§ 1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £32,470, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."
CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)said that the first objection he took to this Vote was the grouping together of the four items of which it consisted. He did not raise any objection to the subsidy for steamers to the West India Islands, because he remembered the history of that subsidy; but he intended to move the reduction of the total Vote by £1,000 on account of the item "Transvaal, Repatriation of Chinese Coolies." If this sum of £22,000 in the revised Estimates was the whole sum of money necessary to repatriate all the Chinese coolies in the Transvaal who were desirous of returning home, in accordance with the design of the Government, his objection would not be so great as it was at the present time. The Explanatory Note in regard to this item was that it was in accordance with the undertaking given by the Government. He had taken the trouble to search for these undertakings, which he supposed were embodied in a great number of speeches delivered in this House and in Ordinances. Last session the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates said that the particular reason why the Government intended to give the undertakings was that, as he called it—
the hideous Chinese monstrosity must be got rid of,and the hon. Gentleman added that—No doubt a short notice would be required in order to make sure that the labourer is sincere in his desire to return home; but if a Chinaman expressed a desire to return home 1464 for any good reason, or without giving any reason at all, then his right to repatriation would be sustained by the Crown and the funds necessary for that return would be provided by the British Exchequer.If this sum of £22,000 had been expended in repatriating Chinese coolies, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some statistics showing whether those Chinamen who had been repatriated had been repatriated without their giving any explanation at all. From time to time he had addressed questions to the hon. Gentleman regarding that particular point and had received very unsatisfactory answers. He asked, on 30th May last, whether a bare demand for immediate repatriation on the ground that the conditions of his indentured labour were slavery or tantamount to slavery—using the hon. Gentleman's own words earlier in the session—justified the expenditure of the money now asked for.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill,) Manchester, N. W.Those were not my words.
§ MR. CHURCHILLNo, it is not an error of terminology, but of substance.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he would leave the Committee to judge of that. The hon. Gentleman in answer to the question which he had just quoted said, as he understood, that a bare statement of that kind would not be deemed conclusive in itself. He took it from the hon. Gentleman that a Chinese coolie could, without giving any reasons whatever, be repatriated. If, when a Chinese coolie came to an inspector and said that he considered the conditions of labour were slavery or tantamount to slavery, the hon. Gentleman said that that was not sufficient to secure repatriation, then some explanation was required to reconcile two statements so diametrically opposed. This £22,000 was admittedly, for such a gigantic proceeding as the repatriation of all the Chinese in the 1465 Transvaal, a small sum; but the smallness of the sum condemned the attitude which the Government took in the first instance, because their desire, as voiced by the hon. Gentleman, was that the whole system of Chinese labour in the Transvaal should be put a stop to and that the Chinese should be convinced that they would be repatriated. Had the expenditure of this £22,000 had the effect of putting an end to this "hideous Chinese monstrosity?" Had the hon. Gentleman's wordy promises of last session been fulfilled? How could they be fulfilled at a cost of a mere £22,000? It should be borne in mind that, according to the Ordinance approved of by the late Government and modified by the present Government, repatriation was only to be made at the expense of the employers if the Chinese coolies were badly behaved and unsuitable for work in the mines; and so there would be two classes of Chinese coolies—those who would be repatriated in the ordinary way by the mineowners for faults or bad behaviour and those who were to be repatriated at the expense of the British Government. That was where the hon. Gentleman owed a full explanation to the Committee. They were all aware of the gradually growing feeling in the House and in the country because, after all their endeavours to stamp out this kind of work, the Government only moved to devote £22,000 to that purpose. Passing on to the question of the flax industry in St. Helena, he thought some explanation ought to be given of the £4,070 devoted to that purpose. He had no desire to interfere in any way with the prosperity of St. Helena or to cast any aspersions upon the authorities of that island. This large sum of money appeared, a however, for the first time on the Estimates, and it was therefore due to the Committee that some explanation should be made, particularly when it was, only the beginning of a scheme which would be carried further. It would be necessary to know whether the scheme had been so far successful that a sum of money had been sunk in the industry and whether it was likely to prove remunerative, and whether this new or revived industry was confined to the island itself or whether there was an export trade. It was 1466 further important to know whether, in the event of the scheme being a thorough success, the Government intended to go on with it any further. He moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,470, be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Craig.)
§ *MR. MACKARNESS (Berkshire, Newbury)did not quite understand on what ground the hon. Member was opposing this Vote. If the only ground was that it was not a large enough sum for the purpose in hand, he would have a good deal of sympathy from Ministerialists; but he did not understand whether hon. Members opposite adhered to their position in support of Chinese labour after all that had occurred. He thought it was important, however, that the Committee and the country should understand from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, what the position of the Tory Party was on this subject to-day.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that if the hon. Member introduced that subject he might be replied to later on, and he would point out that at present they were only dealing with the subject of repatriation.
§ *MR. MACKARNESSsaid he did not wish to allude to any other aspect of the Chinese question than repatriation, but he would like to know from some authoritative Member of the Party opposite on what ground they opposed the Vote, if they did oppose it at all. For his own part, and he thought he spoke for a considerable number of his hon. friends on that side of the House, it certainly could not be conceived that they regarded the Vote with any great enthusiasm, because it did not go the length they would like to go. The hon. Member had referred to the words used by the Under-Secretary of State as to the meaning of the word "repatriation" last session. They were to the effect that "if a Chinaman expressed a desire to return from any good reason or even if he gave no reason at all, his right to do so would be assisted 1467 by the forces of the Crown and the funds to enable him to return to his country would be found by the British Exchequer." That seemed to him a very clear policy indeed, but that was no the policy of the proclamation which the Government ordered to be posted in the compounds of the Transvaal, giving notice that Chinamen would be repatriated only on certain conditions. Those conditions, however, were of a much more rigid character than would have been expected from the statement of his hon. friend. He would just read these conditions which were published in his recent annual Report by Mr. J. W Jamieson, the Superintendent of Foreign Labour in the Transvaal, who was responsible for dealing with all questions affecting that labour, also for the proclamation which was made in Chinese and in English, and the conditions made under it allowing repatriation. It read—
In sending in your petitions, however, you must clearly inform me of the motives which influenced you in the first instance to enlist, and now influence you in wishing to return to China, of the amount of monthly wages you earn, of the class of work on which you are engaged, and of the money you have saved. I will take note of and register the application. It will then be your duty, if required, to work in your mine faithfully and honestly for one month. If at the end of this period you are still of the same mind, and will contribute half of the wages earned in that month towards your travelling expenses, I will arrange for your return to China without unnecessary delay.That could hardly be said to be a carrying out of the very simple and wise words which were spoken by the Under-Secretary of State that the Chinaman might return to his country, without giving any reasons, at the expense of the British Exchequer. It appeared from that that he was to pay part of the expenses. This was recognised to be an extreme condition by such an unfriendly critic as the Transvaal Leader, which said that under the limitations contained in the Proclamation no Chinaman would be able to leave the Rand. That was the view which was taken both there and here, and in consequence of Liberal representations the proclamation was at once amended and a revised edition of it was issued by Lord Elgin and published. But in the revised edition there still appeared this liability 1468 to pay half a month's wages, and the other original conditions. What they complained of was that such a proclamation, couched in such language, should be hedged round with such conditions, which were not of the kind that they had a right to expect from the speeches of his hon. friend or from the Prime Minister, having regard to the first speech the right hon. Gentleman made at the opening of this Parliament. It was not merely laid down that the Chinaman should declare the motive which led him to desire to go home, but it was stipulated that he should deposit his petition in a box, and in that way it was to reach the Government of the Transvaal, or the Superintendent of Foreign Labour, Mr. Jamieson. In this Report of Mr. Jamieson we had a very interesting statement as to the only way in which the Chinese labourer was to have his grievances redressed. He described the state of things in many compounds, in which the police, working in collusion with their so called-controllers, committed excesses and blackmailed the Chinese; and owing to a system of mutual screening it was impossible to bring these offences home to them. The managers, being unable to communicate directly viva voce with their Chinese employees, were kept entirely in the dark, and, so long as, on the surface, things were working smoothly, believed that all was in order. It was when the officers of the Department, baffled at every turn in their efforts to get at the truth, set about probing into this corruption that friction arose. The Report proceeded to say that—Asking the coolies to lay complaints or grievances by means of petition before the superintendent was held to be subversive of mine discipline, and arguing analogically from accepted principles governing the