was not the policy of this country to give self-government in such circumstances. It was refused to Ceylon over and over again, and to Natal. If, however, in this case of a larger population possessing the appliances of a great civilised State the experiment was to be extended to the Transvaal, it could only be done with the deepest feeling of responsibility to the majority of the people of the country. It was because of the dominant importance in the British Empire of such considerations that he had ventured to put forward these ideas, which he knew were not exactly those either of the late Colonial Secretary or of those who sat on his own side of the House.

SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

said that in one sense the worst was over. They gladly welcomed the statement of the Under-Secretary as to what the future government of the Transvaal was to be. He supposed that the Under-Secretary would never in his career make a more important statement than he had made to-day. The whole Empire had been watching for this statement in regard to the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, for it was impossible for any colony that had received responsible government not to view with great anxiety the government which was to be given to these colonies. They had been won by force of arms, in a contest extending over a period of several years, marked by great waste and destruction, in which the colonists themselves had shared in order to maintain the British flag and the permanency of British institutions. The statement of the Under-Secretary, made with great moderation, and in a manner befitting the occasion, was one which would be read in every portion of the Empire with the deepest interest. That interest the Committee this afternoon shared. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had talked of the loyalty of the French Canadians. A generation had passed since—

SIR CHARLES DILKE

The French Canadians fought for us in 1812.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said that was exactly what he was going to say. The generation which fought against the British at the capture of Quebec had disappeared or grown old and used to the new conditions. Then an Act conferring representative government was passed in 1812. At the beginning of the second generation the French Canadian proved his loyalty. When the revolt took place in 1837 the peace was kept throughout the whole of French Canada. If we had had in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony such a test of the position of the Boers in relation to our institutions as Canada had, then he, for one, would have given his willing adhesion to the proposals made by the Under-Secretary to-day. He did not, however, give willing adhesion to these proposals, and he would tell the Committee why. Was it reasonable to think that three years after the signing of peace the Boers should be given the possibility of coming into power? The substance of these proposals was that there was going to be a gamble with the Executive. While the Boers ought to have representation of their interests with the British, there should be no danger permitted to the permanence of British institutions, no interruptions of the just and considerate administration of British rule, no chance of allowing any of those things to be done that might be done if a Boer Government came into power. The Under-Secretary had said that at Vereeniging the peace was made for ever. That was a good bit of rhetoric, but he was not confident that she prediction would be realised unless we took proper steps to see that the British institutions were preserved over the time of danger. The majority of the people of Cape Colony were loyal, but did the right hon. Baronet forget that 10,000 of the Cape colonists rose against us? Did he forget that Mr. Steyne on the eve of the Treaty of Vereeniging said that perhaps even now Cape Colony was not ripe for the policy we had been pursuing with regard to it? He had made a list of what would be done if the Boers again gained power. They would dismiss the present British officials on the railways, and the Boer workers would be restored; the Constabulary would be reorganised on the Dutch basis; the Customs Union would be broken up; the intercolonial and the railway union would be destroyed; land settlement would be stopped; and there would be a boycotting of British goods. In the Orange River Colony and in the Transvaal there were two of the best agricultural departments in the world; but the Boers wanted to abolish them. Security was very much better than expectation; and he believed that it would be an evil day if the control of defence and education were put into the hands of the Boer. Mr. Smuts, speaking of the Civil servants, had said that when the Boers came into power they would do their best to put back all the old Boer Civil servants in their former positions. It was admitted that the Government of the Transvaal under the Boer regime was reactionary and corrupt. That Government had deliberately over-ridden the decisions of the Supreme Court. A Resolution of the Volks Raad was regarded as above any decision which might be given by the Supreme Court. Now, no Resolution of the House of Commons could overide a judgment of the Supreme Court. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: An Act of Parliament could.] Mr. Smuts had also said that the £10,000,000 which the mineowners had under-written and the £35,000,000 loan guaranteed by the British Government should be distributed amongst the poor Boers. This was part of the old system of bribery and corruption, and it was the intention of the Boer leaders if they came into power to renew the condition of things which existed in the Transvaal previous to the war, and which the people of this country had condemned, even if they did not approve of the war. In the scheme outlined by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies there were some things which he approved of and others of which he disapproved. He did not think that responsible Government should be given so soon after the war. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies had said that the census of 1904 should be taken in order to arrange for the distribution of seats in the new Legislature; but the hon. Gentleman knew right well that there had been a very considerable increase of skilled workers employed in the mines due to the extra unskilled labour which had been employed. Therefore, 3,000 skilled men would be shut out from the voters' register. The hon. Gentleman was evidently desirous of doing some of the gerrymandering which he stated had been done by the Lyttelton Constitution. His contention was that the Lyttelton Constitution would have been for the safety of the Transvaal. He did not believe that they should gamble with the constitution for the Transvaal. He did not believe that an Upper Chamber would be of as much use as some expected, or that it would be any security for the interests of the natives. His contention was that in granting responsible Government to the Transvaal at the present moment the Government was taking upon itself a great, a painful, and almost a terrible responsibility. The time was not ready for this change, at all events in the Orange River Colony. He granted that there had been good Government in the Orange River Colony before the war and that there had been good government since; but if we gave responsible government to that colony we should raise bitter issues which would not be settled for many years to come. Since our Government was established in that Colony there had not been a single protest against our administration, and why should we disturb the present state of things? Was it not wise to leave well alone and not to revive memories of the state of things before the war? We must prevent opportunity from being given to our fellow-citizens in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, who had not yet learned the methods and spirit of British administration, but who must be trained in our way, and in the constitutional traditions which belonged to us. The Boers had no constitutional traditions whatever. They did not get any good Government through the teaching of the Dutch Colony; it was the British people who redeemed them from the traditions of the Dutch Colony. He considered that the House of Commons when well informed were the most just tribunal in the world, but he believed they were ill-informed upon Colonial questions. Men did not travel and read scrappily. With many of the proposals of the hon. Gentleman, especially manhood suffrage, he was in sympathy, but on the whole he wished to repudiate any responsibility for giving at this time responsible government to the Transvaal.

