§ MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)rose to move, "That this House expresses its disapproval of the conduct of Lord Milner, as High Commissioner of South Africa and Governor of the Transvaal, in authorising the flogging of Chinese labourers in breach of the law, in violation of treaty obligations, and without the knowledge or sanction of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."He said that the fortune of the ballot had cast upon him a task which would have been, perhaps, better discharged by others, and while he would not shrink from the responsibilty placed upon him, he wished at the outset to disclaim all personal hostility to Lord Milner. The Times newspaper and a great many other newspapers and large numbers of anonymous correspondents had thought fit to accuse him for bringing forward this Motion of all sorts of motives, of petty spite, of black ingratitude, of sordid lust for Party gain. All this was very absurd. He had no vindictive spirit against Lord Milner. It was not so much of Lord Milner that he was thinking. It was the honour of the country that he was jealous for, it was the good faith and the self-respect of this House, it was that when the people of this country questioned the King's Ministers they should be able to rely upon assurances given by them. If the country was deceived, if illegality was condoned, if high officials were screened, and if injustice and cruelty were allowed to go unreproved, then in his judgment the highest interests of this country were in danger. In a memorable debate in this House, many years ago, on the subject of the high-handed action of a great administrator in South Africa, the right hon Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, speaking of Sir Bartle Frere, whom he styled "a self-willed politician," said—
This new Imperialism of the Government had affected the minds and judgments of those to whom were necessarily delegated the 465 powers and authority of this country in distant I lands. Unless this spirit were—either by I Parliament or by the people—sternly and severely repressed, there would hardly be a limit to the difficulties, and even disasters, yet in store for this country.What the right hon Gentleman said then he (Mr. Byles) said now. So much for the motive with which he brought forward this Resolution. He was concerned with the office of High Commissioner and with Lord Milner only as the holder of that office. If for no other reason, certain pleasant relations he had had with Lord Milner in days past would preclude any malice on his part. Further than that, he recognised Lord Milner as an eminent public servant; he did not forget the services Lord Milner had rendered to the country while he was at the Inland Revenue, when he gave such real and valuable assistance to the late Sir William Harcourt in the revolutionary Finance Bill of 1894; neither could he nor any Member of the House forget the work which Lord Milner had done in the reorganisation of Egypt and Egyptian finance. While he admitted that the services of Lord Milner at the Inland Revenue and in Egypt were deserving of the gratitude of the country —services which were marked and crowned with conspicuous success — he could not help thinking that his administration in South Africa had been an equally conspicuous failure. This Motion invited the House to express its disapproval of Lord Milner for sanctioning the flogging of Chinese labourers. The facts of the case were very simple. Lord Milner was approached by the mineowners who, after the war were unable to obtain sufficient native labour, and who asked him to allow them to import Asiatic labour. Lord Milner agreed, and the famous Ordinance was passed, solemn engagements were entered into between this country and the Chinese Empire, that the Chinese coolies brought over to the Rand should not be flogged except by order of the Court. Lord Milner, as High Commissioner of this country, broke that engagement deliberately and intentionally, and purposely withheld the knowledge of the decision to which he had come from the Government which he served.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINNo, no. Perhaps I may be permitted. I 466 merely wish to know what it is;he hon. Gentleman brings as a charge against Lord Milner. Does he mean to say, as he has just now said, that Lord Milner's action in those matters was taken deliberately, and that he purposely withheld the facts from the Government? The words used by the hon. Member were deliberately "and "purposely."
§ MR. BYLESsaid he certainly understood from Lord Milner's speech in the House of Lords the other night that he had done this knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately; he certainly did not desire to accuse Lord Milner of anything he did not wish to say, but that was what he understood him to say. At any rate Lord Milner quite frankly confessed so much in the House of Lords and very properly expressed his regret for it. In other words Lord Milner disapproved of his own conduct, and all that the Motion asked the House to do was to disapprove of it too. The speech in which Lord Milner made this confession was one of great interest from many points of view. It was his maiden speech, and in it he admitted quite frankly that he was responsible for the introduction of Chinese labour into the mines. At first he said he was as much opposed to it as all the rest of the white population of the Transvaal, except a handful of miners, and then he stated by what insidious manner he was converted. He said that white men could do the work, but not so cheaply. That was a most interesting point, because the House had been told thousands of times that white men could not do the work. Now they knew from Lord Milner that they could. He (Mr. Byles) had always said that the whole object of this Chinese labour was to get cheap labour, to get wages down and dividends up. Lord Milner further said that to the white man with his ideas such labour would mean degradation, and he (Mr. Byles) must admit he did not know a British working man who would submit to be flogged in the mines. But, said Lord Milner, it was "almost providential" when the Chinaman came along. Lord Milner was converted, and the Chinese came; they were beaten cruelly, and they complained. At length their complaints had reached this House. Questions were asked as to the truth of this flogging and whether it had taken place, and the Answer was no. But it had taken place, as they now knew 467 and it Was sanctioned by Lord Milner Had it not been for Lord Milner's conversion we should not have had Chinese labour. The Chinese were brought because they were degraded creatures and would not mind being flogged. That was the only natural conclusion that could be drawn from the speech of Lord Milner. This state of things was justified on the principle that "the end justifies the means." The end was cheapness, the means were servile labour. It might be cheap and nasty, but it must be cheap. The fallacy lay in supposing that the prosperity of Transvaal the depended on gold-bearing quartz. Yet the people there were never so happy as they were before the gold was discovered, and, in his opinion, they would never be so happy again until the gold was all worked out, and the vultures which had fastened on it had taken flight. In the last generation this country had become far more humane, and men were beginning to see the stupidity as well as the brutality of flogging. Those Chinese labourers had been called "animated machines." Suppose they were not" animated," the last thing anyone would do would be to beat them. When their bearings got hot, oil would be poured on them. But because they were men—of far more complex and delicate organisation than machines made of iron —the people of South Africa proceeded to knock them about in the manner described in Mr. Boland's letter. That was the kind of flogging that had been going on with the sanction of Lord Milner, although China had got the assurance, and relied on British honour for its fulfilment, that there should be no flogging without the sanction of the courts. Supposing an Admiral of the Fleet came to the First Lord of the Admiralty and said he could not maintain discipline on his ship unless he flogged the men, and supposing the First Lord of the Admiralty said, "all right, go on, but don't say anything about it," that would be a parallel case.
§ MR. BYLESNo, he was not the philosopher in question. When this Ordinance was passed the Chinese Ambassador stipulated that there should be no flogging except under the law, and he relied on British honour to see that that stipulation was carried out. Whoever was subject to the law was entitled to the protection of the law. The facts with regard to this case were not disputed, for the defendant had pleaded guilty. The Lord Chancellor, an illustrious Member of the Cabinet, and the highest judicial authority in the land, had said in the House of Lords
It was a flagrant illegality; it was illegal and Lord Milner knew it.In these circumstances he was surprised that the Government did not see their way to accept his Motion. How came we to annex the Transvaal at all? Was it not alleged, at any rate, that it was because President Kruger could not enforce the law. Whenever the grievances of the Uitlanders were paraded before them, was it not always the miscarriage of justice that was the chief indictment? It was because the liberties of our people were not safe in the hands of President Kruger that we fought him and took his country from him. Lord Milner's own despatches in 1899 constantly laid stress on these things. It was not for the sake of the Chinese only that this Motion was brought forward. It concerned quite as much our relations with the Boers, and indeed with all races of non-British people in the King's Dominions. A new constitution was about to be given to the Transvaal, and the first thing to establish was absolute confidence in the administration of the law. The Boers were reputed to be a suspicious people. What would become of their confidence in us when they found breaches of the law sanctioned by the highest executive officer of the State, and sanctioned moreover in the interests of the very men whom they regarded as responsible for all the evils of the war, and for the wreckage of their country? There was an Amendment on the Paper by an hon. Gentleman deprecating the stirring up of racial animosity. Racial animosity had never been stirred up by keeping officers in the straight path, but it had been stirred up more than once by screening them and covering their lapses from virtue. He need only instance the 469 Jameson Raid. After that event, had Dr. Jameson been punished and cashiered, President Kruger would have been perfectly satisfied, the Boers would not have been irritated, and there would have been no war. This House was the guardian of the national honour. It was also the guardian of the liberties of all the people who enjoyed the protection of our King. It was the guardian of the reputation of England for equality before the law for rich and poor, black and white and yellow. If this Resolution were rejected the offence of Lord Milner would be in a sense condoned. The humblest subject of the Empire would not be safe. Every prancing pro-consul in the Empire would be encouraged to play off his own bat, and pay regard not to the law but to his own sweet will. The Government had put down an Amendment to this Motion, and though in the main it agreed with this Motion it did not go quite so far. It was in material to him in a sense into which lobby Members chose to go. The Motion and the Amendment both condemned the illegal flogging, but those who voted for this Motion desired to put on the journals of the House their express disapproval of that flogging. There was no essential difference between them. He would not be opposing the Government when he called for a division against their Amendment, nor would they be opposing him. If he thought there would be absolute unanimity in the House upon the Government Amendment he would withdraw his Resolution in order that there might be a unanimous vote. But he had reason to believe that that would not be the case under any circumstances, and therefore he should press this Motion to a division, and he hoped that a large number of Members would be undeterred by the great station and influence of Lord Milner from voting with him on the Motion he now moved.