armies and navies of the world, it was contended that the Chinese on the mines should be taught to exhaust all means of redress through the various grades of non-governmental executive officers placed over them before venturing to apply to this Department.Had there been any reasonable prospect of the coolies obtaining redress through such channels this very sound and reasonable contention would have been willingly subscribed to. But when it was well known that insuperable difficulties lay 1469 in the way of any coolie endeavouring to surmount the barriers separating him from his employer, one was reluctantly compelled to differ. Let them take, for example, a mine on which the controller had sold himself in the manner described to his Chinees police. A coolie with a grievance against the police would on the basis of this contention have to apply to him in the first instance. Human nature being what it was, it was in the highest degree improbable that he would obtain a hearing. He would, on the contrary, in all likelihood, have a sound thrashing administered to him for his temerity. Should he reach the controller, would the latter be prone to entertain a charge against his confederates and lay it before the manager? And should the coolie by chance penetrate to the actual presence of the manager, how could he make himself articulate? The manager, not being conversant with Chinese, would send for the controller, who would no doubt see to it that nothing incriminating himself or his police was allowed to reach the employer's ears. Strenuous efforts were also made to discourage the presentation of petitions in writing to the superintendent, a measure designed to afford the aggrieved y coolie an opportunity of unburdening himself to an impartial outsider; it was held that such should be invariably addressed to the manager. Granted the latter, how would the manager propose to deal with them? He could not read Chinese, and would have to call in the aid of some mine interpreter. This class of person, being, as a rule, far from trustworthy, would take equally good care to suppress any inconvenient revelations therein contained. In practice, as a matter of fact, experience has taught the coolie to be chary of sending petitions of any kind, because as one of their number remarked—What is the good of lodging petitions when the box is systematically opened by the police, the contents read, and the applicant punished by them? The fact that the box for purposes of convenience, was put near the gate in close proximity to the police quarters, enabled the latter to keep a deterrent eye on all who attempted to make use of it.Under these circumstances, what chance had those coolies who wished to go home under this repatriation scheme? When 1470 hon. Members opposite made a great point of the fact that only 750 applications had been made under this repatriation proclamation, the wonder with him was that there were even seventy. That being the case, he would only say one other thing in answer to the observation that these applications had been so few. It was a most remarkable thing that although there had only been 700 applications under the repatriation proclamation, there had been considerably more coolies who had bought out and out their discharge, and he number who had deserted and gone into the open country was larger still. When they knew that the Chinaman directly he got out into the open country was an outlaw with not only every man's hand but every man's rifle against him, that he went into the open country with starvation and robbery before him, with liability to be shot at—when they found there were 1,700 or 1,800 coolies who did that rather than apply for repatriation, they were justified in saying that the fault was with the proclamation and not with the will of the Chinese. There were evils so inherent among the Chinese that even if repatriation had been carried on more in the way they could have wished, in their judgment it would not have been sufficient. What they ought to have seen and what they would like to have seen was compulsory repatriation begun as soon as the Government were in a position to appreciate all the circumstances; to have seen it begun gradually so that when the new Colonial Government came into office they would have found the system in operation and would have only had to carry it on. Such a thing would have saved both the Government in South Africa and the Imperial Government a great deal of embarrassment. The results had shown that this system a of labour could not and ought not to be maintained by any good Government, First of all, there was the illegal flogging that went on. He was quite prepared to give those who sanctioned it credit for the belief that that was the only way in which this labour could be enforced, but what a commentary that was on the system.
THE CHAIRMANsaid this was a vote for repatriation, and the hon. Member 1471 was not entitled to discuss the whole system of Chinese labour.
§ *MR. MACKARNESSexplained that he was trying to give his reasons why repatriation should have been carried out compulsorily. The outrages that had occurred in the Transvaal were a justification for it. When they considered that among the 47,000 Chinese on the Rand now the convictions for murder were almost as numerous as, and that other serious crimes were more numerous than in England and Wales with a population of 32,000,000, he held that they were justified in condemning this system so thoroughly that there could not be any other possible course than compulsory repatriation. Another reason was the disclosures made in the Report of the investigations of Mr. Bucknill, disclosures that had never been denied. The state of things disclosed there not only convinced Members of this House but such men as Sir Richard Solomon, who up to that time had supported Chinese labour. A further reason, even more powerful than any other with some Members of the House, was that by repatriating the coolies there would be more employment for white men. Hon. Members opposite had contended that the more Chinese that were imported the more employment there would be for white men, but the figures showed exactly the contrary.
THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this Supplementary Estimate was for a sum of money for the repatriation of the Chinese. The hon. Member might deal with that, but he would not be in order in discussing the whole question of Chinese labour.
§ *MR. MACKARNESSsaid he was trying to show that this Vote should have been much larger, and he thought the reasons he had mentioned were germane to the subject. They were anxious to know how far repatriation was going to be continued in the future. Statements had been made in the Letters Patent and Constitution of the Transvaal, and in the speech of his hon. friend and other Members of the Government, that this repatriation 1472 would be continued and would be insisted upon even if the Transvaal Government should be desirous of putting an end to it. He appealed to his hon. friend on this occasion to give an assurance that all the promises made in regard to repatriation would be adhered to to the letter, because statements had been made in another place by the Secretary of State which seemed to lend some colour to the suggestion that there might be renewals of licences to Chinese and that there would be no repatriation if licences were renewed. He hoped therefore the hon. Gentleman would say that there was to be no departure from this policy of repatriation.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)said that before discussing the question of the repatriation of the Chinese, he desired to ask a question with regard to the Vote for £4,070 to start the flax industry at St. Helena. The reason for this Vote was that the garrison had been removed from that island in order to save £10,000 to the Exchequer. They were now asked to vote £4,070 to start an industry to make up for the loss caused to the island by the removal of the garrison. In the Report of Sir Daniel Morris on the present position and prospects of the agricultural resources of the Island of St. Helena.
The area of St. Helena is about 45 square miles. Of the 28,000 acres of which the island consists, the greater portion suitable for cultivation is in private hands. Of this area probably 20,000 acres, or more than two-thirds, are composed of barren rocky wastes or clayey slopes totally unfit in their present condition for any agricultural operations. About 8,000 acres are in pasture and hay land. The tendency is to throw more and more land out of cultivation and place it in grass. This is a retrograde step as regards the agricultural interests of the island, but it is inevitable under the influences which obtain at present. Under forest, both of indigenous and introduced trees, there may be altogether about 400 acres. This last area practically represents all the land now used for raising crops and for contributing to the food supply of the natives. Under these circumstances, the outlook in St. Helena is a very serious one. Unless the Home Government is prepared to give the island some assistance, and support it while endeavouring to develop the resources of its soil, I fear there is little hope in the future. I would recommend, in the first instance, that an intelligent and competent gardener be sent to the island to take up the entire question of the revival of agricultural pursuits, and if 1473 the local Government is unable to support such an officer and a small staff, that a grant be made for the purpose by the Home Government.He hoped and trusted that the £4,000 would set the island on its legs, but he rather feared that before many years another grant would be required from the Imperial Government for carrying on the industry. Flax was mostly grown in Russia at the present time, near Archangel, and there, where the conditions of labour were cheap, where food was cheap, they made a bare profit out of flax. In Belgium, where flax was cultivated very scientifically, a very small profit was made; and if they looked at the statistics of Ireland for the last thirty years, they would find that the cultivation of flax had diminished by one-half. He felt rather sceptical about the success of this proposal, though he gave it his cordial support; but if the Government thought £4,000 would get them out of their difficulty they were very much mistaken. As to the repatriation of the Chinese coolies, in the first place he objected to the Vote because he did not see why the country should be obliged to pay the election expenses of the Government, or why they should be obliged to give the friends who helped them so much a free journey across the sea at the cost of £30 a head. He also objected to the Vote because he did not see why the Chinese, who were well able to look after themselves, should be given preferential treatment over other indentured labourers of the Empire. Why should the Chinaman, who made his own contract, be sent back at this country's cost simply because he was bored and wanted to go home, when a child of twelve or fifteen years of age, in another part of the Empire, was obliged to work out the long period of three years' servitude, from early morn to dewy eve, with one hour off? He simply drew attention to the curious coincidence that, within one week of February 19th, when the Prime Minister made his declaration that Chinamen were to be sent back at the public expense, this other Convention was signed imposing these conditions.
§ MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. Member entitled to refer to the Hebrides Convention on the Vote for Repatriation?