*MR. RUFUS ISAACS (Reading)

congratulated the Government upon their policy, which had been stated by the Under-Secretary in a statesmanlike manner. That statement relieved the followers of the Government from any feeling of anxiety which they might have previously felt in consequence of rumours which had been current during the last few weeks, which had set some of them wondering as to what was to be the outcrop of that momentous day. They now had a feeling of confidence and security as regarded the future. Although, he agreed with a good deal of what the last speaker had said he could not go with him entirely. Everyone would agree that this was a subject which they should not approach in a Party spirit, and throughout the discussion the views of hon. Members had, he thought, been expressed in a befitting manner. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that a considerable portion of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. George's, Hanover Squire, a former Colonial Secretary, would have been better if it had not been delivered. He was sure that a great many Members of the House, and the country as a whole, would not share the apprehensions which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed. Upon the question of ascendancy he could not agree with a good deal which fell from the right hon. Baronet. It seemed to him that the task the Government had set itself was to deal justly, fairly, and equitably with the claims of Britons and Boer. He could not find that there was this ascendancy in the proposals which had been made, and if hon. Members turned to the number of voters they would find that the number of seats allotted to the Witwatersrand area, as compared with the rest of the Transvaal and Pretoria did not give any undue preponderance. Taking the Transvaal the total adult white male population, excluding aliens, according to the census of 1904 was 91,406, and of that 57,713 were British, and 33,693 were Dutch. If they took into account all those adult white males who would have attained the age of twenty-one in October of this year there would be 98,453, of whom 62,162 would be British and 36,291 would be Dutch. They might, therefore, say that the proportion of British to Dutch was as five to three, and if that was so it could hardly be said that in the proportion of seats which had been allocated there had been an undue preponderance given to the British over the Boers in the Transvaal. Ho would ask the attention of the Committee to this point which seemed to him of great importance when dealing with the allocation of seats. If the Government desired to give ascendancy to the British population or to gerrymander the constituencies in such a way as to give to the British an undue preponderance of seats they would have allocated the seats in the proportion of five to three. That was certainly not what the Government had done, and as far as he could find there was no gerrymandering in order to secure ascendancy or supremacy. But if under the new Constitution the allocation of seats gave a British majority, he ventured to say for his own part, and for some of those who sat on the Liberal benches, that that was no argument against the electoral basis upon which this Constitution was to be granted. In the great anxiety which existed that we should deal justly with the Boer population, and in the eagerness to dispel any doubt that might obtain in the Boer mind that we were not dealing with them justly and fairly, there was a tendency to forget that the British also had claims, a tendency the effect of which was quite unconscious upon the part of those who were genuinely anxious to do all they could to reconcile British and Boer, that they might be able to live in peace and concord and insure that a later election, if not the coming election, might be fought on grounds other than racial and for the benefit not of a race but of the Transvaal Colony. He hoped the House would give him and those who might think with him credit for this, that they were not in the slightest degree throwing any doubt on the honesty of purpose of those who might profess to see in the Government proposals a desire to give ascendancy to the British, whereas these Members were anxious to protect the Boers. But in their desire to protect the Boer they must not forget there was also a responsibility in this House to protect the British. He would add a few words, and they would be but few, upon the question of land settlement—a question in which he took great interest. What had fallen from the Under-Secretary upon this point was of much greater comfort than they were led to expect on the last occasion when the subject was discussed. Although he did not profess, and did not desire, to discuss the subject of land settlement in detail, he did wish to call attention to the fact that, in his opinion, there was a great future for land settlement in South Africa. There was a great future in the Transvaal for land settlement, and he rejoiced to have heard from the Under-Secretary that the Government had recognised its importance by their method of dealing with it in framing the Constitution. That was a matter for great congratulation. There was to be a land commissioner appointed to carry out a scheme of land settlement, and they were further told on the authority of the law officers of the Crown that the money which came in as repayment from the scheme of land settlement could be again used for making further loans in connection with the scheme. They felt that the Government had done well in taking this course; it would gain for them the approval of a considerable number in this country as well as in South Africa. In conclusion, he desired to say that if he did not feel that the scheme which the Government announced gave security for British institutions in the future, he, notwithstanding the loyalty he bad to the Government and the fidelity with which he was anxious to serve it, would have voted against it. But feeling that the proposals put forward were just and states manlike, ho could support the Government with great confidence, because they had recognised the claims of the Boers without forgetting that the British had a right to demand that in this Constitution there should be security for British institutions.

MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)

complained that the House was asked to discuss a subject of the utmost importance to the Empire, namely, the Constitution outlined by the hon. Gentleman without the material upon which to discuss it, and it was impossible that it could under these circumstances be discussed adequately. It was most unfortunate that the Government should have so hastily brought forward this proposal without either giving themselves sufficient time to consider it or the House to debate it. He had no hesitation in saying that he and those who sat with him objected to responsible government being given now. When they sat on the other side the understanding was that responsible govern- ment should be given as soon as possible. Everything turned on those words "as soon as possible," and he did not think that now was the proper time. There had not been sufficient time for the racial distinctions and feelings to be merged in that oblivion in which it should be the object of both sides of the Committee to merge them as soon as possible. But they would not merge them by raising Party government and Party questions. It was the very tiling which he feared would give rise to the racial bitterness just at the time when that racial bitterness was by degrees subsiding. We did not want British supremacy merely in name. The Treaty of Peace decided that the King was to be supreme, and we did not now or at any future time want to prejudice his authority. He quite concurred that this question should be dealt with from a non-Party point of view. The Under-Secretary had said it was desirable not to delay, and he agreed, because delay might cause injury to trade and produce other serious disadvantages; but upon the other hand they ought not to hurry to such an extent as to be likely to produce greater hostility between the two sections. He congratulated the Government upon leaving the Orange River Colony alone. It was doing well and wanted to be left alone, and he would have been disposed to say the same with regard to the Transvaal. But as the Government had thought otherwise they could only say that this was not the proper time and they hoped this Constitution would not be ill-fated. Was it not a question of common sense? After a severe war had been waged it did not appear to be a wise thing for the victor within three or four years to give equal rights to the conquered and run the risk of allowing them to be the governing force in the conquered territory. He did not think the Government had acted with that statesmanship with which they had been credited; it would have been more statesmanlike if they had deferred for some time this responsible Government, instead of throwing all the forces of disorder in the Transvaal into the melting pot. This was not the time for experiments. They had heard only this year from some responsible leaders of the Boers what their intentions really were. He noticed from the speech delivered by Mr. Smuts on the 23rd March at Pretoria that he believed that the British would have no chance of securing a majority in the Transvaal Government if voters rather than population were taken as the basis of representation. He thought that showed that directly responsible government was given bitter Party feeling would develop, and it would take the line of cleavage between Britons and Boers. Mr. Smuts said— Our claims are considered unfair and unreasonable, but we insist upon them with the object of getting a majority in the Transvaal Parliament and ruling the country. It was obvious from that what the Boers would strike for. In the face of such a statement it was not judicious on our part to grant responsible government, and thus give Mr. Smuts the chance of realising his ideal. The treatment of the South African Colonies would affect other Colonies indirectly, and it was not improbable that such Colonies as Australia and Canada would feel the reflection of our action in the Transvaal, especially if it turned out that Mr. Smuts' ideals were fulfilled. Mr. Smuts went on to say that it would be their business when elected to assist to restore to their positions in the police and other Departments the ex-officials who were employed under the late Republic. Great Britain had had old Civil servants appointed under Lord Milner's Government who had served this country well, and were they going to sanction responsible government for the Transvaal when one of the objects aimed at would be to displace the old Civil servants and put in their places officials who were of the late Mr. Kruger's way of thinking? What was worse in regard to this question was the probability that the whole - hearted British official would be turned out while the opportunist who was ready to face both ways would be retained in the public service. If responsible government resulted in a Boer majority, all those things might happen, and they might not have happened if the Government had waited a little longer. The racial feeling of which he had spoken would have been much less, and the moment they set fire to the tinder of racial feeling by taking this enormously important action they would give rise to the most disquieting apprehension. He trusted that his forebodings would not come to pass, but he thought the Government were running considerably greater risk than if they had refrained from giving responsible government for some little time longer. The responsibility would be upon His Majesty's Government, and the Opposition would refuse to take any part in it at all. He was afraid that the policy which the Government had adopted would result in alienating their friends in the effort to make others.

*MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

desired most heartily to thank the Government for their proposal at once to give full and complete self-government to the inhabitants of the late South African Republic. Ho was glad that there was to be no gerrymandering, for the benefit of any race or interest, but full, complete self-government, based on manhood suffrage, and equal electoral districts. It was only by treating the inhabitants thus that permanent contentment and loyalty could be hopefully looked for. What were the facts of the situation? We had destroyed and annexed by the sword two free republics of white men in South Africa, which, only eight years ago, were full of contentment and prosperity. There was no better governed State anywhere than the Orange Free State, and no more prosperous country than the Transvaal. Men could go there and make fortunes more quickly than in any other part of the world, and working men could obtain employment there at higher wages than anywhere else. What had brought to an end that contentment and prosperity? Why, an awful war which had its origin in a wicked conspiracy fomented by men of immense riches in South Africa, of which conspiracy the infamous Raid was a part, and at which they had reason to believe the late Government connived. This was what brought on the cruel war, which ended in the overthrow of the two Republics after the most wonderful fight for their liberties that the world had ever seen. For nearly three years those people, descendants of the Huguenots and of the Dutch who made such a stand against the tyranny of Spain and France two centuries ago—men of the best blood in Europe—though under half a million, man, woman and child all told, had stood Up against the might of the fifty millions of England and her colonies. For nearly three years these brave farmers stood up against the might of our arms, and at last wore only overcome, not in fighting, but by the destruction of their means of subsistence, by the systematic burning down of their homesteads, the destroying of their crops, and the laying of the whole country waste, as had been done by the armies of no civilised nation for three centuries. We said that we sought no gold and that we desired no territory, but false to those words we had seized the goldfields and had annexed the territory.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

called the hon. Member to order, stating that they were dealing with the Colonial Office Vote and present circumstances. The hon. Member was going too far back.

*MR. EVERETT,

continuing, said the present grew out of the past. We were presented with the problem of how we could best restore contentment and prosperity to those conquered and devastated regions and bring the gallant defenders of the country into amicable unity with the British inhabitants who dwelt with them. The only possible way was that which the Government was proposing to adopt—that of giving them the same constitutional freedom, the same equal rights, the same perfect self-government that they enjoyed under their own republics. There was no other way by which those brave and gallant men could be made happy and contented again in the land of which we had robbed them. We could not undo the past—he would to God we could— but let us make the only reparation in our power by restoring to them the full freedom they enjoyed when they were members of republics, with the substitution of our King as their paramennt head. There was every reason to believe that when they found they could enjoy as much freedom under the British Crown as they enjoyed under their own several republics they would settle down with Englishmen and strive with them to lift up the country out of its dire distress and make it again one of the happiest lands on God's earth. He thanked the Government for its purpose to give at once and completely full, honest, free, self-government, to those brave men whom we had so cruelly wronged in the recent war, into which we had been drawn by unscrupu'ous and designing covetous men.

*MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

said that what they had to consider in regard to these proposals was what the results were likely to be to South Africa, and how in framing the Constitution they could ensure those results being satisfactory not only to South Africa but also to this country. He would like the Committee to consider an alternative. Everybody had assumed that by gerrymandering the constituencies or the franchise they could get a British majority or a moderate majority in South Africa. The figures that had been published upon this subject were wholly illusive. When the census of 1904 was taken there was no means of deciding whether a man was a Briton or a Boer, and the only way in which the figures had been arrived at was by going through the names and judging whether the persons bearing those names were likely to be British or Boer. There were scores of Boer families in the Transvaal bearing British names, but they belonged to the Dutch race. A large number, too, of those with British names would at the next election vote against the capitalist Party because they were very suspicious of the Progressives and of anyone connected with the Chamber of Mines. The uninitiated man in the Transvaal was apt to think that his country had been governed for the List four years by the Progressive Party and that Government had been associated with the worst depression South Africa had ever known. It was impossible for any country to suffer such depression without the Government becoming unpopular. There could only be one result of all this and it was that Het Volk would be returned with an enormous majority. No amount of altering the basis of the franchise could alter the fact that at the next election the Transvaal would return a Dutch majority. Under these circumstances how were the Government going to protect the interests of the British? He should like to say a word as to the Boer view in regard to Chinese labour. The Dutch had the good old-fashioned prejudice of returning the most wealthy members of their constituencies to represent them, and naturally they were most interested in keeping up the mines. Therefore, they could not rely on such representatives taking anything but a very narrow capitalist interest in the future of the mines, because their own private interests would be in the direction of the development of the mines. It should not be forgotten that the Boer leaders had not put forward their opposition to Chinese labour on the same grounds as the people of this country: their opposition arose on account of the outrages committed on the Rand. Consequently, when they got into power, they would make the restrictions on the Chinese greater than they were at the present time, and control them more in the manner of the Kimberley compounds. And how would they deal with the great danger of secession? The Boers would look upon the British as the people who had devastated their country, and left them without any roofs to shelter their families. They would begin by federating with the Orange River and Cape Colonies —not Natal—and the further step— secession—might naturally follow. Therefore the House must take into consideration the chance of the Boers seceding gain. If they did secede would the British fight them again or not? The Government should make up their minds upon this question now. He would try to show what the result of secession would be. A good many hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side were frequently taunted with Majuba Hill during the election. The Liberal Party had lived it down, but Majuba was not good for the Liberal Party. After the war the Transvaal Government borrowed £35,000,000 and this country guaranteed the interest. Of course, the Boers had no voice in the borrowing of that money, or in the way it was spent. Part of it went to the British settlers, another part to the natives, and some of it was spent on public works, and he thought the latter had been ill spent. Over £2,000,000 of that sum went to purchase land for British subjects to settle upon. Under those circumstances how could we expect the Boers to regard very seriously the obligation of paying interest upon that loan? When a South American State repudiated its debts, it had a very evil future before it, because nobody would lend it any money. But the case was far different with the Transvaal. The result of all this would be that the British taxpayer in the end would have to pay the interest on that loan. He would like to ask how far we were going to allow a bare majority in any Colony to secede, and endanger the interests of a large body of loyal British? If a majority of the British indeed wished to secede and set up on their own account and be free from any connection with the Mother country, there would be no hesitation in bidding them God speed. But were we justified in saying to any South African Colony, where there was a large British population which objected to leave the Mother country, "Go and do as you like?" Were we justified in handing over British interests and British subjects to the Boers? He did not think that would be fair. We should not willingly repeat 1881 in 1911. We had supplied to the railway companies there an enormous number of British railway servants. Were we to allow these men to be deprived of their work simply because they were British? He thought it was onr duty to look after these people. Were we to allow the schoolteachers, nurses, post office servants and all that vast number of British emigrants to lose all they possessed and to be turned out of the country, to which they went under British protection?