§ MR. MACKARNESS (Berkshire, Newbury)said he rose to second this Motion, but before doing so he must plead for that kindly indulgence which he believed was always extended to a Member who addressed the House for the first time. He was sure his hon. friend who brought forward this Motion, and they who were supporting him, would not be doing so unless they believed there were great questions at issue in this matter— 470 questions which could not be ignored by this House without abdicating some of its most important functions and neglecting a clear duty. The House had known for some time that a high official of the Crown had so far mistaken his position as to permit systematic breaches of the law to be kept for many months from the knowledge of the Secretary of State, to whom he was bound to be frank to the utmost degree. Could any self-respecting government or legislature allow such conduct on the part of one of its servants to pass without rebuke? If any subordinate officer had committed the same breach of duty, would he have been allowed to go unpunished? Everybody must know that it would not have been the case. Why then should it be allowed to pass because the person implicated happened to occupy the very highest position that any subject could occupy in a great dependency? It might be said that Lord Milner no longer occupied that position. But Lord Milner resigned his position amid the plaudits of the hon. Members of the Party who supported him, and who were now on the Opposition side of the House, and the last thing that was said of him was an elaborate eulogy by the late Prime Minister. If anybody looking back on the records of this country should ask what the House of Commons thought of Lord Milner it would find nothing at all to condemn him except the reply given a few days ago by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in answer to a Question, when he said Lord Milner had been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. † The Resolution his hon. friend had moved appeared to him to be no more than an elaboration of the judgment then passed by the Under-Secretary. Therefore he thought they had a right to appeal to every supporter of the Government, at any rate, to support the Resolution of his hon. friend. He confessed that he did not quite understand the Amendment which had been put on the paper in the name of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. The head of the Amendment was quite in accordance with the Resolution, but the tail of it, though couched in a truely Christian spirit, seemed to him to want that sting which every tail ought to have. As the mover had said they were not so much bringing a charge
† See (4) Debates, cliii., 1238.471 against an individual as passing sentence upon a series of admitted facts, which the more they were examined into the more; serious became. They had led to persistent I breaches of the law in regard to a matter about which Lord Milner knew the late Government were peculiarly sensitive. He referred to the flogging of natives. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had always strongly opposed the flogging of natives. The despaches sent by the right hon. Gentleman in 1901–2 showed that he had repeatedly instructed Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner to eliminate from the law of the Transvaal the flogging of natives. Then in 1904 in the negotiations which took place between the British Government and the Chinese Government before the Ordinance was passed, the Chinese Government insisted that in no case should it be allowable for an employer or his servant to inflict corporal punishment on the immigrant, and that violations of this prohibition should be punished at law as common assults. Lord Milner said there would be no difficulty in including that in the Ordinance, and also pointed out that the Chinese, like everybody else, would have the protection of the law, that flogging could not be inflicted except by the order of a magistrate, confirmed by a Judge. There was the clear assurance, given on the faith of the High Commissioner of South Africa, to the ambassador of a foreign Power, that in no circumstances should flogging be administered to a Chinese coolie except in accordance with the law of the land. What followed upon that? The Convention was passed providing that every Chinese coolie should have the same right of redress in the Courts of Justice in the Transvaal as subjects of all other races had. From March down to the end of July last year repeated assurances were given by Mr. Lyttelton that no flogging was taking place outside the Law Courts. Assurances were given in this House and in another place, and the actual number of persons flogged was mentioned, namely, six. The last assurance was given, he believed, by Mr. Lyttelton on the 27th July, to the effect that, so far as he knew, the law was being observed in the Transvaal with regard to this matter.† At the time that the House was being thus lulled into false† See (4) Debates, el., 688, et seq.472 security Lord Milner had left South Africa and was travelling slowly about Europe, finally reaching this country in July. On the day Mr. Lyttelton gave his last assurance, Lord Milner was admitted to Parliament, so that it was impossible to argue that he could not have been aware of what was going on in Parliament. He must have known what was going on in Parliament, and yet he allowed the Government, to whom he ought to have acted with loyalty and good faith, constantly to represent a false state of things to the House. Since Parliament rose in August last year the country remained under the belief that flogging was not being illegally carried on, though great uneasiness was felt owing to constant stories coming from South Africa. It was not until December that a Blue-book appeared in which it was stated for the first time that Mr. Lyttelton had found out that a totally different state of things had been going on, and that the High Commissioner had sanctioned the taking of the law out of the hands of the magistrates of the Colony and its being put into the hands of the mine managers. Mr. Lyttelton said he had no idea of this until Lord Selborne told him of it in October, and nobody who knew Mr. Lyttelton would doubt for a moment that what he said was true. Therefore, if there were no other reason for passing condemnation upon a high official, the fact that he had deliberately allowed his superiors to remain under a false impression in regard to so important a matter was a sufficient ground for condemnation. Great abuses had followed on the flogging. There had been other forms of torture inflicted upon these Chinamen which Lord Milner might not have known about, but for which it was impossible not to hold him responsible. In spite of the injunctions, first of Mr. Lyttelton and then of Lord Elgin, that prosecutions should take place against offenders, not a single prosecution had been instituted. The reason of that, he suggested, was that the persons who would be the chief witnesses were the Chinese themselves, and they were under such a state of intimidation that it was quite impossible for them to give evidence. According to the last Blue-book the Chinese, when called before the Commission of Inquiry ordered by Lord Selborne, were not allowed to give evidence before the Commission except on their knees—a form of proceedings which 473 was calculated to frighten them from giving reliable evidence. The consequences of the illegal treatment of the Chinese did not stop there. The Chinamen were driven into a state of desperation by the treatment they received; they deserted from the mines, and, being forbidden by law from obtaining an honest livelihood, they were driven to commit crimes, and so the unfortunate people of the Transvaal, who had only just recovered from a devastating war, had inflicted upon them the calamity of having their houses broken into, their property taken, and often murders committed by the Chinese. The Attorney-General of the Transvaal, speaking in the Legislative Council in September, stated that up to that time there had been 2,543 convictions, 735 desertions, and 21,205 cases of refusal to work, out of a total of 46,000 Chinamen in the country. Every kind of serious crime was recorded against the Chinamen in the last Blue-book. In one case an unfortunate Dutch farmer was murdered before the eyes of his wife and child, who were both badly injured, And for that crime alone four Chinamen were hanged. At whose door lay the responsibility for this? Then in order to cope with this very serious state of things, a law had been passed which was worse than the first Ordinance, as it was passed for the express purpose of further restricting the liberty of the Chinese, and took away from them even the right of having their offences investigated by the magistrates of the Colony, and set up domestic tribunals, presided over by persons who were not lawyers, to try them under the eyes of the compound managers. What were called collective fines were levied. In the event of a Chinaman not being able to pay the fine inflicted, the gang with whom he worked had to make it up. Anything less consistent with justice, as it was understood in this country, he could not imagine. Perhaps the most sinister part of the whole business was the part played by the Chamber of Mines. It seemed that it was into their hands that the administration of the law was resigned by the high officers of the Crown; and when at last the flogging was stopped, as was said, in June last, it was by a circular of the Chamber of Mines, issued on the 16th June. It was sometimes asserted that Lord Milner's Government was conducted for and by the mineowners. When they 474 found the law taken out of the hands of official persons, and allowed to be administered by the Chamber of Mines, there was very good grounds for the assertion. He hoped the House tonight would make it clear that the state of things that had been revealed would not be allowed to continue, and that when it discovered that one of its servants, however highly placed, had misused his powers, it would interfere with authority to vindicate those principles of freedom, humanity, and justice which were, after all, the most priceless possession of their race.Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House expresses its disapproval of the conduct of Lord Milner, as High Commissioner of South Africa and Governor of the Transvaal, in authorising the flogging of Chinese labourers in breach of the Law, in violation of treaty obligations, and without the knowledge or sanction of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."— (Mr. Byles.)