§ MR. ASHLEYsaid he would not go into that further. He objected to this Vote for the very good reason that he thought that the Chinaman was far better able to stand the heavy work in the mine in South Africa than was the native. The Chinese coolie had been recruited in the north of China, and was a miner, like his ancestor, before him; he was accustomed to work below ground, like the coalminer in England. But it was a very severe task for the native of South Africa, who was mostly recruited from the mines in Portuguese South Africa, a country almost level with the sea, and very hot. The natives were taken to the elevated region where the mines were situated, and they were very much subject to pneumonia; the death-rate among the natives in the mines was very high indeed, and the mortality among the Chinamen was much lower. For that reason, if for no other, he supported the retention of the Chinese in the Rand. It was very difficult for agriculturists in the Transvaal to get labour for their farms—he was speaking of two or three years ago. A gentleman who came over here in connection with the South African Exhibition, and who had had a great deal to do with farmers, both Boer and Briton, said that before the advent of the Chinaman he was always having complaints that the farmers could not get labourers, but that since the Chinaman had arrived he had not had a single complaint from the Boer farmers that they were short of labour. He thought that should be taken into account when they were discussing the subject of repatriation, and whether it was wise or not.
§ MR. CHURCHILLsaid his hon. friend was not now referring to repatriation of Chinamen by State aid, but to the general question of diminution of labour on the land. Was it not so?
§ MR. ASHLEYsaid he did not think so, and he would be called to order by the Chairman if he was out of order. Surely if 750 Chinamen were sent home their places would have to be filled up by 1475 a certain number of natives from other places. At any rate, they knew that this Vote for the repatriation of the Chinese labourers was a result of the last general election. Not only were a large number in the Transvaal in favour of Chinese labour, but they said that they would not send away the Chinamen until their places were taken by natives.
§ MR. CHURCHILLsaid it might accelerate the Estimates if he made a brief attempt to give information to hon. Gentlemen who had asked questions with regard to the grant to St. Helena and with reference to the repatriation of the Chinese labourers. Hon. Members knew well that the policy of military and naval concentration was inaugurated, and very properly inaugurated, under the late Government, and had been carried out and extended under His Majesty's present advisers. The withdrawal of the garrison of 250 men or thereabouts from St. Helena had struck a heavy blow at the economic prosperity of the island. The island had already suffered by the diversion of ocean-borne traffic due to the opening of the Suez Canal, and it had been maintained at an artificial level of development owing to the custom afforded by the presence of the British garrison. Now, all of a sudden, for reasons connected with Imperial policy, it had been decided that the garrison should be withdrawn, and a great and sensible shrinkage in the means of livelihood of the people in the island had necessarily followed. He appealed with some confidence to the Committee to say that an Imperial obligation rested upon us to do something to maintain the people of St. Helena. For very many years past, since the island had been in our possession, we had used it for various purposes, some of a great and some of a small and less imposing character, and no doubt our use of it as a military and coaling station had been the principal cause of the maintenance of its people at the existing level. If, all of a sudden, in changing their policy for larger considerations, the Government were to leave those islanders wholly to their fate and make no attempt to lower them gradually to a new level—a new 1476 economic standard—which would prevail there after the troops were gone, they would be justly blamable by the Committee. What then was to be done? The Government had done everything in their power; they had practised most severe retrenchment over the whole of the salaries of officials throughout the island, feeling that this was preferable to the dismissal of individuals, and that it would spread the sacrifice more evenly. In the second place, they had looked about for remedies, and the Vote by no means exhausted the remedies under consideration. Something might be done if arrangements could be made by which British warships at intervals revictualled at the island. The islanders had been encouraged to keep some 1,500 head of cattle, thus affording the means for an important food supply in time of war. It might be possible, though this was a matter for arrangement by the Admiralty, that ships calling at intervals might afford some kind of market to the islanders for vegetables and live stock. But above all it was thought that some attempt should be made to give St. Helena a self-supporting industry. After much consideration it had been thought that the best prospect that offered itself was by the development and extension of the growth of flax for export and not for local consumption. The Report of Sir Daniel Morris was valuable in this connection, and he had done excellent work in the West Indies as head of the Department of Agriculture. Sir Daniel Morris recommended the cultivation of New Zealand flax and the export of fibre for papermaking, and upon this the Government had proceeded with circumspection, for they were avowedly embarking upon a measure of relief, and not essentially an economic experiment, for a situation of acute distress arising owing to a sudden alteration in Imperial policy. They had arranged that an expert should proceed from New Zealand to supervise the introduction of the new industry into the island; and the £4,070 in the Estimate would provide not merely for grants to assist individual cultivators to grow flax, but also machinery for crushing the leaves and preparing the material for shipment, for engine buildings and the application of water-power, drying-sheds, and various processes of detail, and also a grant of £500 for supply of 1477 seed to small landholders. This was a better method of assistance than a mere grant in aid from which the ordinary native population would derive small advantage. The Government would not proceed further than expert opinion encouraged and results justified; but if good fortune attended their efforts, possibly—though a little more money would be required in the future—the island would gain a valuable asset, forming from year to year a spring of wealth, modest in quantity, but affording some compensation for the distress occasioned by the withdrawal of the garrison. It would not be a recurring grant, but it was quite possible that the House might be asked for a grant to carry on the civil administration.
A more important and less attractive question raised was that of the repatriation of Chinese coolies from South Africa. He was sorry to hear his hon. friend refer to the New Hebrides Convention. It would be disorderly for him to press his remarks with any detail; but he would have thought that his hon. friend, who attended discussion in the House very closely and endeavoured to maintain his points with scrupulous fairness, would have realised that there was absolutely no analogy whatever, and that it was not true, if he might say so without discourtesy, that, under the New Hebrides Convention labourers, girls, and young children could be forced to work from sunrise to sunset. He would not argue that in detail now, but would be quite prepared to do so whenever the rules of the House allowed the subject to be brought forward, and to cast some illumination on the motives which animated their activity in this matter. [An Hon. Member: Do not impute motives.] He was not imputing motives; on the contrary he indicated that. But the time for dealing with that matter had not arrived. Hon. Members had spoken of the Grant in Aid of repatriation. A vote of £22,000 was asked for, and what was the policy which led to this item of expenditure? The Government objected to certain provisions, certain characteristics, in the Ordinance for the importation of Chinese labour into the Transvaal. It was not in the power of the Government to alter or remove all the provisions they objected to, but they saw that they could provide 1478 security for no man's being forced, through want of funds, to continue to subject himself to those conditions against his will; they provided for this by a very modest, but necessarily complicated, method, so that the coolie, from want of money, should not be prevented from availing himself of a clause in his indentures which entitled him to purchase his discharge on payment of the actual cost of his importation to South Africa, namely £17. The Committee knew the whole history of the transaction from beginning to end, and he, speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government, had nothing to be ashamed of in the matter. They had never expected, never intended, State-aided repatriation to lead to a general exodus of Chinese coolies from the Rand. What they wanted was that a man driven to desperation—so anxious to quit employment he disliked that he would run the risk of desertion and would become a wanderer and an outlaw rather than continue his employment—what they wanted was to find another way, to provide an emergency exit, enabling such a man to find his way back to his own country during the transition period between the accession of the present Government to power and the election of responsible Ministers in the Transvaal. The hon. Member for Newbury had quoted a sentence from a speech which he (Mr. Churchill) delivered at the beginning of the session, and said that the proposal of the Government did not come up to the expectations excited by that speech; but it would be seen, by reference to the report of that speech, that, though assistance was to be given if the desire of a coolie to return was sincere, whether he gave good reason or no reason, it was always contemplated that some guarantee of sincerity in the desire should be introduced, the guarantee of sincerity taking the form, perhaps, of a reduction in their wages, or of a period of notice. He thought the Government had endeavoured to carry that out very cordially and fully. The instructions to that effect were contained in the telegram which Lord Elgin sent to Lord Selborne on 18th February, 1906. What had been the results of that policy? Since the announcement of the proclamation on the subject about 1,500 coolies had applied to be repatriated at the Government expense. About 750 1479 had been so repatriated. Others had been repatriated under the provisions of the Labour Ordinance at the cost of their employers, because they were bad characters. The Government did not intend to charge to British funds any item of expense in connection with Chinese labour which, by a fair construction of the Ordinance, could be put upon the employers. Others, again, had been repatriated at their own expense, because they were found to be in possession of money which would enable them to purchase their discharge in the ordinary way, and, therefore, could not be described as being prevented by want of funds from returning home. A small number who had made application to be repatriated had been refused on various grounds. In one case the ground of refusal was that there was, on the part of a number of coolies who asked to be repatriated at the Government expense, a plot to murder another coolie who was going home on board the same ship. He thought there were about 137 coolies who had applied for repatriation and afterwards withdrawn their request, stating that they preferred to work out their indentures. The cost of repatriation was likely to vary from time to time, principally because the importation of coolies into South Africa, which had gone on during the last two years of the late Government, having now come absolutely to an end, there were no ships returning to China with whom special arrangements could be made. At any rate, the first batch of repatriated coolies cost £28 per head; a second batch of 285 cost £22 10s. per head; and a third batch of 214 cost £25 per head. He trusted the Committee would pass the Vote without much disputation or opposition, So much for the past. The hon. Member for Newbury had asked what was going to happen in the future. It was always difficult to predict what the action of their own Government or the House of Commons would be in the future. But it was still more difficult to forecast the future when they were dealing with another Government and another Assembly which were just called into being and were about to be installed in the place of power. He, therefore, could not attempt to make any definite statement as to the exact detailed policy which His Majesty's Government would pursue. They must 1480 first know what the character, complexion, and opinion of the new Transvaal Assembly and Government would be; and especially their attitude in regard to the Chinese labour question. He was very hopeful that they would be a Government and an Assembly opposed altogether to the system of Chinese indentured labour; and if that were so he did not anticipate any difficulty in coming to a satisfactory arrangement with them for the winding up of this labour experiment, which had proved so great a disadvantage to South Africa, and had introduced such complications in the relations of the home Government with that Colony.
§ MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)said he would not trouble the Committee very long, because he did not think the speech of the Under-Secretary had introduced anything except what they knew very well before. Indeed, the hon. Member had not furnished any answer at all to the hon. Member for Newbury. He himself was concerned only with the present condition of things in the Transvaal in so far as it related to the policy of His Majesty's late advisers. He agreed with what the Under-Secretary had said as to the policy of the late Government, as well as of the present Government, to concentrate and reduce Colonial garrisons. The result of that policy must be a very considerable saving to the country. Unfortunately, it had done injury to St. Helena; and the action of the Government in establishing an industry for the good of the inhabitants had his hearty approval. Of course, they must watch its developments and see whether the anticipations which the Government had made were successful. What they had done up to the present moment did not, by any means, prevent criticism being made in the future if the results they anticipated did not occur. The Committee were asked to vote £22,000 for the repatriation of Chinese coolies. The inference which he drew from the speech of the Under-Secretary was one which ought to be satisfactory to every Member of the House. He did not care what hon. Gentlemen had said in the country; he did not care how many of his friends had been turned out of their seats in consequence of the representations which were made at the time of the election, 1481 and more particularly the representations which were made of the suffering, misery, and ill-usage of the Chinese. They all knew what these representations were; many of them had good reason to know what their effect was, and they could no undo that until a future occasion. But they could point out how far these representations had been contradicted by the inexorable logic of facts. As he understood, this policy of repatriation had been adopted by His Majesty's Government against the desire and advice of Lord Selborne. It amounted to an invitation to these so-called ill-used and miserable slaves to come out of their bondage and return home. They were, in fact, to quote the picturesque language of a member of the Government, asked to go back to China in the steam yachts of His Majesty's Government at the expense of His Majesty's Government. What was the response of these poor unhappy men who, we were told on countless platforms, were suffering a grievious wrong? People in South Africa, and on countless platforms in this country, had endeavoured to persuade these poor unhappy men that they were suffering from some grievance. And how did the poor bondsmen reply? Why, after the hon. Member for Newbury and an hon. Gentleman distinguished in India, had settled and re-settled the notice which was to invite them to go home at this Government's expense, and after every possible provision had been made for their comfort and protection, ninety-nine out of every 100 of these bondsmen refused to go. The result was that with a Government bitterly hostile to the experiment of Chinese labour, and desiring, above all things, to prove that it was slavery, that the Chinese were illused and had to work under conditions which they greatly disliked, only 1 per cent. of the coolies accepted the offer of repatriation. He was fully aware that, however well used the Chinese were—and there was no question that they had been thoroughly well used—[Cries of "No, no" and "Flogged."]—that did not wholly conclude the subject. Some hon. Members thought that from the point of view of the inhabitants of the Transvaal, it was undesirable that the Chinese should be there, and doing the work which they were doing. But he would put this point to those who took that view—a view with 1482 which he had no sympathy. His Majesty's Government had now erected the Transvaal into a self-governing Colony, and the result of the election was known to all, as well as the attitude taken by all Parties with respect to Chinese labour. The attitude he himself had taken was that Chinese labour should not be a permanent, but a temporary experiment, and, so far as he understood the telegram which Lord Elgin sent at the beginning of his tenure of office, the Secretary of State also really accepted that view [Ministerial cries of dissent]. Everybody in the Transvaal took that view too—they wished to supplement native labour; they did not wish to have forced native labour; they wanted the mines to be worked on full time; but when there was a reasonable prospect of replacing the Chinese labour by native labour—[An Hon. Member: Or by machinery]—well, or by machinery, or by any other legitimate means, no one wished the Chinese to remain in the Transvaal any longer. From the Chinese point of view, the success of the experiment had been absolutely established. [Ministerial Cries of "No."] He maintained that that was proved by their action, and any other objections must be from the point of view of the inhabitants of the Transvaal. It was not for us, from our eminence here, to prescribe to the inhabitants of the Transvaal what was good for them, now that they had self-government. They were judges of their own problems, and quite as good judges as we of the moral and economic conditions under which this experiment was proceeding. If they took the view that the experiment ought to cease, no one on the Opposition side of the House would dream for a moment of interfering with their decision. But once we had satisfied ourselves that everything had been done by scrupulous care for the comfort and proper well-being and convenience of the Chinese, we must surely let the people of the Transvaal judge, unless we were going to enter into a controversy which might have the gravest consequences. We could only say: "Whatever opinions we have held here, and whatever follies we may have uttered at the general election, you must decide." No sensible or modest man would say that the opinion of the people of this country in respect to this problem was entitled to greater weight than the deliberate opinion of the people 1483 of the Transvaal who now enjoyed self-government. As to flogging, it seemed to him that the hon. Member for Newbury had given, quite unintentionally, of course, the impression to the Committee that it was only by the action of His Majesty's present Government that any irregularities of that kind had been corrected. The fact was that these irregularities had been stopped so far back as June, 1905.
§ mr. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)Then the Chinese were flogged; you admit that.
§ MR. LYTTELTONsaid he hoped the hon. Member would spare him these interruptions, which were not very courteous, and attend to his observations.
§ MR. J. WARDOn a point of order; the right hon. Gentleman a minute ago stated that the coolies were never ill-treated, but now he has admitted they were logged.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was in possession, and the matter raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent was not a point of order.
§ MR. LYTTELTONsaid it would be ridiculous for anyone to pretend that no irregularities had ever taken place; but so scrupulous was he that everyone should know before the election what had taken place, that at Leamington, as well as in a Blue-book, he had called specific attention to these irregularities.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was out of order in dealing with these old controversies on this Vote.
§ MR. LYTTELTONsaid he was replying to statements made by the hon. Member for Newbury, but he would not pursue the subject further than to say that since June, 1905, there had not been a shred of evidence of such irregularity, and the late Government did not go out of power until the following November. He would once more beg hon. Members to consider whether this problem had not now been shifted to another scene, and whether it would not be infinitely better for this country, and for the Transvaal, that, upon problems with 1484 which the latter had a far more intimate acquaintance than anyone in this House, the people of the Transvaal should now be left to judge for themselves.
§ MAJOR SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby)said the right hon. Gentleman opposite had travelled over a wide field, and he trusted he might be allowed to reply to him without reference merely to the repatriation of the Chinese or the £22,000. The right hon. Gentleman had complained of interruptions from below the gangway. No one meant any personal discourtesy to him; there was no one for whom all parts of the House had a greater respect. The only thing was that he did try them rather severely when he stood up and tried to make them believe that, because this particular sum of £22,000 was a small amount, the whole Chinese experiment had been found to be a complete success, that all the evils they prophesied were non-existent, and that they might now wash their hands of the arrangement.
§ MR. LYTTELTONThat was not my argument. What I said was that the refusal of the Chinese to accept repatriation at the Government expense is a proof that they are not ill-used or unhappy.