MR. LUPTON

We should compensate them.

*MR. WEDGWOOD

said we could never compensate any one who had been in South Africa for having to leave that country, and there was a risk of that happening under present circumstances. How could it best be avoided? He believed that the nominated second Chamber would do very well for the present, but it was only a temporary Second Chamber, and we had to look farther afield than five years if we were finally to unite South Africa to the British Empire. The first step had been taken that day in manhood suffrage. He was quite certain that one way of securing South Africa for ever was to stop the present division of society in South Africa between Briton and Boer. Manhood suffrage would do that in time. At present they had no British unskilled labour in South Africa and very little Boer unskilled labour. They would have to wait a few years before they got a Party that was not a mere race Party. There was one Party only which was truly international and paid no attention to anyone's country of origin, and that was the Socialist Party. If they could start a powerful Socialist Party in the Transvaal we would then have that country united to the British Empire. It might perhaps sound strange to say that; but if we could wipe out the question of Briton and Boer, and substitute any other division of political Parties, we should set up once and for all a healthy instead of an unhealthy division in politics in that country. If this second Chamber, which was to form part of the Constitution, was to be nominated in South Africa we should have there in miniature a copy of the lower Chamber. He therefore strongly urged on the Government that they should nominate the second Chamber in England, and that it should consist to a certain extent of English people representing our interests there, and that they should be sent out to South Africa. He believed that they would soon acclimatise themselves to South African conditions, and that they would carry the necessary weight with the people of this country. We should thereby secure not only a satisfactory solution of the Chinese labour question, but also better treatment for the natives and for the British Indians. If we could send out, for example, two Members of the Labour Party to represent the interests of labour, the hon. Member for Tyneside to represent the interests of the natives of South Africa, and the hon. Member for East Leeds to represent the interest of British Indians, he believed that the capitalists or the Randlords might have a bad quarter of an hour, but he would like to see the healthy indignation of the hon. Member for Tyneside when he found that tie railway servants or other Englishmen were dismissed or penalised simply because they came from England. He believed the House could rely on any men they liked to send to look after the interests of the British people and also of the natives. They would have a safeguard in South Africa for all they wanted whatever Party was in power there. The Government of South Africa was concerned not only with the questions of Chinese labour and of the natives, but also with the keeping of the country open as an outlet for emigration of our own people at home. If the second Chamber was nominated here the Government should be careful not to make a second House of Lords, but to make the second Chamber representative rather of the grades of society not represented in the elected Chamber. It should be representative of British Indians and of poor people who went out there from this country.

*MR. MOLTENO (Dumfriesshire)