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINMr. Speaker, I can hardly think, Sir, of any task more distasteful to a generous mind than that which has been voluntarily undertaken to-night by the two hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me. Of course I accept their own statements that they were animated by the highest and, I will add, a very exceptional sense of public duty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Stafford—[Cries of "Salford"] —the hon. Member for North Salford— [An HON. MEMBER: Do not forget Manchester] I beg hon. Gentlemen to consider the dignity of the House of Commons. [OPPOSITION cries of "Manners"] I think the hon. Member for North Salford will admit a reluctance in pursuing the duty which he thought had been cast upon him. He said he had no feeling of malignity towards Lord Milner, that he was only impressed by the necessity of vindicating his country's honour. Well, Sir, let me say at once that I believe in the hon. Gentleman's sincerity; but it is a very dangerous thing when private individuals upon whom no great responsibility is cast undertake so great a matter as that of vindicating their country's honour. Sir, I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement absolutely as 475 to his own motives and intentions. I cannot do otherwise; for if, instead of being inspired by these high intentions he had been animated by Party contentions, by what is worse still, by personal and petty spite—if that had been the cause, what could be meaner, what could be more contemptible in any Member of this House than to persecute a great servant of the public, a great official who, in the words of Lord Elgin the other day, the generous words of Lord Elgin, was—
One who, during a time of stress and anxiety showed a courage and devotion to his country that his country will not forget.What, I say, could be more despicable than to attack such a man without the sanction of the highest motive, which the hon. Gentleman claimed for himself, and to persecute him for a single error of judgment—[MINISTERIAL Cries of "No, no"] — a single error of judgment—in a long course of public service? "No, no," you say. Then for what do you persecute him? [An HON. MEMBER: Flogging.] The Motion is confined to a single act in a long public life, in a long course of public service. I am not permitted by the rules of the House to go beyond the Resolution, and I am bound to say that the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have confined themselves very strictly to this narrow ground; and for a single error of judgment, upon this single point, they ask the House to inflict this humiliation on a most distinguished member of our great Civil Service. What is the proposal? In the absence, the necessary absence, of the person accused—for you have not called him to the Bar of this House—you propose to call on the House to pass a Resolution which can have no practical effect, and to inflict censure and humiliation on this man, of whose existence and work in our history, at any rate, if not, indeed, in this conflict of petty passion, in history, at all events, the people of this country will be proud. You ask the House to pass this censure on a man who is no longer in office and for an error which you admit you know he has frankly acknowledged, and for which he has expressed regret. Where is the generosity? Where is the magnanimity for which we take credit when you can 476 put aside all that you owe to this great and distinguished public servant in order to condemn him, and to inflict this unnecessary humiliation on him after he has himself acknowledged and regretted the error he has committed? The Resolution is retrospective. It is vindictive. Sir, let us have no cant about this matter. We all know, the country knows, that the object of this Motion is to inflict humiliation upon a person who is as honest and as sincere as any Member of this House, but of whose policy hon. Members opposite happen to disapprove; and for that and for Party reasons they pick up a single point in a long history of self-sacrifice and devotion. They pick it up because they have an admission—I am almost disposed to say an unnecessary admission—at all events it is a chivalrous admission — of the person concerned. They dare not question his policy as a whole [Cries of "Oh"], and they pick up the one point, the one little point, a comparatively unimportant point in the whole history of this great man's life. They pick it up because they have his own admission and they cannot be contradicted; and they, accepting his regret, are not satisfied without the additional humiliation which they think they can inflict by a vote of this House, but which will recoil upon the heads of those who have proposed it, and upon those who may be ungenerous enough to support it. Now, Sir, what are the facts? ["Hear, hear."] Yes; I do not wonder hon. Members opposite wish to hear them after the statement that has been made. I know, for I have had a long acquaintance with the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Salford, and I do believe in my heart that he is thoroughly sincere—he means to be accurate—that he would not knowingly impute to even his bitterest opponent anything which ought not to be imputed; but I never heard in my life a statement in which there was more perversion of the true state of the case than the statement we have just heard from the hon Gentleman. He puts in adjectives without apparently any understanding of their importance. He actually declared in this House, when it was not so full as it is at present, that Lord Milner had admitted that he had deliberately broken an engagement undertaken with a foreign nation, and that he 477 had purposely withheld the knowledge of the facts from his Government.
§ MR. BYLESI said I understood Lord Milner's own words in the House of Lords to mean that. That is my clear understanding of them. They are not adjectives, but that does not matter. ["Shame."]
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)Order! order! I was put out for saying "Shame" once.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI hate to hear this laughter, whether in my favour or against me. The honour of the public service of the country is at stake. I did not laugh at or interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I most deeply regret the statement he was persuaded to make, and I am going to treat this question seriously in answer to the hon. Gentleman. He understood that to be what Lord Milner meant. But, Sir, he cannot understand English. I am not going to read the whole of the speech, although it is a short one, in which Lord Milner acknowledged his part in this matter with a frankness which every impartial, honourable man will admire, and never, never in the whole course of this controversy has he admitted, or is it possible to suppose, that he purposely deceived the Government which he was serving, that he deliberately did this, that, or the other. In that case, for Heaven's sake, why are not hon. Members consistent?
§ MR. BYLESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that this was an accident or was it deliberately sanctioned. That was what he wanted to know. He understood Lord Milner to say that he sanctioned the flogging. He made no objection to what Mr. Evans told him he had done. Therefore he took it that it was purposeful, intentional, and deliberate.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINTo my mind, and I will give my reasons for it, certainly nothing was less purposeful and deliberate; and again I say I cannot believe the hon. Gentleman in his sober [Laughter]—his serious moments—I am sorry that there should be this disposition to seize upon any possible slip which, 478 in my anxiety to do justice to the subject' I may make—I say I cannot believe the hon. Gentleman in his serious moments can believe that Lord Milner, a great public servant, with whom he says he has been in personal communication, could have deliberately done so outrageous a thing as purposely to deceive his Parliamentary chiefs, and deliberately to do a great wrong which he had subsequently regretted; and I say if that were true hon. Members ought to be consistent. They ought to understand that a charge of that kind cannot be met by the mere censure of the House. It is the most serious thing in the world; and nothing short of an impeachment would justify a charge of that kind. Now let me, at any rate, proceed to give my own version of the facts, as I understand them. Let anyone contradict them afterwards if he thinks I have misunderstood them. When the late Government undertook to sanction the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa they were guided by what had been done in regard to the employment of foreign labour in other colonies, and they nominated an official as protector of the Chinese, and the duty of this protector was to see that the contract entered into was understood by the labourer, that it was completely carried out, that the coolie was treated with humanity, and that his health, comfort, and general welfare were properly looked after. This was the duty of the official, a duty well known and performed in Mauritius, in the Malay Settlements, in the West Indies, and now in the Transvaal. For this purpose the Government nominated—I am not sure if the appointment was made by the home Government—Mr. Evans, a gentleman who had a most honourable record of, I think, twenty years in the Malay States, who had a high reputation for ability, for integrity, and humanity, who knew the Chinese language, and had been in constant communication with Chinamen in the Malay Straits. I doubt myself whether a better appointment could have been suggested. Now this is the authority for any statement of fact