§ MAJOR SEELYsaid that was the point made, but it was further amplified by the right hon. Gentleman, and it was when those amplifications were brought in that really it was more than human nature could bear. The truth was that the experiment had been a ghastly failure, and no one knew it better than the right hon. Gentleman. The policy of repatriation, for which they were now asked to vote this sum, was made necessary because the state of crime within the compounds had become so great and so alarming that some means had to be found by which any coolie who wished to escape could do so without becoming an outlaw. They had repatriated 6,000, and was it possible to get away from the fact that they must have palliations of this accursed and detestable system, because, wherever they checked the evil in one direction, it broke out in another? It was the direct result of importing a servile class into a civilised community. The only regret they had was they could not repatriate them all. With regard to the question addressed by his hon. friend the Member for Newbury 1485 to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, it was quite plain that Chinese labour must come to an end under the terms of the Ordinance. There could be no renewals under the Ordinance. Therefore in June next the Chinese who had finished their three years—about 15,000—would begin to return. Under no possible circumstances could any more Chinese be enlisted in China for service under servile conditions. It was, therefore, perfectly apparent that the Chinese experiment must come to an end within three or four years from to-day. That was the condition on which self-government was granted. The words used in the Letters Patent clearly put an end to anything in the nature of the compound system, and, unless they were going to admit these people as citizens, they could not have any more. Therefore the principle of free or not at all for which the whole of the Liberal Party had contended so fiercely and so long, and from which it would never recede, was now established, nor was there any chance that complications would ensue of any serious nature. The right hon. Gentleman opposite laughed. He seemed to view almost with glee the difficulties which must supervene in dealing with a self-governing Colony.
§ MR. LYTTELTONIt was the portrait of the Liberal Party I was laughing at.
§ MAJOR SEELYsaid the right hon. Gentleman was once a distinguished Member of the Liberal Party, and he would have thought that he would have been rejoiced with the fact that the Liberal Party was pledged to the principle that whoever came under the British flag should come free or not at all. (Opposition cries of "New Hebrides!"] The New Hebrides were not under the British flag, and none of these servile conditions of service or residence did in point of fact obtain there, and the whole comparison was a farrago of nonsense. It did not surely become his right hon. friend opposite to laugh at the possibility of a conflict with a self-governing Colony in getting rid of a system which this country could not possibly agree to, which this country never did agree to, which the people of that Colony never agreed to, and which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, 1486 being, as they now knew, a small minority, forced upon that country. He himself had no fears for the future.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)said he had very great sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member. He was sure that the part which he had taken during the last year or two had been taken through conscientious sympathy, and it was very hard upon him when at last the opportunity arose for the repatriation of these servile people by a Radical Government, to which he had given his support, the result should have been that only 1¼per cent. of the coolies had availed themselves of it. It was really only rather more than one per cent., but so as not to understate the case he would take it as one and a quarter. He would therefore forgive the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having been led away into all sorts of questions as to what would happen to these men who had been well treated under the new Transvaal Government.
§ MAJOR SEELYsaid he was sure the hon. Baronet would forgive him if he reminded him that a man was not less a slave because he was well treated.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not think it would be in order to discuss the question of when a man was a slave. He thought, however, he might say there was a very simple definition of what constituted a slave, and it was that a man was detained in a position against his will. It was evident, however, that there were 98¾per cent. of the Chinese coolies in South Africa who were not detained against their will. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury, who had said that he was afraid that the pledges given by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies some time ago had not been carried out. He had great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. He was sympathetic with his ignorance. What did he expect? If he expected that the Under-Secretary really meant to make some great effort to end this condition of so-called slavery, he must have been a great deal more innocent than those who sat upon the Opposition side of the House. He would call the attention of the Committee to the peculiar state of the attendance at the present moment. There was only one 1487 Member of the Labour Party present, and it was obvious that other Members of the Radical Party did not share in the anxiety of the hon. Member for Newbury on this subject. He would like to refer to a statement in the Westminster Gazette, pointing out that the Under-Secretary said when he brought forward this plan of repatriation that it was "an emergency exit." The hon. Gentleman omitted one word. It ought to have been "a political emergency exit." Then he thought they would have ascertained the true inwardness of this Vote. He understood the hon. Member to say that the terms of the Proclamation were absolutely useless, because according to the Blue-book if the coolie availed himself of the proposal he had to go to the coolie manager, and in all probability all that he got was a flogging. That was going on in September last, but the Party opposite were then in power. They were in power a year and a half after these illegal floggings were known and had done nothing to stop them, and then came these illegal floggings in September last that were stopping repatriation! With regard to the financial part of the question he would like to say he had always understood that hon. Members opposite would present their Estimates in such a form as would lead to no waste of time by its being necessary to ask what they meant. We were now within five weeks of the end of the financial year and this Estimate had only just come before the Committee. It was an Estimate of the probable amount that would be required. The Government even now did not know what the actual cost would be! It was the most casual way of bringing in an Estimate. He was glad to see that the hon. Gentleman had safeguarded himself as to the future. When the hon. Member for Newbury wanted to know whether repatriation was to be enforced or not the hon. Member said it was impossible to foretell and that he would not make any promise. The hon. Gentleman was wise, but he would have been wiser still had he not made so many promises in the past. Then with regard to the Vote for St. Helena he would like to know what market there was for this flax industry if it was successful. He understood that the soil of St. Helena was extremely barren; and 1488 he would like to know what market there was for the flax if it was raised. Everybody agreed that something ought to be done for this Colony. We had reduced the garrison there, and the first result was that we had to find money to make up the loss caused thereby. He had understood that the people would have been content if the small number who were left and who were only taken away recently had remained, in which case it would not have been necessary to have promoted the flax industry. He understood from the hon. Gentleman that this was not to be a recurring Vote, but at the same time the hon. Gentleman was careful to say that in event of the flax industry not being successful there would have to be a further grant. Even supposing the flax industry were a success it would take three or four years to develop, so that in all probability further grants would have to be made. Would it not have been better to have kept a certain number of troops at St. Helena and thus avoided this Estimate altogether? By keeping the troops there we should have been able to guard that possession, and now whatever might be the result of the flax industry it would not enhance or sustain British prestige in that Island. He thought that this Supplementary Estimate which was £5,000 in excess of the original Estimate was a very large one under the circumstances, and he ask why the original Estimate was so inaccurate, what the new £5,000 was for, and whether the hon. Gentleman would give the Committee an assurance that the new Estimates which would come up for consideration very soon would be framed in such a way as to avoid Supplementary Estimates altogether.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)thought the sympathies of the Committee ought to be extended to the hon. Member for Newbury and the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, because it was quite evident that the policy they had hoped would be applied effectively for the repatriation of the Chinese had proved unsuccessful. The irritation of the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division was founded, he believed, on a discontent 1489 with the Government and with the hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the Colonial policy of the Government in this House. If all Chinamen could be repatriated and replaced by native labour such a policy would be cordially supported by the Opposition. There was not a man on the Unionist side of the House who advocated the importation of Chinese labour except as an economic necessity due to the absence of a sufficient supply of native labour. The Under-Secretary had made some astonishing speeches in this House, and upon those speeches the hon. Member for Newbury had based his expectation. The hon. Member on the 22nd of February, 1905, when speaking of his policy of repatriation, said that the basis of that policy was the cruelty that was inflicted on these labourers.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he was trying to show that the policy of repatriation was based on charges of cruelty, and that the hon. Member for Newbury and his friends had entertained expectations which had not been fulfilled.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Gentleman could not be allowed to go into the wider question of the policy of Chinese labour. He had stopped the hon. Member for Newbury on this subject, and he could not allow a general discussion on this particular Supplementary Estimate.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he had an extract which he was about to read which put his proposition in another way. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies on the 8th June, 1906, said—
I do say, and it is my duty to state to the House what I believe, that after what has occurred in connection with this repatriation proclamation, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that there is no general desire on the part of the coolies employed on the Witwatersrand to leave their work and to return to China.That was a very frank statement. He had been going to say that the hon. Gentleman voiced the failure of the policy of the Government, and made that frank statement.