said it was inevitable that the Liberal Party should differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, upon this question. On the Minsterial side of the House they were the heirs and trustees of the great Liberal traditions of freedom and self-government, and under their auspices self-government had been extended over an enormous area of the world. The object of our country had been to seek not profit in the government of those distant dependencies, but only the good of the dependencies. The Liberals of to-day should act in a manner worthy of that great tradition. He desired to examine the problem of the new Constitution in the light of our Colonial history. There were three periods in that history. In the first the American Colonies were free to govern themselves, subject only to our commercial system, and without any interference whatever. They defended themselves and paid for their defence in the Seven Years War. In the second period we began to tamper with that self-government, and the result was that we lost the American Colonies. We attempted to govern those that remained and those subsequently acquired through a central London bureau and an agency on the spot. We were rudely awakened to the folly of that policy, by the rebellion in Canada which led to the policy of responsible government and gradually to free government being concened, thus forming the third period. In the Constitution which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, proposed for the South African Colonies he went back to the worst period of our Colonial history; he took the Constitution which brought Canada to rebellion, and thought that by means of that form of government he was going to bring peace and prosperity to South Africa. It was a Constitution which contained provisions for a nominated Speaker, a nominated Executive, and nominated Members. Our Colonial history showed that everyone of those conditions had been the cause of conflict between the Mother country and one or othe of the self-governing Colonies. The right hon. and learned Member had quoted Lord Durham in support of his view. He was indeed astonished to hear him quote that portion of Lord Durham's statement, because if the hon. and learned Gentleman had had any knowledge of our Colonial history he would have known that Lord Durham had two policies. One was to give the utmost freedom and self-government, and the other was to destroy the French nationality. The second policy entirely failed and had to be abandoned. In regard to the other, Lord Durham said of Crown Colony government in Canada— It is difficult to understand how any English Statesman could have imagined that representative and irresponsible Government could be successfully combined. At this period of our history it would be a retrograde step to go back to that policy. As Lord Durham very well pointed out— the Crown must submit to the necessary consequences of representative institutions; and if it is to carry on the Government in unison with a representative body it must consent to carry it on by means of those in whom that representative body has confidence. He would also remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of what was said by another great authority, Edward Gibbon Wakefield. To give representative institutions, he said, without responsible government was very much like lighting a fire in a room with the chimdey closed; how long it would last depended on the strength of the fire. There was no constitutional authority in favour of a policy of that kind. He contended that all Colonial history showed that the nominative principle had been a constant cause of conflict between the Mother country and the Colonies. It had nearly brought the Cape Colony to a rebellion. When the Cape Constitution was given in 1854, nomination was so distasteful that the Chief Justice, Sir James Wylde, reported that it was impossible to use it for the Upper Chamber. His advice was followed, and the Upper Chamber was made elective. Again, a nominated Executive kept the Cape in a state of unrest, of dissatisfaction, and of decay; and it was finally abolished in 1872. Further, a nominated Executive and Council brought Griqualand West to rebellion in 1875. In 1877, when we took over the Transvaal, self-government was promised, but was not given; and instead a nominated Council and Executive were appointed. The result was that in a few years that Colony was in a state of rebellion. He believed that if we had given responsible self-government to the Transvaal in 1877, there would never have been the rebellion and subsequent war. Were the Liberal Government going to repeat the error of that day? The Liberal Party had condemned the policy of the Conservative Government, and had urged the adoption of a different principle; and therefore they should guard against repeating the errors of the Liberal Party in 1881, which did not grant the self-government often promised to the Transvaal. In all climes, under the snows of Canada, in torrid Australia, in New Zealand, and in South Africa, wherever Englishmen were found, nominated officials brought about the same results; while complete self-government had brought order and loyalty out of chaos and discontent in all these Colonies. It had been entirely successful in Cape Colony. Sir Henry Barkly reported— Responsible government had the immediate effect of substituting a single strong governing power for the dual forces of the Executive and Legislature, which were before as often as not exerted in opposite directions. Responsible government promises, as I anticipated, to anglicise the Colony. The SECOND READING of the Bill to permit free testamentary disposition passed the other day by an enormous majority in the Assembly. The Government Railway Bill authorising an expenditure of nearly £5,000,000 in constructing nearly 800 miles of railway was read a second time unanimously. A few years ago both would have been objected to as dangerous devices of the Governor. Coming to a later period, Sir Bartle Frere said— After a long aeries of dislocating Kaffir wars, the English Government resolved that the system of allowing colonial management of colonial affairs to grow and develop, instead of being ruled from England, should be practically tried. The plan has answered fairly in other far-separated Colonies. It has been for eight years only in operation at the Cape. I believe it has answered still better there than in Canada or Australia. Sir Hercules Robinson pointed out that there were three contending forces in South Africa—Imperialism, self-government, and Republicanism—and that the only means of preserving the British Empire in that part of the world was by granting self-government. The grant of self-government in the Cape Colony had brought progress and contentment and good relations between the Dutch and the British—between the white and the black. The Constitution there knew no colour; and it was unfortunate that we could not have the same throughout South Africa owing to the Vereeniging Terms. It would have been better for all the races in South Africa had it been open to the Government to give the same wide and liberal Constitution which had been given to Cape Colony. He was glad to hear the Under-Secretary say that the Government had provided for reservations until the franchise should be given to all coloured and native races. They had been told of the dire results which would follow from the Dutch majority in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony; but, as a matter of fact, in the Cape Colony there had always been a Dutch majority, and no dire results had followed from it. The granting of self-government and equal institutions had led there to the effacement of racial trouble, as it had done in Canada and Louisiana. Who were these Boers? Were they not worthy partners for us? They were a stalwart race, with a great record in Europe. They had faced and resisted the two Empires of Spain and France under Louis XIV. They were great in civic virtues, in law, art, and commerce. Had they lost their virtues in Africa? Sir B. Durban said "No"; he could quote many other authorities as to their character but would only now refer to the fact that The Times "History of the War" stated that— the Dutch were a race who defended their homes and property with a bravery and resource which had rightly won the admiration of the world. He was glad of this tribute to the Dutch, for it would go far to reconcile the races in South Africa. He knew that the best Dutch appreciated the best Englishmen. He knew of no English gentleman who had been brought into contact with Dutchmen in South Africa who did not respect them. He knew himself that there was mutual respect and mutual admiration between the two races in Cape Colony which he hoped would be extended to the whole of South Africa. The Cape was free, and, because free it was loyal. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Reid of New South Wales attributed the loyalty of Canada and Australia to the complete concession of self-government. Why should that precedent not be followed in South Africa? Our late trouble was due to not allowing self-government free play. The Cape and Natal had protested against force and war; and no other Colonies would have stood the interference we tried with the Dutch States. Our periods of active interference had always been disastrous to ourselves, and to South Africa, as they had been in Canada. And why? Because we could not interfere wisely in a distant country. Lord Durham had pointed out that— the complete and unavoidable ignorance in which the British public and even the great body of the legislators are with respect to the real interests of distant communities so entirely different from their own produces a general indifference which nothing but some great Colonial crisis ever dispels, and responsibility to Parliament or to the public opinion of Great Britain would, except On these great and rare exceptions, lie positively mischievous if it were not impossible. He would remind the House that Lord Durham had considered the policy of retaining Canada by force and the policy of conceding self-government, and that he came to the conclusion which events have since amply justified, viz., that— Men have not indulged in vain the hope that there is a power in British institutions to rectify existing evils, and to produce in their place the well-being which no dominion could give. It is not in the terrors of the law, or in the might of our armies, that the secure and honourable bond of connection is to be found. It exists in the beneficial operations of those British institutions which link the utmost development of freedom and civilisation with the staple authority of an hereditary monarchy and which, if rightly organised and fully administered in the Colonies as in Great Britain, would render a change of institutions only an additionel evil in the loss of the protection and commerce of the British Empire. He (Mr. Molteno) believed that British institutions would bring about the same results in South Africa. What could the Dutch hope for under British institutions; what Lord Elgin, the father of the present Colonial Secretary, hoped for the French to have in Canada when he said— Let them feel that their religion, their habits, their prepossessions, their prejudices if you will, are more considered and respected here than in other portions of this vast continent, and who will venture to say that the last hand which waves the British flag on American ground may not be that of a French Canadian? What closer relation could there be between two brothers, and yet a parent often interfered and destroyed good relations. So it was with two nationalities and two parties. He was glad to say that the Governors of our Colonies were now always instructed to keep themselves apart from parties and local politics; and wherever that had been done they had been successful, and he hoped it would bring about the same results in South Africa. They had heard a good deal in recent years of loyalty and disloyalty, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon said that a short time ago that he and his Party were special friends of the Colonies.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Croydon)

I never said that.

*MR. MOLTENO

said he understood the right hon. Gentleman to represent that he and his Party were specially interested in the Colonies. Then again the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said "the Colonies are with me to a man" and he claimed credit for their loyalty. It appeared to him that the loyalty of the Colonies was not due to any one man whom the shifting forces of politics might place in power for a time, but that it was due to a system of equal laws and great constitutional principles, which were not the monopoly of any one Party but were the growth of ages and the outcome of the energy, activity and character, as they were the glory, of the whole British people. Such loyalty we have in Canada, in the Cape Colony and in other Colonies, and he believed that by similar methods we could secure it in South Africa. We had had great crises in our history. By denying freedom we lost our first American Colonies, by conceding it we had retained Canada. We had another crisis to-day to meet in South Africa, and surely it would be a glaring mistake to go back and rely on those dumb idols, brute force, crafty policy, and racial supremacy. We had gone through a period of stress and storm in the War and we must now allow freedom and self-government to flourish once more in a land of liberty. No exercise of force could turn a Frenchman or a Dutchman into an Englishman, but what we could do was by generous treatment to convert them to loyalty to the institutions of our Empire. The constant lesson of Colonial history was that this could only be obtained by the grant of self-government, and Lord Elgin would add to a name-already illustrious a higher renown by closing a dark and ill-omened chapter in our history; by giving to the continent of Southern Africa as his father had to that of Northern America the supreme gift of equal rights, equal privileges, equal duties, secured to all its varied inhabitants by the free grant of an ungrudging share in the great and splendid liberties of our own unrivalled constitution.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said that what the people of this country wanted to know was whether the Government had considered the effect of their policy on the all-important question — the keeping or the losing of South Africa. Not a single word had been heard that evening from any Government speaker which inspired a feeling that what they were about to do would operate in favour of our keeping South Africa. If those for whom he spoke could help it they did not intend to lose South Africa. We had recently been engaged in a war with the Boers and he did not suppose the Boers were different from every other race. If we had been defeated here in England three years ago, and the enemy had taken our country, every Englishman would grasp at the first opportunity which presented itself to regain all that we had lost. It was quite impossible that within three years all the passions and prejudices which had been engendered by the conflict could have been eradicated. Supposing it should happen that there was a Boer majority at the elections and that the Boers used their majority to recover all they had lost, what protection had we? None, except war again.

*MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD (Leicester)

thought it appropriate to express his disappointment that the discussion of such varied and extensive materials should have been compressed into one day. There were many important matters with regard to Natal, the most important of which he had called attention to in a series of questions at an earlier hour, which, however, he had no time to discuss now. The mind of the Committee was fixed on this question of the Constitution, and upon that he proposed to speak. He agreed thoroughly with the right hon. Member for Croydon that if they could find a guarantee that the granting of this Constitution would contribute to the stability of the Colony they would not be opponents to it. The question, therefore, was, could they in their minds find such a guarantee. He did not share the view of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House regarding the question of the Constitution for the Orange River Colony. It might be perfectly true that Sir Hamilton Gould-Adams enjoyed the confidence of the Dutch party there, but as soon as they gave the Transvaal self-government they placed the Orange River Colony in a position of inequality, and demands would be made there for self-government, because every day self-government was carried on at Johannesburg the Orange River Colony was being insulted whilst it was being governed by a benevolent dictator. He did not, however, understand that a Constitution for the Orange River Colony was to be long postponed. He would like to know how long it was to be postponed.

MR. CHURCHILL

The South Africa Committee have not yet presented us with their report from the Orange River Colony, but it is our intention to give responsible government to the Orange River Colony at the earliest possible moment and in such a way as to secure fair and effective representation of all classes of the population.

*MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD

heartily welcomed that statement. He believed profoundly that taking the Dutch in both colonies into our confidence in a whole-hearted way would not merely retain our authority in South Africa, but would make it much more real and much more secure than it was at present. He wished to bring before the Committee the labour view of the situation. It was extremely important for the Committee to remember that parties in South Africa were not merely British and Dutch; that they were divided even more by economic than by racial differences, and he hoped that when the constituencies were being carved out very great care would be taken that the boundaries were so drawn that the labour forces on the Rand would not be split up in such a way as to render labour representation practically impossible. With regard to the question of manhood suffrage he desired to join in the warning of the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover-square, not upon the merits of the proposal, but in reference to the position of the native. He could not conceive anything more objectionable than one standard of franchise for the white man and another for the coloured man. The one effective way for the natives to bring their influence to bear was to allow them to bring pressure to bear on all the constituencies. But if the whites had adult suffrage, he was afraid that could not be the condition of a native suffrage as well. He saw that the basis of election was to be the voters' list, but he thought that representation should be on the basis of population. If there was no floating population there would be no difference in election on the basis of the voters' list and on that of population. If the seats were distributed according to the numbers on the voters' list that would give an undue advantage to those people who had simply gone to exploit the country. He would remind the Committee that every labour political association had pronounced in favour of population. It had been suggested that if there was a Dutch majority in the Transvaal a great many things might happen, as for instance that the exclusively English character of the Civil Service would be altered, or that education might be developed on the lines that Lord Selborne had just discovered to be the right lines. But what was wanted at Johannesburg at the present time was a wise infusion of Dutch and English administrators in the same offices, and until we had that we should not have the efficient administration which all desired. When we used the expression British and Boer it was used in an absolutely meaningless sense. What was "British" In South Africa? It was used as if it was a thing which divided the population sharply into two sections. It was imagined that there was no substantial cooperation between Dutch and British, and that when they had said "Dutch" they had separated one section of the population into one camp, and when they had said "British," they had separated the other section into another camp equally distinct. When they said "British," moveover, they imagined they were suggesting something not merely racial but also political in spirit. There was nothing more fallacious and absurd than to imagine that state of things to exist. At the last by-election in Cape Colony the Dutch party was championed by an Englishman born in England, and who, being a Liberal in South Africa, was able to appeal to both Dutch and English upon political grounds and so got the English and Dutch vote as well, his opponent also getting both. If they had drawn a line across the electorate they would have found Dutch and English on one side and Dutch and English on the other. That was why he was asking the Committee to give this Constitution with all its risks, believing that only by granting such a Constitution in a whole-hearted and generous way they could lay finally and decisively the foundation of British rule in South Africa. One word more. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Colonies had stated that fusion had gone far and was going on well. It had. The right hon. Gentleman told them to wait until it had gone still further before giving a Constitution. If he (Mr. Macdonald) thought that fusion could go much further under existing conditions he would wait, but it could not. Fusion had gone so far because the offer of a Constitution had awakened in the minds of the Dutch leaders a genuine political interest, and the more they raised really political questions in the Transvaal the more would political fusion continue. But without a good old-fashioned British Constitution such as this brought in by this Liberal Government they could not rouse the genuine political interests which would eliminate racial instincts and ultimately give a united South African population living happily and contentedly under the Union Jack.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)

I think that everybody who has listened to the interesting speech just delivered would take the view that if we could agree with the estimate the hon. Member for Leicester has formed of the results of the policy of the Government we should take the same sanguine view that he does. But the differences which separate the hon. Member and those above the gangway are not in the ideal we have formed of what the future of South Africa should be, but simply and solely in the methods by which that common aim is to be attained, that goal which we all want to be reached in the smallest space of time. But before I come to that question I must say some words upon another matter, which has been dwelt on by the Under-Secretary and with greater emphasis by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. That right hon. Gentleman reminded us that the real ultimate problem South Africa has got to face, whether it be a Dutch or British South Africa, or, as we all hope, a South Africa both British and Dutch in race, but British in sympathies— that problem is the native problem. Whatever may be the outcome of the present policy we are discussing, that which our children and grandchildren will have to deal with is the problem of how to manage a country in which the black population is, and is always going to remain, the vast majority of the population. No such problem has faced any Government up to the present time. There is a distant resemblance, but no accurate correspondence, between that problem and that which our cousins in the United States had to face in the Southern States, and have not so far faced successfully. There is no resemblance to the problem we have to deal with in the East Indies. One of my complaints against this settlement of the Government's is that I believe they make the solution of that problem more difficult even than it has been made by circumstances over which no Government has any control. They have chosen to adopt manhood suffrage as the bas s of their system. Now, when you take manhood suffrage you cannot avoid everybody taking the view that that is some theoretical justification for a franchise based upon rights. I do not know whether there are many gentlemen in this House who hold what I regard as the entirely antiquated view that the question of the rights of man, as it used to be called, conies into the question of franchise reform. But directly you adopt manhood suffrage you do indicate to the rash thinker, the ordinary man in the street, that there is some right connecting the possession of manhood with the possession of the suffrage.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rates and taxes.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is not suffrage based on rates and taxes; it is manhood suffrage. If you are going to suggest that theory of natural rights, how are you going to deal with the question of the natives at all? We have to face facts; men are not born equal, the white and black races are not born with equal capacities' they are born with different capacities which education cannot and will not change; and as far as I know there are no forces now in operation which can or will change them within a period of time. If that be true, and if it also be true, as I think it is, that we must allow the native races to have an influence and position in our legislative system, how are you going to reconcile that with a theory of manhood suffrage? I am reminded by my right hon. friend that they will he as eight to one, and if they were judiciously organised, in their hands alone would rest the whole interest of civilisation, culture, and religion—in the hands of a race which is by birth less intellectually and morally capable of dealing with these problems than a white race. I state it quite plainly and nakedly as I believe it to be. You cannot do that. Whether the system now in force in the Cape is the right system or not I do not say, but it is not manhood suffrage, and you could never associate the Transvaal with the Cape in any future scheme of federation unless either the Cape or the Transvaal changed its franchise. Well, that is a very serious thing. In my view the mere fact that the Government have chosen to make manhood suffrage the basis of their scheme not only brings them into conflict with the theory that if there were manhood suffrage there is no conceivable reason for excluding womanhood suffrage, a problem that seems to me insoluble, but it brings us face to face with the even greater and more difficult present problem of how you are going to associate North European conditions of liberty and self-government—how you are gong to associate the aborigines of South Africa with a race which has the same training which we have ourselves, whether they be drawn from Holland or this country. I believe it will be a real obstacle to the ultimate solution of what is the tremendous question with which South African statesmen in the future will inevitably have to deal. But I pass on to what is not, indeed, of greater importance, and not, indeed, of more permanent importance than the subject I have just touched upon, but which is, after all, the most pressing question we have to deal with to-day. It is the jutification for the policy of the Government, not in giving full autonomy to the Transvaal, because we are all in favour of that and there has never been, as far as I know, any divergence of opinion on any side of House on that. As the Under-Secretary well knows, that was the declared policy of the late 'Government, as it is the declared policy of the present. But let there be no misunderstanding. If there is to be a difference of opinon between us, and I am afraid there is, that difference is to be found, not in the ultimate goal which we all desire to reach, but in the rapidity of our movements towards that goal. Now the hon. Member who has just sat down said, truly enough, that what we wanted to do was to unite British and Dutchmen, that there were questions outside the question of race, outside the question of the flag, which may well occupy the minds of politicians, and ought to occupy their minds. I agree also in admitting at once that there are an enormous number of persons of Dutch descent in the Cape Colony who are quite ready to work with the British on these lines. That is a healthy condition of things. It has not gone so far even in Cape Colony as I could wish, but it has gone far. Have we a right to assume that this process, which is still an incomplete process in Cape Colony, which has enjoyed self-government for I do not know how many decades, which has never been at war with us, which has been in an independent position since it was subject to the arbitrary rule of the Dutch commercial colonies—are we to suppose that this process has been carried out in the Transvaal with which we have been at war only three years ago? I think the Government are attempting an experiment of the most dangerous description. "Why should I like to see the experiment deferred? Is it because I distrust the Dutch? Is it because I think of them as having different aims from myself? Not at all. It is because I think they are of the same clay and are animated by the same motives. If we want to judge what the attitude of the Transvaal is to be, let us put ourselves in imagination into the position in which the great Dutch population are. Their memories are memories of war. They are memories of an independence which preceded the war. The statesmen whose names have b en mentioned—Mr. Smuts, General Botha, and others—are men who took a distinguished part in the war. Are we to expect that in three years they are to say: "All that is over; the question has been settled; the arbitrament of arms has given its decision; we accept it; we are not going to struggle with the old ideal; we are going to make the best f the new circumstances?"they are human. How can you ask them to make that change of sentiment in the few months that have elapsed since the overwhelming forces at our disposal obliged them to surrender? You cannot ask it. The question you have to ask is —Human nature, be it Dutch or English, being what it is, can the political institutions you are now going to give them be ma e a substitute for the military organisation, cannon, and all the rest of it, which brought them honourably into the field only three years ago? [" Four years."]Well, four years; we all know the war began in 1899 and when it ended. Is not that the question we have to ask our selves? No human being ever thought of such an experiment before—that of giving to a population equal to, and far more homogeneous than, our own, absolute control of everything civil and military. There is nothing to prevent the country making every preparation, constitutionally, quietly, without external interference, for a new war. What is it that animates them? It cannot be yet what it would be if you would only wait—it cannot yet be that natural inborn loyalty to the British Throne and the British people; it cannot yet be a distinct and deliberate preference for the new over the old state of things. How can it be that? I believe it will come in time. But you are asking the Dutch to do what you would not do if you were in their place. That is a great deal to ask. I am astonished that any Government or any Party that cherished the British connection in the Transvaal should desire so audacious an experiment to be tried. What is the real reason for it? We know that it is done solely because the Government are desirous of getting rid of all their labour embarrassments and economic difficulties that their rash promises at the general election have brought upon them. And the Transvaal itself is not less desirous of getting rid of Downing Street than Downing Street is of getting rid or the Transvaal [Cheers.] I do not know whether those cheers are ironical or not. [" No, no."] I do not know which preposition is disputed by the Prime Minister. Doss he dispute that Downing Street is anxious to get rid of the Transvaal? I think the Government have said so. [" Oh, oh."] I think they have gone that length. He will not dispute that the Transvaal is anxious to get rid of Downing Street. I think that is obvious on the face of every document that his issued by the population of British origin. Now I ask if we have the smallest right to take the optimistic view of the hon. Member for Reading, who made a very interesting speech from what I believe is called the Liberal Imperialist point of view, and in presenting that view he expressed himself as entirely satisfied with the scheme of the Government. He had feared much worse things, and if they had happened he said nothing would have prevented himself and his friends from separating themselves from the cause of the Government. I do not wish to throw any doubt upon that pronouncement of hypothetical political heroism, but what it is that has given such enormous satisfaction to the hon. Member I am utterly unable to see. What ground is there in the nature of things for making this experiment months or years before I think it ought to be made? [" Oh, oh," and interruptions.] I think it should depend upon how rapidly the wounds inflicted by the war are healed. But these considerations have not influenced the Government. They have not asked how ready is the Dutch population to co-operate with the British in internal administration. This consideration has not influenced them. Then what does the hon. Member see in the plan for autonomous Government? Does he see that the present lines of Party cleavage in the Transvaal will follow I the strict lines of nationality, and is that not likely to be the cause of the greatest of all possible disasters? What security

does he see that this absolute power given to the Transvaal will not be used to establish a condition of things which may make some future action against this country possible, probable, and dangerous? I see no such security, and because I see no security against this danger, I refuse to accept the invitation so kindly offered to us by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that we on this side should make ourselves responsible with the Government for what I regard as the most reckless experiment ever tried in the development of a great colonial policy. [" Oh, oh."] For this reason I look with alarm and distrust to the I future, and only from a wisdom we can hardly hope or expect from the population in the Transvaal can the danger be avoided. For these reasons I shall certainly give my vote against the-Resolution about to be put from the Chair.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,

rising just before 10 o'clock, said: In the one minute left to me I will only say one thing, that never in the course of my Parliamentary career have I listened to a more unworthy, provocative, and mischievous—

And, it being Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £29,050, 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, 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies including a Grant-in-Ad of certain Expenses connected, with Emigration."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 316; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 286.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Agnew, George William	Armitage, R.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Alden, Percy	Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Hentry
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Astbury, John Meir
Atherley-Jones, L.	Duckworth, James	Laidlaw, Robert
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Lambert, George
Barnard, E. B.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Edwards, Frank (Radnor)	Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)
Beale, W. P.	Elibank, Master of	Lehmann, R. C.
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward	Lever, A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)
Beck, A. Cecil	Erskine, David C.	Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)
Bell, Richard	Essex, R. W.	Levy, Maurice
Bellairs, Carlyon	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lewis, John Herbert
Benn, SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt	Everett, R. Lacey	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Benn, W.(T'wrHamlets, S.Geo.	Fenwick, Charles	Lough, Thomas
Berridge, T. H. D.	Ferens, T. R	Lundon, W.
Bertram, Julius	Ffrench, Peter	Lupton, Arnold
Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford)	Field, William	Lyell, Charles Henry
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)	Findlay, Alexander	Lynch, H. B.
Billson, Alfred	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Flynn, James Christopher	Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk Bghs
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.
Bottomley, Horatio	Freeman Thomas, Freeman	MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.
Boulton, A. G. F. (Ramsey)	Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Arthur, William
Brace, William	Fullerton, Hugh	M'Callum, John M.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford,S.)	M'Kenna, Reginald
Brigg, John	Gibb, James (Harrow)	M'Killop, W.
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Gill, A. H.	M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Brooke, Stopford	Ginnell, L.	M'Micking, Major G.
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Mallet, Charles E.
Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)	Glendinning, R. G.	Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln
Bryce, Rt.Hn. James(Aberdeen	Glover, Thomas	Mark,G. Croydon (Launceston
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Marnham, F. J.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Gooch, George Peabody	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Massie, J.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Masterman, C. F. G.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Meehan, Patrick A.
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Gulland, John W.	Menzies, Walter
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Micklem, Nathaniel
Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles	Hall, Frederick	Molteno, Percy Alport
Byles, William Pollard	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Mond, A.
Cairns, Thomas	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Montagu, E. S.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Montgomery, H. G.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Morley, Rt. Hon. John
Cawley, Frederick	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Morse, L. L.
Channing, Francis Allston	Hazleton, Richard	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cheetham, John Frederick	Healy, Timothy Michael	Murphy, John
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hedges, A. Paget	Myer, Horatio
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Helme, Norval Watson	Napier, T. B.
Clough, W.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Coats, Sir T.Glen (Renfrew,W.)	Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)	Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Henry, Charles S.	Nicholls, George
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Higham, John Sharp	Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncas'tr
Cooper, G. J.	Hobart, Sir Robert	Nolan, Joseph
Corbett,C.H.(Sussex, E.Grinst'd	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Norman, Henry
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cory, Clifford John	Holland, Sir William Henry	Nuttall, Harry
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hooper, A. G.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Cowan, W. H.	Hope, John Dears (Fife, West	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cox, Harold	Hope, W.Bateman(Somerset,N	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Cremer, William Randal	Horniman, Emslie John	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Crombie, John William	Hudson, Walter	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N
Crooks, William	Hyde, Clarendon	O'Malley, William
Crosfield, A. H.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Mara, James
Crossley, William J.	Jacoby, James Alfred	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dalziel, James Henry	Jardine, Sir.J.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Partington, Oswald
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Paul, Herbert
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol,S.)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Paulton, James Mellor
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Jowett, F. W.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Kekewich, Sir George	Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)
Dobson, Thomas W.	King, Alfred John (Knutsford)	Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Seely, Major J. B.	Wallace, Robert
Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Shackleton, David James	Walters, John Tudor
Pirie, Duncan V.	Shaw, Rt.Hn. T. (Hawick B.)	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Radford, G. H.	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent
Raphael, Herbert H.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Ward,W.Dudley (S'thampton
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Simon, John Allsebrook	Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Waterlow, D. S.
Redmond, John E.(Waterford)	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)	Watt, H. Anderson
Rees, J. D.	Soamos, Arthur Wellesley	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Rendall, Athelstan	Spicer, Sir Albert	Weir, James Galloway
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th.)	Stanger, H. Y.	White, George (Norfolk)
Rickett, J. Compton	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Whitehead, Rowland
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)	Strachey, Sir Edward	Wiles, Thomas
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wilkie, Alexander
Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradfrd	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Williamson, A.
Robinson, S.	Sullivan, Donal	Wills, Arthur Walters
Ro son, Sir William Snowdon	Sutherland, J. E.	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Rogers, F, E. Newman	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough
Rose, Charles Day	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Rowlands, J.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.	Winfrey, R.
Runciman, Walter	Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset,E)	Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd
Russell, T. W.	Tomkinson, James	Yoxall, James Henry
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Toulmin, George
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Ure, Alexander	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Scott,A.H.(Ashtonunder Lyne	Verney, F. W.	Mr. Whiteley and Mr
Sears, J. E.	Vivian, Henry	J. A. Pease
Seaverns, J. H.	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Fletcher, J. S.	Nicholson, Win.G.(Petersfield
Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO	Forster, Henry William	Nield, Herbert
Balcarres, Lord	Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Balfour, Rt.Hn. A.J.(CityLond)	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravseend
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.	Hamilton, Marquess of	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Helmsley, Viscount	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS. Edm'ds	Rutherford,W. W. (Liverpool)
Cave, George	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.	Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)	Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos.Myles
Ceciil, Evelyn (Anton Manor)	Houston, Robert Paterson	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-	Hunt, Rowland	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Keswick, william	Smith, V. E.(Liverpool,Walton
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Kimber, Sir Henry	Starkey, John R.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Kincaid-Smith, Captain	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)	Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.	Thomson, W.Mitchell (Lanark)
Craik, Sir Henry	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Thornton, Percy M.
Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin,S	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Du Cros, Harvey	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Williams Col. R. (Dorset,W.
Faber, George Denison (York)	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfied	Wollf, Gustav Wilhelm
Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants,W.	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Younger, George
Fell, Arthur	Marks, H. H. (Kent)
Fether-tonhaugh, Godfrey	Mason, James F. (Windsor)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Meysey-Thompson, E. C.	Alexander Acland Hood
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Morpeth, Viscount	and Viscount Valentia.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each Class of the Civil Service Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Army (including Ordnance Factories) be granted far the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.