that can be presented to the House, and Mr. Evans himself stated to Mr. Lyttelton that on a definite occasion, in the course of a general conversation, in which, no doubt, many other subjects were dealt 479 with, he had, casually, as it were, told Lord Milner that he had found it necessary to give permission for a certain limited amount of corporal punishment to be inflicted in the mines, and he stated—I forget whether he gave the explanation to Lord Milner—he stated to Mr. Lyttelton that he had done that because in the case of certain offences against discipline he had found that the delay, the necessary delay, in taking the case to the courts and so on, led to serious difficulty and that a trivial matter easily became a serious riot. It was in his opinion necessary that greater discretion should be given to a manager in the case of really trivial offences. That is Mr. Evans's statement, and for the moment I am only repeating it. It is not his statement that Lord Milner carefully and deliberately considered the matter, and there is no record whatever of this taking place. If it took place at all it took place in this casual way in the course of a conversation on many subjects, and Mr. Evans says that Lord Milner took no objection. ["Hear, hear," "He ought to have done so."] Ah, yes, if we were perfect how many are the things we might have done or done better. Lord Milner says, and no doubt everyone will believe his statement, that he has absolutely no recollection of this conversation, but he has no reason whatever to doubt Mr. Evans' integrity or his memory, and therefore he has taken on himself to accept his statement as accurate. I am therefore debarred from going in any particular behind the statement of Mr. Evans. Lord Milner says he has no doubt the conversation took place as Mr. Evans stated, and now he has only to say, "I think I was wrong in not taking notice of this statement; I regret that I did not do so." ["Hear, hear."] Here we are all agreed, that this original permission which Mr. Evans says he reported to Lord Milner was illegal. The hon. Member for Newbury has been kind enough to give me credit for sincerity in my objections to flogging, and therefore he will not be surprised that I say I deeply regret that any official in the colonial or public service should have given this illegal permission which was given by Mr. Evans. I go beyond, and, accepting Lord Milner's statement say also it is very much 480 to be regretted that he failed to notice it, for that is the only charge that is brought against him. Mr. Evans only says, "He took no objection." I very much regret he took no objection, and that in the conversation which passed he did not at once say "No; I cannot listen to anything of the kind." But I also think, in common fairness to Lord Milner, that he was likely to be much less on his guard against a gentleman who was protector of the Chinese, and who, let me say, had been earnest and energetic on all other occasions in protecting the Chinese and was constantly representing their wrongs and grievances, and endeavouring to secure a redress of them. Really, in common fairness, we must admit that Lord Milner would be less on his guard against an evil coming from the protector of the Chinese than he would have been against it coming from any one else. Very shortly after this, and after Lord Milner had left, abuses and outrages on the Chinese were reported to Sir Arthur Lawley, and promptly dealt with by him; he withdrew any permission given, and refused to allow any sort of illegal punishment. May I further remind the House that Mr. Lyttelton, in his position as Secretary of State for the Colonies, the moment the matter was brought to his knowledge, expressed in severe terms his disapproval and his profound regret that anything of the kind had taken place? Now we all regret, Lord Milner himself included, that this incident occurred; and could it not now be allowed to rest? Surely, after such an expression of opinion as appears in the Blue-books by his official superiors, was not that sufficient to vindicate the honour of the country which the hon. Member for North Salford had taken under his special care? It seems to me we ought to be satisfied. When the Motion was put down on the Paper by a private Member naturally my great interest was to know the view the Government were going to take. Did they think the circumstances demanded the censure of a great public servant? I hoped that they would take a very broad view of the situation, and that we might find ourselves in absolute agreement. But an Amendment has been put on the Paper. At an earlier 481 part of the day I think the Under-Secretary for the Colonies complained that I had not been able to give him notice of an Amendment which I moved. We have not had much notice. I have much more reason to complain of the action of the Government.
§ MR. CHURCHILLI did not complain of that.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI do not complain in the least. I say we have only had short notice of this Amendment. Although the hon. Member's Resolution has been on the Paper for a long time, it was only this morning that we learned the particular way in which the Government propose to deal with it. They have put down an Amendment. Sir, it is a cowardly Amendment. I would prefer infinitely the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman. At all events that presents a clear issue. I should vote against it with a light heart, but I should vote against it with some respect for the hon. Gentleman who, with, I think, a mistaken impression of his duty, has put it down in clear terms. But the Amendment! It is an Amendment which insults Lord Milner, and at the same time accepts the substantial part of the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman opposite. They think to gain votes by distinctly pointing at Lord Milner, and at the same time withdrawing his name. That is Party tactics; Liberal policy. Well, I must refrain. But there is something else. What is this "conciliatory" Amendment to do? It is proposed in the interests of "peace and conciliation." It is an Amendment which a politician may accept, but which on its merits would be rejected by every honourable man. This Amendment is entrusted to the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. What is the history—I am speaking of recent events—of the connection of the hon. Gentleman with this matter? The other day he was asked a question on this matter, and from that almost sacrosanct position which he now occupies he described this action of the High Commissioner's as a grave dereliction of public duty. Brave words! [MINISTERIAL cheers.] You agree? [Cries of "Entirely," and "Yes."] Why, do not you 482 see that these brave words have very weak conclusions? There is a man in the very highest position in the public service. He has been guilty in your minds and in the minds of the Government of a grave dereliction of duty, and you are going to be satisfied with an empty Resolution which, if you succeed in passing it, will be treated with contempt by everyone who has the honour to appreciate the services of Lord Milner. You cannot condemn him in terms of this kind without admittedly laying yourselves open to the charge that you do not believe what you say, for if you do believe it you would impeach him.
§ MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)I will vote for it if you will move it.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI see hon. Gentlemen below the gangway appreciate the force of my argument. They would impeach him. They have the right to do it. They would repeat the experiment in the case of Warren Hastings at Heaven knows what cost to the country. They would have a great State trial occupying many years. It would end in a verdict of complete acquittal, and probably a subsequent Parliament would pass a most effusive Resolution of gratitude and respect to the person whom they had impeached. I appreciate all that; it is consistent. What I complain of is the policy of the Government. Once more it is what it has been over and over again this session, a policy of contemptible weakness. Those who take this extreme view dare not carry their policy to its logical conclusion. The hon. Gentleman who said Lord Milner had been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty said another thing which astonished me, and is quite new in official procedure. He said Lord Milner had made a Party speech in another place, and that relieved him of any obligation whatever to defend him.† Well, I do not think Lord Milner has lost much. But what a statement! The obligation by honourable and long tradition of great offices to defend any public servant who cannot defend himself. [Cries of "Butler" and "Macdonald."] The, obligation to defend any public servant against unjust or excessive censure is
† See (4) Debates, clii., 1236.483 an obligation independent altogether of all Party considerations. I deny altogether that the speech made by Lord Milner could, by an impartial person, be considered in any possible sense a Party speech. It was a speech made without any attempt to put pressure on the Government. It accepted the plea of the Government that they must have time to form their conclusions, and it put before the Government what they should be glad to have known—the opinion of a man of great experience and great knowledge upon the subject on which they have to pronounce. To call that a Party speech is a misuse of terms. But, even if it had been a Party speech, I will say that the hon. Gentleman cannot, without a great breach of tradition, absolve him self from that honourable necessity placed upon a political chief to say all that can be said in favour of those who serve the Department with which he is concerned.
§ MR. CHURCHILLIt is not so.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINIt matters very little to such a man—to a man who entertains that view of his own obligations and of Lord Milner's services. I think it is regrettable that, on the present occasion, the representation of the Government should be committed to his hands. I say it is the duty of the head of a Department, whoever he may be, to defend the servants of the Department.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)Not for reprehensible conduct.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI say it is the duty of the head of the Department to defend the servants of the Crown against unjust censure. I ask this question—Is it just to censure a public servant who has given eight years, the best years, probably, of his life to the service of his country—is it just to condemn him because he has confessed to an error of judgment on a single occasion? Anyway, that is a new idea of official responsibility. [Cries of "No."] Many years ago—I believe it was in the early fifties— there was a Liberal public servant, a diplomatist of great distinction, Sir James Hudson, who was our Minister 484 at Turin, and who made a statement which was held to be, I think by many Liberals, certainly by the Tory Government then in power, of the highest indiscretion, a great mistake of judgment. Attention was called to it in this House, and it fell to Mr. Disraeli, who was then leading the House, to express the opinion of the Government on the subject. He refused to condemn Sir James Hudson, and this is what he said—
Great services are not cancelled by one act, by one single error, however it may be regretted at the moment.And, therefore, although Sir James Hudson was a political opponent and was known to be a strong adherent of the Liberal cause, Mr. Disraeli in those old days—we are much superior now—had the generosity to defend his political opponent for the reason I have given. Is there not even more reason in the case of Lord Milner? Will the House allow me to try and bring before them the nature of the work which is imposed upon High Commissioners, Viceroys, and Governors of Crown Colonies throughout the Empire? These men are in a way autocrats, and that brings upon them all the disadvantages which autocrats have to suffer. They are responsible for everything, be it great or be it small, in the administration with which they are connected. They are answerable for the security of the possessions for which they are made responsible. They are answerable for order, for legislation, for every detail of administration, for every act, be it great or small, of every member, be he important or otherwise, of the whole administration. For all these things these men are, technically, at any rate, responsible to their Departments and to this House of Commons. They are not infallible. How can you expect to get infallible administrators under such circumstances? I do not believe they are to be found anywhere, but certainly you do not offer much temptation. I have never heard of any one in the colonial service who in these trying positions, having to submit, as he has to do, to this sort of ignorant and irresponsible criticism on the part of people who have none of his responsibility, has become a gold magnate, who has made a fortune, who has even been able to provide for those whom he has left 485 behind him, by devotion to the public service, by his interest in the great work he is conducting from the highest motives. These men, some of them never rising to a great position, others occupying positions of the greatest responsibility, have continued to serve the country, and now you are placing a slight on the whole service in the person of one of its most distinguished representatives—Lord Milner. It is admitted that before he occupied his position in South Africa Lord Milner had done great service to the State—and that is to be considered— he had done great service to the Party opposite. But I put that aside. His great service to the country are his services in South Africa. During a great part of that time he was in a sense responsible to me, and as my colleague and friend a greater man I have never known. I have never known even a great man who did not make mistakes. This man has given his life, he has risked his health, he has lived under conditions which very few in this House would be willing to sustain. Eight hours a day! Why eighteen hours a day of continuous brain work very often fell to his lot. He has had to deal with the Administration in the Cape Colony under great stress and anxiety, in the Transvaal under circumstances of still greater difficulty, and during the whole of that time he has shown an ability, courage, and firmness that ought to commend itself to men who appreciate bravery at a time when his life might have been so much easier if he had shown weakness. Hon. Members opposite may not agree with him, but I appeal with confidence to them to admire the character which he showed in difficult circumstances. And if they disagree with him for that, they cannot condemn him. His policy was my policy as long as I was in the Office. It was Mr. Lyttelton's policy when he succeeded me. They ought not to blame him. We were satisfied with all that he did and we take the reponsibility for every action which we have not officially condemned. It is we who ought to be the subject of their censure if they think we are deserving of it. In a debate which took place a day or two ago, I was struck by a speech delivered by Lord Stanmore. He is, I believe, a strong Liberal, and a most dis- 486 tinguished official. He has occupied the highest offices in many of our Crown Colonies, and he has been Governor of some of the most important possessions of the Crown. Lord Stanmore upon this matter expressed sympathy with Lord Milner. He went further. He expressed his belief that he himself and every Governor had at some time or another on their own responsibility committed the same error of violating the strict letter of the law. Well, hon. Members opposite will not stop it by absurd Resolutions of this kind. They will only stop it when they can make human nature perfect. I do not go so far as Lord Stanmore. I occupied my position for eight years and I am not aware of any violations even of the spirit of the law. But there were very few Governors in my time—and I was fortunate enough to have the most splendid public servants in that capacity—who did not at one time or another make serious mistakes. Well, I want this House to consider the subject from that intimate point of view. Here is this colonial service of ours, which is known and admired throughout the world for its absolute integrity, its freedom from corruption, its ability, its humanity. It is only by these extraordinary qualities that what I may call the daily miracle of the successful administration of the British Empire is continuously carried on. But for them, how would it be possible for these two small islands of ours to administer so large a portion of the earth's surface and with so much distinction and general satisfaction? Sir, I ask the House to put aside every other consideration but that of their Imperial duty, the duty which they cannot escape, even those who least sympathise with the work, be they Irish, Scottish, or English, and look to those great considerations and principles which have made this Colonial Service what it undoubtedly is. I ask them to recognise the merits of this service; and I ask them to appreciate the difficulties under which every member of it lies, and not to discourage them when one of them has committed a mistake which he himself has freely acknowledged. I ask them not to discourage the whole service by harsh criticism of one of its most 487 distinguished members. I hope the house will reject this Amendment. If I may venture to advise my friends I would say that our course is clear. When the Motion is put after the Amendment of the Government has been proposed it will be in the form that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question. I shall vote against that. In so doing I am voting against the Resolution. I shall vote against the Resolution as a whole, and I shall vote against it in part; I shall vote against it in every possible way. If the Amendment is not carried then the Resolution will be put in its entirety and I shall vote against that. If the Amendment of the Government is carried and put as the substantive Motion, I shall then vote against it, as worse indeed, because it is more dishonest, than the Motion. I hope the House will treat this as a question rather outside ordinary political questions, and that it will reject both the Amendment and the Resolution. But if it does not, if it accepts either, if it is carried, in that case I shall rely upon the Parliament of the future whose advent will be quickened by this ill-treatment of one of our great officials—I rely upon the future Parliament to do what Parliaments have done in the past more than once, namely, to repair, tardily it may be, a great injustice and to expunge from our records a Resolution which, if it ever be placed there, will be a disgrace to them.
§ MR. CHURCHILLMr. Speaker, I rise to-day for the second time to follow the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, but I hope I shall not be drawn by that association into imitating or attempting to imitate the protracted, superlative, and, I think, rather laboured exhibition of contempt with which he has occupied the attention of the House. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has heaped contempt and contumely upon my hon. friend the Member for North Salford, and upon the Motion which he has placed upon the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman has used even stronger, or, if it had been in his power, he would have used even stronger, expressions against the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper by the direction of the Prime Minister, and which enjoys the support of those 488 who give him their sympathy and act with him. He described that Amendment as base, cowardly, and dishonest. Then, at least, I hope I may ask for a special measure of the indulgence of the House in order to say anything that may be said in support of a course which has been subjected to such very severe condemnation. I would ask the House to clear their minds of the fierce and bitter elements which the right hon. Gentleman has been the first to introduce into this discussion. I hope the House will try to give a fair consideration to the view which His Majesty's Government desire to submit for their consideration. The Motion which the hon. Member for North Salford has placed on the Paper embodies a proposition, the truth of which I venture to think very few on this side of the House would care to dispute. It has been moved with sincerity and good feeling in speeches of much ability, delivered under great restraint. But I observe that other Amendments have been placed on the Paper during the period that the Motion of the hon. Member has been set forth, and I think that, when divergent views are expressed by Members of the same Party, it would be unbecoming in the Government—and I said something like this last session—to sit silent and refuse to give any clear or direct guidance to the House. Even on a private Members' night, when a Motion of so unusual a character is brought forward, it is the duty of the Government to offer its counsel to the House. We need not lose any time in disputing about the main facts of this case. They have been forcibly repeated to us to-night. We have the admission of Lord Milner that he permitted his subordinate to authorise the illegal flogging of Chinese labourers. We know that, in consequence, flogging was inflicted on a large scale and during several months; we know that that permission was abused, as all permission to administer flogging without the restrictive regulation of the law will infallibly be abused; and we know that actual cruelty and outrage resulted. We know that this was a distinct breach of the treaty obligations which this country had contracted with a Foreign Power, and we know that all the while the 489 Secretary of State in this House, and the Under-Secretary in the other House, were occupied in giving Parliament assurances that nothing of the sort was going on or could possibly go on. Any one who reads the Blue-book will see the facts put forward on the authority of Lord Selborne. I have never been one of those who used the exact term of slavery in characterising the Chinese Labour Ordinance. But I say that, in face of the abuses that grew up from this wicked permission, there has arisen a state of things which makes it impossible to wonder that persons should have been carried away by honest indignation to use the strongest language of condemnation about such a system. If Gentlemen on the other side of the House have suffered from such controversial attacks, all I can say is that the responsibility which they have accepted throughout, and which even to-night they are anxious to assume, convinces me that they have received no more than they deserved. When I was asked in the course of a conversation a week ago to express an opinion on Lord Milner's share in the transaction, I said that I believed his action constituted a grave dereliction of public duty and an undoubted infringement of the law †; and that, I had thought, was the opinion of all of us. Can anyone dispute the fact that for a public officer to authorise illegal flogging is to infringe the law? Can any one deny that an infringement of the law by an officer especially charged to maintain and administer the law is a direct dereliction of public duty? Such an expression of opinion on behalf of the Minister who is for the time being charged with the duty of representing a public department was not merely legitimate but necessary. Most of all is it necessary in the case of the Colonial Office. Under the Secretary of State for the Colonies there are thirty or forty officers of high rank administering under different forms and varying conditions as many separate and distinct provinces, comprising a population of something like 30,000,000 of human beings of many races, creeds, and of almost every colour. To the Secretary of State all these important officers are responsible; and it is from
† See (4) Debates, cliii., 1238.490 the expressions which the Secretary o: State, as the servant of this House, may use that these officers all over the world must be guided in the character of their administration and in the manner in which they discharge their responsibilities to all these many races over whom our authority is exercised. So far from withdrawing or minimising in any way the words which I then used on behalf of and with the assent of the Secretary of State and His Majesty's Government, I can only say that in spite of any difference of opinion entertained on the opposite side of the House, I believe these words amounted to a very fair and very reasonable and proper judgment on the transaction that has taken place. But now we are invited to take a much graver step. We are invited to place a formal censure on the journals of the House. Many hard things have been said rightly or wrongly and in different times about many persons through the mouths of Ministers of the Crown. Very few Motions of this character have ever been placed on the journals of the House. While I do not disagree in any way with the terms of the Motion as stated by my hon. friend, while I admit its truth and admire its moderation, while the Government hive no intention whatever of disparaging the motives which induced the hon. Member to place it on the Paper, yet we do dispute the wisdom and the convenience of procedure which he has adopted, and we do most gravely doubt the practical utility of the step which the House is now asked to take. There are certain objections to passing this Motion in its present form which will readily occur to any one who considers the subject. In the first place the offence was committed under another Government and a different House of Commons. It is, I think, clear from what we have heard to-night that had it been brought to the notice of the other House of Commons it would have received a much more lenient consideration than it does at the hands of the new House of Commons. I admit that there is something of the flavour of retrospective retribution in a new House of Commons going back upon events which have happened under the auspices and the authority of its predecessor. Secondly, it is I think contrary to usage 491 and to right feeling to censure a man unheard. It is true that as Lord Milner is a peer of Parliament we have no authority to bring him to our bar unless he desires to come; but this Motion does not give him the chance or the option of coming. We have, of course, Lord Milner's admissions contained in the Blue-book. We have moreover his statement and expression of regret which he made in another place†; but although these statements and admissions establish Lord Milner's acceptance of responsibility for a breach of the law, through which disastrous consequences resulted, I cannot help thinking that just-minded men, and I am sure my hon. friend, would say that before taking the serious step of placing this Resolution on the journals of the House we should examine much more closely the circumstances attending the giving of this permission, not indeed for the purposes of clearing the noble Lord concerned from the charge of having condoned wrong, or from the charge of having accepted the responsibility of wrong—for that is beyond dispute, and the right hon. Gentleman himself did not attempt to dispute it—but for the purpose of ascertaining how far really he was cognisant of what was taking place, and how far he realised to what excesses and improprieties his subordinate was committing him. I do not wish to try and put some measure of blame on Mr. Evans; but I am bound to say that after a severe examination of Mr. Evans on the subject at the Colonial Office by Mr. Lyttelton his memory appeared to be singularly unretentive on several important points. He could not remember how, where, when, and in what terms this all-important permission had been given, or how he had conveyed it to those in charge of Chinese coolies. In so far as he referred to memoranda and records his statements, so far from being confirmed, were upset. So doubtful and vague were his statements on the subject that Mr. Lyttelton thought it to be his duty to write to Lord Milner and ask whether, in view of the vagueness of Mr. Evans's statements, he could persist in his acceptance of responsibility for these transactions. Lord Milner, after careful consideration, proceeded to accept the responsibility of the statements† See (4) Debates, clii., 930.492 made; and he gave an account to the House of Lords which not merely took the form of the statement that he accepted responsibility, but which purported to be almost a summary, or, at all events, a report of the conversation he had had with Mr. Evans—an account which is so far conclusive that, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, we cannot for a moment attempt to go behind it. I do not attempt to go behind Lord Milner's acceptance of responsiblity. It is quite impossible for us in this House to attempt to do so; and yet I say there is just that element of doubt as to his real moral responsibility for the grave circumstances of this case which I think must tend somewhat to mitigate and also somewhat to suspend the severity of our judgment. But, whether or not, I say without hesitation that it would be peculiar and unprecedented if we were, after only three hours debate, without hearing the person principally concerned, unfortified by the report of a Committee, to record our censure on the noble Lord in terms so solemn and unusual that they have only been employed, I think, twice in the last 100 years. And what about Lord Milner himself? Lord Milner's career has comprised three distinct spheres of activity — Egypt, the Treasury during the famous Death Duties Budget, and South Africa during these last eight lamentable years. With regard to the first of these fields, I suppose there would be no disposition to pass censure in any quarter of the House. With regard to the last two, various opinions are and will be held as between the great political Parties. But I do not think it can fairly be denied in any part of the House that in all these three important sets of public affairs, Lord Milner has worked, according to his lights, strenuously, faithfully, and disinterestedly. Still less can it be denied that during the long period covered by these events, he has played a part which must leave its imprint, for good or for ill, extensively upon the pages of history. I have carefully refrained from passing either censure or eulogy on all or any of these events, not because I am without opinions which at other times I may think or have thought it proper to express—I trust with sufficient clearness—but because I think it would 493 be impossible for us to do justice to his conduct either in the one direction or the other within the compass of a three hours debate, and because I am quite certain it is impossible for the House within such a period to make even a superficial examination of such matters. I mention them for one purpose, and for one purpose alone—to submit to the House that they are very grave matters, which will be talked of for a very long time, and that they lie wholly in the past. Lord Milner has gone from South Africa, probably for ever. The public service knows him no more. Having exercised great authority he now exerts no authority. Having held high employment he now has no employment. Having disposed of events which have shaped the course of history, he is now unable to deflect in the smallest degree the policy of the day. Having been for many years, or at all events for many months, the arbiter of the fortunes of men who are "rich beyond the dreams of avarice," he is to-day poor, and I will add, honourably poor. After twenty years of exhausting service under the Crown he is to-day a retired Civil servant, without pension or gratuity of any kind whatever. [OPPOSITION cries of "Shame."] If it is a shame, there [pointing to the Front OPPOSITION Bench] is where the responsibility lies for any neglect. But I do seriously say to my hon. friend, "Is it worth while to pursue him any further?" There is—[Interruption which was unheard in the gallery]—Really, I must ask the right hon. Member for Croydon to practice a little more courtesy in his demeanour—There is another consideration to which I desire to draw the attention of the House. This new House of Commons is full of earnest, purposeful and vehement men. Let them not overlook or underrate 494 the vexation and mortification which must be experienced by any vehement and earnest man who sees the ideals, the principles, the policies for which he has toiled utterly discredited—[OPPOSITION cries of "By whom? "]—by the people of Great Britain—and who knows that many of the arrangements in which he has consumed all the energies of his life are about to be reversed or dissolved. Lord Milner has ceased to be a factor in public events. Let my hon. friends beware that with the ever ready aid of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham he may not be recreated. Mr. Speaker, I think that great Parties should endeavour to avoid conflicts with private persons. My hon. and learned friend the Member for South Donegal, who asked me the other day whether we proposed to strike the name of Lord Milner from the Privy Council, no doubt is prepared to support that course with instances from that accurate constitutional knowledge for which he is noted. About twenty years ago there came into power a Government not indeed supported by a majority so large as that upon which we rely, but still a Government not inferior in elements of strength and stability to any other of modern times. That Government was carried away by its exultation of victory and its pride of strength to embark upon what I must call the persecution of a political opponent. The House knows well, the Irish Members particularly know well, how this mood of intolerance led that powerful Government to the Parnell Commission, to the infamous Parnell Commission, as I shall call it. And what was the result? What was the advantage which that Government reaped in the end? That great Party 495 was covered with confusion and shame as the result of the course which they followed, and the man against whom all their power was directed was raised high in public esteem and popularity. Great cities conferred their freedom upon Mr. Parnell. He received on every side manifestations of public respect. The cause for which he was fighting was greatly advanced. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: But he was innocent.] I do not for one moment want to institute any exact comparison between the circumstances of that case and the case with which we are now called upon to deal. I do say that in the one case upon the specific fact alleged, Lord Milner is clearly guilty and in the other case upon the specific fact alleged that Mr. Parnell was proved to be unjustly accused. But the moral which I draw from the Parnell affair—a moral which, I think, may be drawn also from the conflict of the House of Commons with Mr. Bradlaugh in 1880—is that it is never worth while for a great Party to pursue a private person, and least of all when that private person happens also to be a political opponent. If we were a political Party clutching precariously at power it might be worth while to strike a blow at a prominent political opponent. But we have won so completely that the very ideas and forces to which we were opposed seem to have melted away as if they had never been. As we have triumphed, so we may be merciful; as we are strong, so we can afford to be generous. There are transactions in the government of States about which people may hold strong opinions, but which it may be much wiser, in the tolerance of overwhelming victory, deliberately to consign to silence and oblivion. I frankly own that I should not press these 496 considerations on the House if the range of the Motion and the Amendment we are discussing was confined to this House, or even to this country. The Colonial Office deals with many questions which are almost as critical and almost as perilous as any questions with which the Foreign Office is concerned. But whereas the Foreign Office is increasingly regarded as outside the scope of Party politics, the Colonial Office lies in the heart and centre of the fiercest partisanship and controversy. It is inevitable, in view of what has occurred in South Africa, that the people should follow with the keenest attention events that take place in a land for which they have sacrificed and suffered so much. I do not complain. On the contrary, the Government are prepared to assert the right of the House of Commons to be consulted on all matters affecting: the Colonies which may be said to involve in their largest and truest sense Imperial interests. But the situation in South Africa is difficult and complex. For its difficulty and complexity we are not responsible. We have succeeded to a legacy of financial, social, and racial confusion. There, on that bench, are the testators of evil. And, sir, what an inheritance! A country struggling back to civilization after being laid waste by fire and sword, with all the after consequences of rebellion and civil war, a great army from over the seas mobilised for immediate war, a ponderous constabulary, a costly and not too efficient nominated and imported bureaucracy, the great industries on which the development of the country depends all resting on an essentially unnatural, unhealthy, and unstable basis—in all this vicious tangle no circumstance of first importance can 497 be discerned for which we on this side of the House are responsible. But we have got to face them all, and surely we have got difficulties enough without going out of the way to find them. [OPPOSITION ironical cheers.] Do not let hon. Gentlemen on this side be misled by those derisive cries, which, let me say, do very little honour to the Party, the Imperial Party, which, on every occasion for the last ten years, has been swift to impute want of patriotism to those who might not wholly share their views. When we have so many real things to do which must be done in the present and in the future, why cannot we leave the past alone? I feel it my duty to say to the House to-night that we believe, having some access to information of authority, that this Motion, if accepted, would undoubtedly aggravate social and racial animosity in South Africa, and that it would have the effect of increasing any tension which may unhappily exist there without any really effective purpose, or without securing in return any substantial advantage to Parliament or to this country. For 100 years South Africa has been divided by the quarrels of two white races, who are equally intolerant of each other, in a land where they are almost equally balanced. The noble Lord who is the subject of this Motion has played the chief part in the climax of that long and bitter duel; he has left behind him in South Africa many friends and partisans, and many foes. If the House of Commons takes the extreme step of passing a formal vote of censure upon that officer, one party in South Africa will be affronted, the other party in South Africa will be exultant. Every demonstration of hostility against Lord Milner on the one 498 hand will be followed by a counter demonstration in his favour on the other—not because of any violent opinion which is entertained on account of the treatment of these Chinese labourers, but because Lord Milner has been the central figure in the tremendous events of the last eight years in South Africa. And I do say that we, who have the real difficulties of this problem thrust upon us day after day, should be incurring a grave responsibility if we lent ourselves to any circumstances or manifestation, however desirable, which had the effect of inflaming anew the bitter passions by which South Africa is racked. It is not my fault that I have been called upon to trespass so much on the good nature of the House to-day. I must ask the House to remember that a very great part of the machinery of public expression in these colonies is controlled by hands none too friendly to the present Government, or to the present majority in the House of Commons. The people out there only hear the worst of us; day after day, all South Africa that reads English is taught to believe that we do not care what happens to them, that we are anxious to ruin their material prosperity, and hon. Gentlemen opposite lend themselves readily to that business. But the Government has no such intentions or desires. We seek the material prosperity of the Transvaal, and of South Africa, we seek it not less earnestly because we believe that material prosperity can never be secured while it stands on a foundation which is unhealthy or unnatural. We desire to act fairly by both the great races in South Africa; we desire to labour, so far as opportunity and power may be given us, to effect a permanent settlement of that country in the interests of that country, 499 and without any desire to secure any Party advantage by any particular treatment of the question in this way or in that. The Government nourish large designs for the establishment of Parliaments and the reconciliation of races, and there is no room in those designs for any exact or pedantic meting out of proper doses of justice to individuals concerned in the tragic events of the pest. This Parliament has rightly aspired and has rightly claimed to exert an influence upon the course of politics which shall be intimate, immediate, and direct. No other Parliament in modern times has put forward that claim. Often the House of Commons can only speak words; to night it is enabled to take substantial and definite action; to night, by carrying the Amendment which We have placed on the Paper, by showing that we at any rate are prepared to set an example in saying, "Let bygones be bygones," the House of Commons can send a message to South Africa which cannot be perverted, misrepresented, or misunderstood—a message of comfort to a troubled people, a message of tolerance and conciliation to warring races, a message, indeed, of good hope to the Cape. It is for these reasons which I have endeavoured to set before the House that His Majesty's Government have placed on the Paper the Amendment which I now have the honour to move.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out from the word 'House' to the end of the Question, and insert the words 'while recording its condemnation of the flogging of Chinese coolies in breach of the law, desires, in the interests of peace and conciliation in South Africa, to refrain from passing censure upon individuals'"—(Mr. Churchill)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI hope the House will allow me in a very brief speech to make some comments on the extraordinary utterance which we have just had in explanation of the policy of the Government. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies began his speech with an air, I thought, of considerable self-satisfaction by saying that he was not going to imitate what he regarded as the policy of some of his predecessors on this bench, but was going, as he expressed it, to give clear and direct guidance to the House. Let the House compare the Amendment in which he proposes to give clear and direct guidance with the speech in which he has recommended that Amendment. In the first part of that speech the hon. Gentleman, lapsing into an unwonted mood, I think, of justice to the man who is the subject of debate to-night, said he thought it would not be proper that Lord Milner should be condemned without being heard; there were circumstances which had come to his knowledge in his department connected with all this transaction which deserved the attentive consideration of those who desired to pass censure on Lord Milner, and in his opinion that was a ground for not passing the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Salford. But then he went on to say that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Salford, and that there was nothing in the Resolution from which he differed; and I would further point out the fact that in the Amendment which the Government have put forward there is something about the interests of peace and conciliation 501 in South Africa, but there is not one word connected with justice to the individual who is being attacked. What is the meaning of that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he said that Lord Milner should be heard, if he really agrees with the Member for North Salford? If he thinks the censure of Lord Milner would be in these circumstances an injustice to Lord Milner, why does not that appear in the Government Amendment? What are we to say of a Government who admit that the Resolution before the House is unjust unless the person who is the subject of it is heard, and who move an Amendment in which that point is absolutely ignored? Then the hon. Gentleman talked about the responsibilities of himself and his colleagues, which, no doubt, are great, in connection with the whole of South African policy, and he said that Lord Milner had friends in South Africa as well as enemies. For my own part, from what I have seen of what has recently passed in this country, if I were Lord Milner there is no Boer I would not prefer as my enemy to some of the Gentlemen who attack him in this country while saying they do not attack the individual, but only the official, whatever that may mean. I do not know what the distinction may be worth. What does the whole argument of the Under-Secretary amount to but this, that they know that for years those who speak our language and who are loyal to our State have regarded Lord Milner as one of the greatest props and one of the greatest supports the British cause has ever had in that country? They may be wrong, but they think so. It is because the Government are afraid of Lord Milner's friends in South Africa, not because that they dis- 502 agree with the Resolution—they say they agree with it—but because they are afraid of Lord Milner's friends in South Africa they abandon the Resolution and substitute the Amendment. There may be many Gentlemen on both sides of the House who are far more experienced in the affairs of South Africa than I am; but for my own part, if I were an Englishman living in South Africa, I should be able to see uncommonly little difference between the Resolution backed up by the speeches of the mover and the seconder on the one hand, and the Amendment backed up by the speech of the Under-Secretary on the other. So far as I am concerned I should in those circumstances say that this was an attack on a great citizen, who has done great work for the Empire, and I should infinitely prefer the speeches of the mover and the seconder to the insulting protection accorded to him by His Majesty's Government. The Under-Secretary has made an appeal to the hon. Gentleman below the gangway to withdraw his Resolution on these grounds. He said Lord Milner was a great man. Where is he now? He did wield great power. What is he now compared with hon. Gentlemen below the gangway? He had authority once. That authority has been taken away. He appealed to the Member for North Salford not to recreate him. I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Salford has the power to recreate many Lord Milners, but if he has, I hope he will exercise that beneficent power in the interests of the Empire. I think the Under-Secretary, and I think the House, have rather forgotten that they are arrogating to themselves the position of an historical judge. They are not dealing with an official, but with a man who is 503 no longer an official. They are dealing with transactions that are over. They are attempting to record an historical judgment, and it is in the interests of the House itself, certainly not in the interests of Lord Milner, that I would earnestly beg them to reject with equal contempt the original Motion and the Amendment of the Government by which the Government have attempted to make these proceedings palatable to Lord Milner's friends in South Africa. Do let the House remember that Lord Milner's career, whether they approve or disapprove of it, was a long career and a great career, and whatever our judgment may be upon it, no human being with the smallest conception of facts can doubt that, at all events, it was a great career and a long career. Is it wise for this House to look back on that career and pass upon it one single judgment connected with one single event? Of this great career is the House to find nothing better to say than this:—
Mr. Byles, South Africa (High Commissioner),—That this House expresses its disapproval of the conduct of Lord Milner, as High Commissioner of South Africa and Governor of the Transvaal, in authorising the flogging of Chinese labourers in breach of the law, in violation of treaty obligations, and without the knowledge or sanction of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies.Is that to be the solitary notice which we are going to put in the journals of the House with regard to these great transactions in which Lord Milner's part has been insignificant neither in amount nor of a kind which can move the contempt or disapproval of any critic, to whatever Party he belongs? This House is all powerful in dealing with the present. With the past it has no more to do than any other historical critic. Do not let us to-night sully the pages of our journals by making it appear that this is all that 504 a great representative assembly can say about one of the most eminent servants which this country ever possessed, while they are silent about all the more important passages in his career; do not let it be said that one indefensible blunder and one alone, not carrying with it great consequences, soon remedied, not in any way connected with the great lines of policy which it was his business to deal with—that that incident and that incident alone, is to be selected and have the honour of mention in the journals of the House. It is not for Gentlemen below the gangway on that side or on this, for any Gentleman on this front bench, or any Gentleman on the other front bench, to create or recreate Lord Milner. Such men are the rare fruits of the great political education which this country, whatever else may be said of it, has been able to give to her sons in such measure that no nation in the world can compare with it in its production of great public servants fitted to carry out the work of the nation in every part of the world. Lord Milner is among those servants one of the greatest; and it is in the interests of this House chiefly that I beg it to reject the Resolution which has been put down upon the Paper by the hon. Gentleman below the gangway, to reject that with the respect which we owe to strong convictions, however narrow may be the view taken of the events with which they deal, but to reject with not less decision the far more contemptible Amendment avowedly and openly moved by His Majesty's Government, not because they are zealous for justice, not because they are anxious to protect the individual, not because they have any regard for the great service of the Crown, but for no better reason than that they are afraid of our own 505 countrymen in South Africa. The course which is suggested by the hon. Gentleman below the gangway is, I think, narrow and objectionable. The course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman has every defect suggested in the Resolution of the hon. Member, and it is, in addition to that, utterly mean and utterly contemptible. Let the House reject one and the other and show itself worthy to judge of the history of its own country.
§ MR. RUFUS ISAACS(Reading) proceeded to refer to the speeches which had been made.
§ Mr. G. H. WILLIAMSON (Worcester)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid that the speeches which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London could only have the effect of showing how much they had failed to appreciate the force of the argument which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham himself. What this House was
§ asked to do was to express its condemnation of the flogging of Chinese coolies in South Africa. Did hon. Members opposite approve of flogging? If they did not, they were logically bound to support that portion of the Motion which condemned it.
§ Mr. BYLESrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid a second Question was whether hon. Members desired to forward the interests of peace and conciliation.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and negatived.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 355; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 23.)
511| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bennett, E. N. |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Berridge, T. H. D. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Barnard, E. B. | Bertram, Julius |
| Adkins, W. Ryland | Barran, Rowland Hirst | Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Billson, Alfred |
| Alden, Percy | Beale, W. P. | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Beauchamp, E. | Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) | Boland, John |
| Ambrose, Robert | Beck, A. Cecil | Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Bell, Richard | Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) |
| Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry | Bellairs, Carlyon | Bramsdon, T. A. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Belloc, Hiliare Joseph Peter R. | Branch, James |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Benn, John Williams (Devonp'rt | Brigg, John |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Benn, W (T.'w'r' Hamlets, S. Geo. | Bright, J. A. |
| Brocklehurst, W. D. | Flynn, James Christophers | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs, Leigh) | Fuller, J. M. F. | Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen | Fullerton, Hugh | Levy, Maurice |
| Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) | Furness, Sir Christopher | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Gardner, Col. A. (Herefordsh. S. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lough, Thomas |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Ginnell, L. | Lupton, Arnold |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Glendinning, R. G. | Lynch, H. B. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Gooch, George Peabody | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Grant, Corrie | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Caldwell, James | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Cameron, Robert | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | M'Callum, John M. |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Grove, Archibald | M'Crae, George |
| Cawley, Frederick | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Gulland, John W. | M'Killop, W. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | M'Laren, Sir C. B. S. (Leicester) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hall, Frederick | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) | Halpin, J. | Maddison, Frederick |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hammond, John | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Clough, W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Coats, Sir. T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Hardy, George A (Suffolk) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithn'ss-sh | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Collins, Sir Wm J.(S. Pancras, W. | Hart-Davies, T. | Massie, J. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Cooper, G. J. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Meagher, Michael |
| Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Meehan, Patrick A. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Menzies, Walter |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hayden, John Patrick | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Molteno, Percy Alfred |
| Cox, Harold | Hedges, A. Paget | Mond, A. |
| Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth) | Helme, Norval Watson | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Crean, Eugene | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Montagu, E. S. |
| Cremer, William Randal | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) | Mooney, J. J. |
| Crombie, John William | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Higham, John Sharp | Morrell, Philip |
| Crossley, William J. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Cullinan, J. | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Moss, Samuel |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Hogan, Michael | Murnaghan, George |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Holland, Sir William Henry | Murphy, John |
| Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hooper, A. G. | Myer, Horatio |
| Devlin, Charles Rawsay (Galway | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N | Nicholls, George |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Horniman, Emslie John | Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Nolan, Joseph |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Norman, Henry |
| Dillon, John | Hyde, Clarendon | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Idris, T. H. W. | Nuttall, Harry |
| Duckworth, James | Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid |
| Duffy, William J. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) | Jardine, Sir J. | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Johnson, W. (Nuneton) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) | Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Dowd, John |
| Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N) |
| Elibank, Master of | Kearley, Hudson E. | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | O'Malley, William |
| Erskine, David C. | Kilbride, Denis | O'Mara, James |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Kitson, Sir James | O'Shee, James John |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Laidlaw, Robert | Partington, Oswald |
| Fenwick, Charles | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Paul, Herbert |
| Ferens, T. R. | Lambert, George | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Lamont, Norman | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid | Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Verney, F. W. |
| Pollard, Dr. | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Vivian, Henry |
| Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne | Waldron, Laurence Ambrose |
| Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) | Sears, J. E. | Wallace, Robert |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Seaverns, J. H. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Radford, G. H. | Seely, Major J. B. | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
| Reddy, M. | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Rees, J. D. | Simon, John Allsebrook | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Riehards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Whitbread, Howard |
| Richardson, A. | Soares, Ernest J. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Spicer, Albert | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wiles, Thomas |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Robinson, S. | Sullivan, Donal | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Sutherland, J. E. | Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid) |
| Roche, Augustine (Cork) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Roche, John (Galway, East) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury) | Young, Samuel |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | |
| Rose, Charles Day | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Rowlands, J. | Tomkinson, James | |
| Runciman, Walter | Toulmin, George | |
| Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Courthope, G. Loyd | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W |
| Ashley, W. W. | Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S. | Keswick, William |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon Sir H. | Craik, Sir Henry | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dalrymple, Viscount | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Doughty, Sir George | Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Du Cros, Harvey | Liddell, Henry |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Faber, George Denison (York) | Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham |
| Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne | Fardell, Sir T. George | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin. S) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Fell, Arthur | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Fletcher, J. S. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'r Ham. | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Brotherton, Edward Allen | Haddock, George R. | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hambro, Charles Eric | Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hardy Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C. |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.) | Harris, Dr. Frederick R. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Nield, Herbert |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Helmsley, Viscount | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Cave, George | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) | Percy, Earl |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Hills, J. W. | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Rawlinson, John Frederick P. |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Hunt, Rowland | Ronton, Major Leslie |
| Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n | Snowden, P. | Williamson, G. H. (Worcester) |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Roberts, S ((Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Starkey, John R. | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Stone, Sir Benjamin | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Salter, Arthur Clavell | Thomson, W Mitchell-(Lanark) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles | Thornton, Percy M. | Younger, George |
| Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert | Tumour, Viscount | |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland - Hood and Mr. Forster. |
| Sloan, Thomas Henry | Walrond, Hon. Lionel | |
| Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Walsh, Stephen | |
| Smith. F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | |
| Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
§ Resolved, "That this House, while recording its condemnation of the flogging of Chinese coolies in breach of the law, desires, in the interests of peace and conciliation in South Africa, to refrain from passing censure upon individuals."—(Mr. Churchill.)