§ MR. CHURCHILLNo.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the result of that policy was that something like 700 Chinamen had been repatriated, or 1 per cent. Altogether there had been repatriated 2 per cent., or between 1,000 and 1,100. There were those who had been compulsorily repatriated because they were unfit or because of their conduct. The hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool had made the serious statement that the Government were committed by the Transvaal Ordinance to a policy which would be adopted if the people of the Transvaal arranged that Chinese labour should again be brought into the Colony, and that the Chinese so brought in should not be allowed to become citizens. There was not a Member but knew that in the whole of South Africa the Chinese would never be allowed to settle as citizens and so compete with skilled labour and with the various occupations of workmen in the Transvaal. That was settled. In the Transvaal they said that they could not disorganise the labour of the Colony, and that if the Chinamen were taken away they must have a sufficient supply of natives for their mines. All parties would agree that they could never get natives for the work to be done in the mines; therefore, they must begin to import Chinese labour. If the Chinese so imported were not to be permitted to become citizens, were the Government prepared to say to the people of the Transvaal, "No"?
THE CHAIRMANsaid he must remind the hon. Member that this was a question which could not be discussed in any shape or form on the Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid his point was that the policy of repatriation had not been successful, and the expectations of Members on the other side had not been fulfilled. He believed that the Under-Secretary and the Government recognised the fact, though they had been able to bridge over a difficult moment in their political experience—when there 1491 was a clamour of Members behind them who honestly believed that repatriation would be carried out—by the policy which they had adopted and which had failed. Hon. Members opposite realised, if they could realise anything at all, that they were facing now the entirely new position of a Government which had registered its failure regarding its policy and its promise. The promise was that repatriation would solve the difficulty, and this appeased the consciences of hon. Members who supported the Government. It had not solved the difficulty, and the promises of the Government had not been fulfilled.
§ MR. J. WARDsaid the hon. Member for Gravesend had based his observations on the ground that the Chinese were an economic necessity in South. Africa, but he believed that cheapness from beginning to end had been the real motive for their introduction. He further believed that if the verdict of the country were taken again, the opposition to Chinese labour would again become apparent.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he had just called to order another hon. Member for speaking on this very subject, and the hon. Member must endeavour to confine his remarks within the rules of order.
§ MR. J. WARDsaid he wished to support the Vote for repatriation, and, if possible within the rules of order, to state his reasons for doing so. He did not believe that the country was fully satisfied with what the Government had done on this subject. He believed the country was absolutely sick of Chinese labour from beginning to end—so sick that they would have been prepared to go to any expense to clear the Chinamen out bag and baggage, rather than have all this difficulty and probable besmirching of the name of a free and democratic country by the continuance of a system of slavery which was absolutely alien to their ideas.
§ MR. J. WARDsaid it was not because he wished to transgress the rules of order; it was because others had travelled along those lines during the Chairman's absence, and it semed that he must answer some of the statements that had been made. For instance, they had been told that they could not send the Chinamen back as quickly as was desirable because of the difficulties and the peculiar conditions in regard to labour which prevailed at present. But the conditions were so outrageous, so servile—
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was again discussing the general question, and he must warn him that unless he kept in order he must request him to resume his seat.
§ MR. J. WARDsaid he supported repatriation, and if he could only say that he was in favour of the proposal, then he would resume his seat.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)said he wanted to say a word or two on the flax question in St. Helena, and the bounty given; for it was a bounty, and the Under-Secretary of State had defended if. The hon. Gentleman had said he gave the bounty because it would relieve the acute distress arising out of the Government's policy. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would relieve acute agricultural distress in England by granting a bounty on wheat. He would leave the Under-Secretary and the question of St. Helena in that dilemma. The hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool had made an appeal to human nature, and asked how any Member could sit in this House and hear what was said without his feelings being stirred to indignant assertion of themselves. Human nature was not confined to the hon. Member for the Abercromby division. It was conceivable that those in whose ears were still ringing "Chin Chin, Chinaman," and that blasphemous song about the Rand, might also occasionally appeal to human nature to justify some of the things they thought and felt. The hon. Member, after his appeal to human nature, had gone on to make one of those round assertions in which he sometimes indulged. He spoke of the 1493 "ghastly failure." [Ministerial Cheers.] Yes; but there was some evidence on the other side. There were three large parties in the Transvaal who approached this question from at least as disinterested a point of view as the hon. and gallant Member.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo. E.)asked whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was in order in discussing the whole question.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not in order, and he could not on the Supplementary Vote discuss the general question of Chinese labour.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked whether he was to understand that he was absolutely precluded from replying to the hon. and gallant Member who had made his speech.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division, but he could not allow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to discuss what was out of order.
§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYcongratulated the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division upon having got in a speech which was out of order. With regard to the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, he appeared to be in extreme difficulties. The crux of the debate lay in the challenge thrown down by the hon. Member for the Newbury Division and the hon. and gallant member for the Abercromby Division, who desired to know what the Government would do if the new Transvaal Government proposed to retain Chinese labour as it now existed. Of course in face of that query the Under-Secretary for the Colonies was bound to sit a little uneasy in his saddle and do a little bit of shuffling in order to get out of the corner. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division had laid down, in that positive semi military fashion which belonged to a distinguished volunteer, that this experiment "must and shall" come to an end. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies replied that he could not prophesy as to 1494 what would be the mind either of this Government or the Transvaal Government in time to come. Surely he must have known what the character of the Transvaal Government would be. He would like to know definitely what the hon. Member and his Government would do if the position taken up by the new Transvaal Government was unfavourable to their views. To that question they had received no answer, and they would get no answer. They all knew that the Government in this country would not be able to interfere with the responsible Government of the Transvaal, and therefore they would not be able to fulfil the pledges which they had given to the electors.
§ MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shropshire had, in a friendly manner, accused him of not answering some clear and pointed questions which had been put to him. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to recognise that it was incumbent upon a Minister speaking in debate to observe most strictly the rules of order. They were now discussing a Supplementary Estimate which dealt with the past, and it would, therefore, be disorderly for him to enter into the realm of speculation as to what might happen in the future. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had asked some questions which were strictly relevant to the Vote, and appropriate to a discussion in Committee of Supply, and he thought he could give a satisfactory answer to them. He quite agreed with what the hon. Baronet had said about the importance of avoiding Supplementary Estimates. That view was strongly held by the supporters of the present Government when in opposition, during the closing years of the last Parliament, for good and sufficient reasons, and the Government were certainly endeavouring to practice in office what they preached in opposition. Really, he did not think that the very small Estimate they were asked to pass lent itself to any very serious charge. The only apparent error was under-estimating to the amount of £5,000. None of the other items could be avoided, because they were entirely new matters which had arisen since the general Estimates were presented to the House. He did not think it was at all a serious 1495 charge against the Colonial Office that they had to come to Parliament and ask for £32,000, not merely in regard to under-estimation, but also to meet the cost of new services which had arisen in different parts of the British Empire. With regard to the question asked about the total cost of the repatriation of Chinese coolies, the sum of £20,187 had been actually spent. The sum of £87 18s. 11d. had been advanced to coolies, and had not been recovered at the date of repatriation. Against that expenditure they had obtained contributions from the coolies amounting to £305 14s., and £629 3s. 2d. from their wages, which gave a total credit balance of £934 17s. 2d. The net cost of the coolies repatriated up to 31st January, 1907, was £19,340 1s. 9d., so that the Committee would see that they were keeping a small sum back for the remaining weeks of the financial year. He had been asked whether any of this expenditure included compensation to the mine-owners for breach of contract. In reply to that he wished to point out to the Committee that in repatriating these Chinese coolies they had proceeded under a section in the Ordinance which enabled a coolie to return to his own country if he was able to pay a certain sum of money. No part of this money had been expended otherwise than in the necessary expenses of transportation. Passing to the flax-growing industry in St. Helena, the Government did not anticipate any difficulty in finding a market for any flax that they could grow, or for the waste products of the industry. Until June, 1905, there was a steamer service between the United Kingdom and the West Indies and also an intercolonial service, which was maintained by a contribution of £24,000 a year from all the Colonies, including Trinidad and Jamaica, and a grant of nearly £60,000 a year from the Imperial Exchequer. After that arrangement lapsed, a period ensued when no subsidy was paid. The Royal Mail Company protested and threatened to withdraw their boats, and on 16th August last year, therefore, a very modest new arrangement was entered into. That arrangement was a great gain to the British Exchequer. It was arranged that the Royal Mail Company should maintain their trans-Atlantic service without any subsidy, but that they should be paid for 1496 one colonial boat moving up and down, the islands for intercolonial trade at the rate of £17,500 annually. Of that annual subsidy £8,750 was to be contributed, under their arrangement, by the Colonies, exclusive of Trinidad and Jamaica, who had other arrangements. The remaining £8,750 had to be paid by the British Government. It would be seen that they had made a thrifty arrangement compared with what had obtained before. He did not know whether that was a position which they would be able to maintain. That was a matter of future policy to which he should not be in order in referring. He expressed the hope that the Committee would now see its way to come to a conclusion on this very small Vote on the discussion of which they had been engaged all the afternoon.
§ MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)said he quite agreed with the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that a Vote of this character under present circumstances ought, perhaps, most properly to be regarded from a purely financial point of view, and in anything he had to say to the Committee with regard to it he proposed to deal with it from that standpoint. The money involved in the Supplementary Estimate was not large, but the hon. Gentleman would agree with him that the principle involved in coming at this period of the financial year for any considerable sum at all for ordinary departmental purposes was one of importance which deserved serious consideration at the hands of the Committee, and particularly at the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were pledged to the most rigid and austere economy. The two hon. Members who had spoken on the Ministerial side of the House, had complained not that the money now asked was too much, but that if anything it was too little. He was rather astonished that hon. Gentlemen who, when in opposition, said again and again that Supplementary Estimates were excrescences upon our financial system and ought to be regarded with suspicion, should have complained that this Estimate was too small. He regarded every Supplementary Estimate with genuine suspicion. The whole of our system depended upon accurate and careful Estimates. It had been upon the faith of 1497 the Estimate that the Committee voted the original £32,000, and he said without any qualification that the original Estimate ought not to be departed from except upon clear, grave, and urgent emergency. In the Vote now before the Committee it appeared to him that they had an extremely bad case of bad estimating. The sum of £32,000 now asked for represented 100 per cent. on the original Estimate. If that could be carried on to any extent the hon. Gentleman would see that they would be face to face with a serious situation. This demand could only be justified by alleging that there had been some serious emergency which the Government could not have foreseen when the original Estimate was presented. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies had not alleged that there was anything of immediate and urgent importance. Was the grant-in-aid of St. Helena to relieve immediate and urgent starvation on the part of the inhabitants? No, the hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that it was to form part of a scheme which would take years to come to full fruition. The money was to be used to erect buildings and machinery, and the hon. Gentleman had come down in a great hurry at the end of the year and asked for this sum in a Supplementary Estimate. There was no emergency to justify the demand. The real truth was that the hon. Gentleman representing the Colonial Office asked for this money because he was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at this moment a considerable surplus to whittle away. A surplus from the financial point of view might be regarded as an error, not so bad as an error in the shape of a deficit, but still a financial error. A surplus would go automatically to the reduction of the National Debt, but what was now proposed was that this £32,000 should be provided not out of the ordinary revenue, as it might perfectly well be, and not out of the ordinary Estimates of the next financial year, but out of the surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, and so out of the fund available for the reduction of the National Debt. He said with great respect that infinitely the greatest financial necessity at this moment was the reduction of the enormous burden of the National Debt, and therefore anything which interfered with that reduction ought to be regarded 1498 with the greatest possible jealousy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him in that, for the other day, speaking in this House on old age pensions, the right hon. Gentleman said that so far as he was concerned the devotion of the realised surplus to the reduction of debt was a purpose from which he would never ask Parliament to depart. The right hon. Gentleman could not have it both ways. In having agreed to this Supplementary Estimate he was asking Parliament to vote money which otherwise would be part of the realised surplus. The question for the Committee was whether from a financial point of view this £32,000 had better be spent on the various purposes to which it was to be applied, or to the extinction of debt. He had not the slightest doubt as to which was the better and sounder destination of the money. He did not think the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had shown any emergency for intercepting this money, and on that ground he objected to the Vote altogether. The grant of £4,070 to St. Helena was to be subject to audit, but no balance was to be surrendered to the Exchequer. He should like to ask the Government what was the meaning of that. The only object of an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General was to insure that money had been spent in accordance with the direction of the House, and that any money which had not been spent should be surrendered to the Exchequer to go to the reduction of debt. This audit was perfectly useless and meaningless, and the only reason he could think of for inducing the Government to arrange for such an audit to take place was to lead the Committee to suppose that some sort of control would continue to be exercised over the money, whereas, as a matter of fact, no surrender was to be made, and no such control would exist. The same remark applied to the grant in aid of the Imperial Institute Fund. He had always understood that a grant-in-aid was a free gift, and he could not understand why the Government had seen fit not only to pay over the money in full but to see that it was audited, while making no provision for the surrender of any unexpended balance. He hoped before the Committee went to a division the Government would be able to give some explanation of the principle on which they provided for the 1499 audit of these sums, though no surrender was to be made to the Exchequer.
Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 312; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 22.)
1503| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Cullinan, J. | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hodge, John |
| Agnew, George William | Delany, William | Hogan, Michael |
| Alden, Percy | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Holden, E. Hopkinson |
| Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch) | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Hooper, A. G. |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Armitage, R. | Dillon, John | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hudson, Walter |
| Astbury, John Meir | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Donelan, Captain A. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Duckworth, James | Jenkins, J. |
| Barker, John | Duffy, William J. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Elibank, Master of | Joyce, Michael |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Erskine, David C. | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Evans, Samuel T. | Kelley, George D. |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S.Geo. | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Kinnedy, Vincent Paul |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Everett, R. Lacey | Kilbride, Denis |
| Bethell.Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Kincaid-Smith. Captain |
| Billson, Alfred | Farrell, James Patrick | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Fenwick, Charles | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Black, Arthur W. | Ferens, T. R. | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Ffrench, Peter | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Brace, William | Findlay, Alexander | Lambert, George |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Flynn, James Christopher | Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Branch, James | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington |
| Brigg, John | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Fullerton, Hugh | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Brooke, Stopford | Ginnell, L. | Levy, Maurice |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Gladstone. Rt Hn. Herbert John | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T (Cheshire | Glendinning, R. G. | Lloyd-George. Rt, Hon. David |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Glover, Thomas | Lough, Thomas |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Lundon, W. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gooch, George Peabody | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Grant, Corrie | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Lynch, H. B. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Griffith, Ellis J. | Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Gulland, John W. | Maclean, Donald |
| Causton,Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Macnamara. Dr. Thomas J. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Halpin, J. | Macpherson. J. T. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis | MacVeagh. Jeremiah (Down, S. |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Clough, William | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | M'Callum. John M. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | M'Crae, George |
| Coats.Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E. | M'Kean, John |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Harwood, George | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | M'Killop), W. |
| Collins, Sir Wm J (S. Pancras, W.) | Haworth, Arthur A. | M'Laren. H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Hayden, John Patrick | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Maddison. Frederick |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hedges, A. Paget | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Cox, Harold | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) |
| Crombie, John William | Henry, Charles S. | Markham. Arthur Basil |
| Crooks, William | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) | Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Crossley, William J. | Higham, John Sharp | Massie, J. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Rendall, Athelstan | Thompson J. W. H (Somerset E |
| Meagher, Michael | Richards Thomas (W. Monm'th | Thorne, William |
| Menzies, Walter | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Richardson, A. | Toulmin, George |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Mond, A. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Verney, F. W. |
| Montagu, E. S. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd | Vivian, Henry |
| Montgomery, H. G. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Robinson, S. | Waldron, Laurence Ambrose |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Morley, Rt. Hon. John | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Walsh, Stephen |
| Morrell, Philip | Rose, Charles Day | Walters, John Tudor |
| Morse, L. L. | Rowlands, J. | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Runciman, Walter | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Murphy, John | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent |
| Myer, Horatio | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Wardle, George J. |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Waring, Walter |
| Nolan, Joseph | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Scott, A. H(Ashton under Lyne | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid | Sears, J. E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Ordney) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Seaverns, J. H. | Waterlow, D. S. |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Seddon, J. | Watt, H. Anderson |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Seely, Major J. B. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Weir, James Galloway |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Whitbread, Howard |
| O'Dowd, John | Shipman, Dr. John G. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Whitehead, Rowland |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Snowden, P. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Partington, Oswald | Soares, Ernest J. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Paul, Herbert | Spicer, Sir Albert | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Pearce, Robert (Sraffs. Leek) | Stanger, H. Y. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Pollard, Dr. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Power Patrick Joseph | Sullivan, Donal | Young, Samuel |
| Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Summerbell, I. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Priestley. W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Taylor, John. W. (Durham) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury | |
| Reddy. M. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | |
| Rees, J. D. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr | |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Coates,E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Hunt, Rowland |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O. | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col.W. |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Courthope, G. Loyd | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Liddell, Henry |
| Baldwin, Aflred | Craik, Sir Henry | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.) | Dalrymple, Viscount | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey) | Dixon-Hartland.Sir Fred Dixon | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Faber, George Denison (York) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Fell, Arthur | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hambro, Charles Eric | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hamilton, Marquess of | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Cave, George | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Starkey, John R. |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. | Heaton, John Henniker | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Helmeley, Viscount | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Hervey,F. W. F (Bury S. Edm'ds | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hills, J. W. | Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Vicent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster. |
| Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire) | Wortely, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- | |
| Walrond, Hon. Lionel | Younger, George |
§ Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,470, be granted for the said Service."
1504§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 313. (Division List No. 23.)
1505| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex F. | Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Dalrymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Middlemore John Throgmorton |
| Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H | Duncan, R. (Lanark, Govan) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Faber, George Denison (York) | Ratcliff, Major R. F. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J (City Lond.) | Fell, Arthur | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Forster, Henry William | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Starkey, John R. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hambro, Charles Eric | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hamilton, Marquess of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Heaton, John Henniker | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Campbell, Rt, Hn. J. H. M. | Helmsley, Viscount | Vincent, Col Sir C. E. Howard |
| Cave, George | Hervey, F. W. F (Bury St. Edm'ds | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. | Hills, J. W. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. | Younger, George |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc.) | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | |
| Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Craig and Viscount Castlereagh. |
| Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E. | Liddell, Henry | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Brocklehurst, W. B. | Crooks, William |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Brooke, Stopford | Crossley, William J. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Brunner. J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Cullinan, J. |
| Agnew, George William | Brunner, Rt. Hn.Sir J. T (Cheshire) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) |
| Alden, Percy | Bryce, J. Annan | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Delany, William |
| Armitage, R. | Burke, E. Haviland- | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Byles, William Pollard | Dillon, John |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Dolan, Charles Joseph |
| Barker, John | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Donelan, Captain A. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Chance, Frederick William | Duckworth. James |
| Barnard, E. B. | Cheetham, John Frederick | Duffy, William J. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cherry, Rt. Hn. R. R. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Churchill, Winston Spencer | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Clarke, C. Goddard | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Clough, William | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Clynes, J. R. | Elibank, Master of |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Erskine, David C. |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Evans, Samuel T. |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Eve, Harry Trelawney |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd) | Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W.) | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Billson, Alfred | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Faber, G. H. (Boston) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) | Farrell, James Patrick |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Fenwick, Charles |
| Brace, William | Cowan, W. H. | Ferens, T. R. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Cox, Harold | Ffrench, Peter |
| Branch, James | Cremer, William Randal | Findlay, Alexander |
| Brigg, John | Crombie, John William | Flynn, James Christopher |
| Foster, Rt. Hn. Sir Walter | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bghs) | Rose, Charles Day |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Maclean, Donald | Rowlands, J. |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Macnamara, D. Thomas J. | Runciman, Walter |
| Ginnell, L. | Macpherson, J. T. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S) | Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland) |
| Glendinning, R. G. | MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Glover, Thomas | M'Callum, John M. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Goddard,Daniel Ford | M'Crae, George | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne |
| Gooch, George Peabody | M'Kean, John | Sears, J. E. |
| Grant, Corrie | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | M'Killop, W. | Seddon,, J. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Seely, Major J. B. |
| Gulland, John W. | M'Micking, Major G. | Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Maddison, Frederick | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Haldane,Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mallet, Charles E. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Halpin, J. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Markham, Arthur Basil | Snowden, P. |
| Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Massie, J. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, NE) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Harwood, George | Meagher, Michael | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Menzies, Walter | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Molteno, Percy Alport | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Mond, A. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Montagu, E. S. | Summerbell, T. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Montgomery, H. G. | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury) |
| Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Morrell, Philip | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Morse, L. L. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Hobart, Sir Robert | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Murphy, John | Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E. |
| Hodge, John | Myer, Horatio | Thorne, William |
| Hogan, Michael | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Holden, E. Hopkinson | Nolan, Joseph | Toulmin, George |
| Hooper, A G. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid. | Verney, F. W. |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) | Waldron, Laurence Ambrose |
| Hutton, Alfred Eddison | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Idris, T. H. W. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Jenkins, J. | O'Dowd, John | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Johnson,W. (Nuneaton) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Wardle, George J. |
| Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Partington, Oswald | Waring, Walter |
| Jones,William (Carnarvonshire) | Paul, Herbert | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Joyce, Michael | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Kelley, George D. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pirie, Duncan V. | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Kilbride, Denis | Pollard, Dr. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Weir, James Galloway |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central) | Whitbread, Howard |
| Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r) | Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Rainy, A. Rolland | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Lambert, George | Raphael, Herbert H. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Law, H. A. (Donegal. W.) | Reddy, M. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Rees, J. D. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) | Rendall, Athelstan | Williams, L. (Carmarthen) |
| Levy, Maurice | Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David | Richardson, A. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Lough, Thomas | Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Lundon, W. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Young, Samuel |
| Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Lyell, Chas. Henry | Robinson, S. | |
| Lynch, H. B. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
§ Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
1508§ Original Question put accordingly.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 303; Noes, 61. (Division List No. 24.)
1509| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Cullinan, J. | Hogan, Michael |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Holden, E. Hopkinson |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Agnew, George William | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) |
| Alden, Percy | Delany, William | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Hudson, Walter |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Armitage, R. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Dillon, John | Jenkins, J. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Dolan, Charles Joseph | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Barker, John | Donelan, Captain A. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Duckworth, James | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Barnard, E. B. | Duffy, William J. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Joyce, Michael |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Kelley, George D. |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Elibank, Master of | Kilbride, Denis |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Erskine, David C. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt | Evans, Samuel T. | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd) | Everett, R. Lacey | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Billson, Alfred | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Lambert, George |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Farrell, James Patrick | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Fenwick, Charles | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Ferens, T. R. | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Brace, William | Ffrench, Peter | Levy, Maurice |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Findlay, Alexander | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Branch, James | Flynn, James Christopher | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Brigg, John | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lough, Thomas |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lundon, W. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Fullerton, Hugh | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire | Ginnell, L. | Lynch, H. B. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Glendinning, R. G. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Glover, Thomas | Maclean, Donald |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Grant, Corrie | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Griffith, Ellis J. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Gulland, John W. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | M'Crae, George |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Halpin, J. | M'Kean, John |
| Chance, Frederick William | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | M'Killop, W. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Harwood, George | Maddison, Frederick |
| Clough, William | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Haworth, Arthur A. | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Hayden, John Patrick | Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hedges, A. Paget | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Massie, J. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Henry, Charles S. | Meagher, Michael |
| Cowan, W. H. | Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) | Menzies, Walter |
| Cremer, William Randal | Higham, John Sharp | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Crombie, John William | Hobart, Sir Robert | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Crooks, William | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Mond, A. |
| Crossley, William J. | Hodge, John | Montgomery, H. G. |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Morgan.J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Morrell, Philip | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd | Toulrain, George |
| Morse, L. L. | Robinson, S. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Verney, F. W. |
| Murphy, John | Rose, Charles Day | Wadsworth, J. |
| Myer, Horatio | Rowlands, J. | Waldron, Laurence Ambrose |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Runciman, Walter | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Nolan, Joseph | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Walsh, Stephen |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Walters, John Tudor |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Scott, A. H (Ashton under Lyne) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Sears, J. E. | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Seaverns, J. H. | Waring, Walter |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Seddon, J. | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| O'Dowd, John | Seely, Major J. B. | Wason.John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'KelIy, James (Roscommon, N. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Sherwell, Arthur James | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Partington, Oswald | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Paul, Herbert | Simon, John Allsebrook | Weir, James Galloway |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Whitbread, Howard |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Snowden, P. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Soares, Ernest J. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Pollard, Dr. | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wiles, Thomas |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Williams, L. (Carmarthen) |
| Rainy, A. Holland | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Raphael, Herbert H. | Sullivan, Donal | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Reddy, M. | Summerbell, T. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rees, J. D. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Young, Samuel |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | |
| Richards T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease |
| Richardson, A. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Duncan,Robert (Lanark, Govan | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Baldwin, Alfred | Faber, George Denison (York) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fell, Arthur | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Forster, Henry William | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Starkey, John R. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hambro, Charles Eric | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hamilton, Marquess of | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Thomson, W Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Cave, George | Heaton, John Henniker | Vincent,Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W. | Helmsley, Viscount | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hills, J. W. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart- |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Houston, Robert Paterson | Younger, George |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hunt, Rowland | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon Col. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Stanley Wilson and Mr. Hicks Beach. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |