Sitting of 18 March 1904

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with,

  49
  viz.:—London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Felixstowe Gas Bill; Gomersal Gas Bill; Kettering Improvement Bill; Norwich Water Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 1).
  Mr. KIMBEEreported from the Committee on Group No. 1 of Railway Bills, That the parties promoting the Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill had stated that the evidence of Captain John Whitley Dixon, R.N., Humber Conservancy Office, Hull, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Captain John Whitley Dixon, R.N., do attend the said Committee upon Monday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Captain John Whitley Dixon, R.N., do attend the Committee on Group No. 1 of Railway Bills upon Monday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Croydon Gas Bill; Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill; Ryde Gas Bill; Brixham Gas Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Great Central and Midland Joint Railways Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Birkdale Improvement Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Watford and District Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Metropolitan Common Scheme (Farn-borough) Provisional Order Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional
  50
  Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  Metropolitan Common Scheme (Hilling-don East) Provisional Order Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

PETITIONS.
  ELECTIONS (HOURS OF CLOSING).
  Petition from Bethnal Green, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Altrincham; Bute; Briercliffe Golborne; Burton Latimer; East Ham Bleadney; Peckham; Whitby; Bacup Seedley; Theddingworth; Pontywain Witney; Eccles; Bridgwater; Giantwrch: Pentredwr; Gurnos; and Llansamlet; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.
  Petition from Sunderland, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Stoke Newington (two); Dover; Guildford; Faversham; Sheerness; and Wolverhampton; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL (CHINESE LABOUR ORDINANCE).
  Petition from Theddingworth, for withdrawal; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871 (YORKSHIRE COLLEGE, LEEDS).
  Paper [presented 17th March] to be printed. [No. 104.]

  TRANSVAAL.
  Copy presented, of further correspondence relating to the Transvaal

  51
  Labour Question [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS. AND DEATHS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of General Abstract of Marriages, Births, and Deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Middlesex, altering certain Polling Districts in the Harrow Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
  Accounts presented, for the year 1903, with an account of extraordinary works executed other than the general repairs for the same period [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of accidents -and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st December, 1903, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Land Transfer Rules. Copy of Rules made in pursuance of The Land Transfer Act, 1875, dated 18th December, 1903 [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Improvements of House of Commons— Expenditure.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what sums were voted and spent respectively on
  52
  works of sanitation or improvement in the House of Commons, its precincts, and Committee Rooms during the financial years 1901–2, 1902–3, and 1903–4, and what amounts of such sums have been attributable to recommendations of any Committee of the House.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The amounts are as follows:—

  Voted.

  Expended.

  £

  £

  1901–2

  250

  1,333

  1902–3

  6,400

  4,057

  1903–4

  850

  830

  In the case of the last mentioned year the amount of expenditure can only be given approximately. The expenditure of £1,120 in 1901–2 and £3,445 in 1902–3 may be attributed to the recommendations of the House of Commons Accommodation Committee of 1901, and the sum of about £600 to the Committee of 1902 and 1903.

  Suez Canal Convention.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the last annual meeting took place of the Agents in Egypt of the Powers signatory of the Suez Canal Convention of 1888, as prescribed by Article 8 of that Convention for the purpose of taking note of the due execution of its provisions, one of which (Article 4) limits the stay of the ships of war of belligerents at Port Said and the roadstead of Suez to twenty-four hours, except in case of distress; and whether he can state when the next meeting will take place.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) No such meetings have been held.

  Tradesmen—Cash-on Delivery Postal System.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON (Leicester): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the cash-on-delivery system is declared to be opposed to the wishes and interests of a large class of retail traders as expressed by resolutions of trade associations; and whether, before proceeding farther, he will submit

  53
  the matter to discussion in the House of Commons.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I regret that I am not in a position at present to add anything to the Answer which I gave on the 15th instant to the Question asked by the hon. Member on that date respecting the introduction of a system of cash-on-delivery.†

  Sale of Poisons.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the fact that attention has been called by the Coroner for the City of London, and other officers holding similar positions, to deaths through misadventure arising from the sale of poisons in unlabelled vessels, will he consider the expediency of adding poisons such as phosphorous, cocaine, and chlorodynes to the Schedule of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, and arranging for the prohibition of the sale of corrosive mineral acids and ammonia unless in vessels bearing the word poison; and will the sale of poisonous preparations to young children be prohibited.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) It does not rest with me to take any such measures as are suggested; but I may refer my hon. friend to the Answer given yesterday by the First Lord of the Treasury‡ to the effect that a Bill to amend the Pharmacy Acts will be introduced in another place after Easter.

  Grants for Secondary Schools.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state at what date the Board contemplate being able to initiate the revised scheme which was intended to take the place of the grants in aid of scholarships payable under chapter 2, ss. 66–70, of the regulations for secondary schools [Cd. 1668, 1903].
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Information has been circulated, and sent to the public Press, that the grants set forth in the chapter referred to will be
  †See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 1123.
  ‡See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 1380.
  54
  continued for the present, the note at the head of the chapter having been withdrawn. I am not in a position to state when a revised scheme is likely to be issued; but I am of opinion that nothing can be done in this direction during the coming financial year.

  Education of Children in Assam.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that there is little or no adequate provision for the primary education of the children of the labourers on the tea gardens of Assam, and if he will consider the advisability of urging the Government of that province to cause proper facilities to be provided at an early date for the vernacular education of the children employed, or resident, upon such plantations in Assam.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I will transmit my hon. friend's suggestion for the consideration of the Government of India, but he is probably aware that the labouring classes from which the coolies in Assam are drawn do not avail themselves as freely as could be wished of the facilities for education offered by Government.

  Re-Arming of Artillery.
  SIRCH ARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say how long will be taken in the re-armament of the Horse and Field Artillery, and how much longer in the completion of the authorised reserve of guns; and at what date it is expected that the re-armament and supply will be concluded.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) If the right hon. Baronet will kindly refer to page 4 of the Memorandum on Army Estimates, 1904–5, he will find under the heading, "New Patterns of Artillery and Rifles," the following statement: "It will not be possible to secure delivery during 1904–5 of more than the number of complete batteries assigned to India; but manufacture will be in full swing in the latter part of the year, and rapid deliveries of batteries for the Home Army will take place throughout the following year. Arrangements

  55
  are being made complete practically the whole re-armament, together with a large number of reserve batteries, by the 31st March, 1907." No further details are at present available.

ARRANGEMENT FOR DEBATE ON VOTE OF CENSURE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that as the Prime Minister was not present perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division would answer a Question he desired to put. It had reference to the proceedings on Monday. He understood that a private Bill had been put down which might occupy a long time and he wished to know what course the Government intended to take regarding it.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. AOLAND-HOOD ()said that any alteration in the arrangement was a matter for negotiation between the promoters and opponents of the Bill and the Chairman of Ways and Means. A statement would, however, be made on the Motion for the Adjournment that evening.

RAILWAYS (PRIVATE SIDINGS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to move.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he desired to second the Motion. The occasion for the introduction of the Bill had arisen from certain decisions in the Court of Appeal in Scotland and England from judgments of the Railway Commissioners. The custom of constructing private sidings i.e., sidings on land belonging to private persons and connected with the railways was almost as old as the institution of railways themselves. In 1845, by Section 76 of the Railway Clauses Act, owners and occupiers of land had conferred upon them the right, subject to certain conditions, to connect such
56
land with railways for their own use That clause had been incorporated in every private Railway Act which had been passed since, and until the decisions of the Court of Appeal in the two cases to which he had referred, it was universally believed that private owners had under that clause certain definite rights. The rights supposed to be conferred by that section had often been the subject of litigation before the Railway Commissioners, and they had always been accepted by the railway companies as binding upon them. The decisions given were really carrying out Section 9 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888, in which the rights of owners of private sidings were specially recognised, and also Section 4 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1894, whereby not only the existing sidings were recognised but express permission was given to the Railway Commissioners to settle disputes as to the amount of rebate which was due to private owners for services rendered by them at the siding. In 1901 there was a case in Scotland in reference to a siding belonging to Messrs. Cowan & Son, Limited, who took proceedings against the North British Railway Company. There, amongst other things, the question of reasonable facilities to provide sidings was raised, and the Commissioners held that the firm should have reasonable facilities to have their trucks delivered at, or taken from, their sidings by the railway company. On this the railway company appealed to the Court of Appeal in Scotland and the decision of the Railway Commissioners was reversed. He need not go into the particulars of the case, because another followed in England more directly to the point. He referred to the case of the Lancashire Brick and Tile Company and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company. In 1901 that company connected its land with the railway, under Section 76 of the Act of 1845, and the Railway Commissioners allowed them the right. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the decision, holding that Section 76 never had the meaning which the Legislature, the Board of Trade, the railway companies and private owners conceived it to possess, and that the owners of private

57
sidings, who had spent in many cases thousands of pounds in laying out and connecting their sidings with the railway, were entirely at the mercy of the railway companies. It might be asked, perhaps, why those interested in private sidings did not in these cases go to the final Court of Appeal, the House of Lords, but they were precluded from doing so by the Act of 1898. The only case in which an appeal from the Court of Appeal was allowed was where the decision of the Court of Appeal in one portion of the United Kingdom differed from the decision of the Court of Appeal in another part of the United Kingdom. In that case only was an appeal to the House of Lords open.
The existing state of things had created an intolerable situation, and it was felt to be a matter which required redress at an early date. Steps were taken on behalf of private siding owners last session to bring in a Bill, and a measure was brought in which it was hoped and believed would have replaced siding owners in the position in which they were always believed to be before the recent decisions. Unfortunately the Bill was not favourably placed for a Second Reading. Those who understood the position of private siding owners felt that any opportunity for redressing this grievance ought to be used and the promoters of the Bill desired, in framing it, to follow lines approved by the Board of Trade. It was with some regret that they found that the Department did not see their way to go as far as they wanted. The promoters desired that the validity of Clause 76 should be expressly established by Act of Parliament. They did not regard the clause as proposed by the Board of Trade as a sufficient remedy for the grievances of siding owners, but the clause recognised their claims to some extent, and he supported the Second Reading of the Bill as drafted in accordance with the limits insisted on by the Board of Trade, and hoped that the House would accept it. The principal clause in the Bill was a very short one. It went back to the Railway Traffic Act of 1854, and that Act, like the Act of 1888, was based on the recognition of the rights of private siding owners as understood by this House and the Courts
58
of Law at that time. The Bill would not grant all that private siding owners wanted, but would give a substantial proportion of what was desired. Clause 2 of the Act of 1854 was intended to enable the rights of the public generally to be more clearly defined that they previously had been. It defined what reasonable facilities were, and provided that no railway company should make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to, or in favour of, any particular person or company or to any particular description of traffic in any respect whatsoever. The Bill before the House followed up that provision. He did not see why questions affecting railways should be treated as if they involved any antagonism of interest between the companies and the public. Surely it was to the advantage of the companies to encourage British trade rather than to be merely the carriers of foreign goods imported into this country. It would not be difficult to show that the antagonistic attitude of the railway companies had been one of the inducing causes of British capital being employed abroad rather than at home. It was doubly to the interest of the railway companies to induce British producers to carry on their industries in this country, because they were customers for ever, and therefore he regretted the tone frequently adopted by railway companies, which gave the impression to the producers that they were of no greater interest to the railway companies than foreign producers He had in his hand a list of fifty cases where the railway companies had refused since the recent decisions of the Courts of Appeal to grant facilities to private siding owners except on most onerous terms. As, however, he understood it was not the intention to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, it was unnecessary to labour the matter. He begged to second the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the only difference between the railway companies and I the traders in this matter was that the traders appeared to think they were the

59
only class of people who used the railways, but there were other classes, and the desire of the railways was to assimilate their traffic to suit all classes, and thus avoid friction. The railway companies did not desire to gain anything by the recent decisions of the Court of Appeal, and were prepared to go back to the provisions of the Railway Clauses Act of 1845. All they asked was that the privileges given to them under that Act should be retained by them. There might require to be some modifications in the Bill when it reached the Committee, and there would have to be a clear definition of the word "reasonable" in Clause 2, in order to avoid litigation in the future. With that understanding he accepted the Second Reading.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that this question of sidings had always been a grievance in the eyes of trader and he was glad it was now going to be put upon a proper footing. He agreed that there ought to be proper safeguards put in in the interests of the public, and in this matter he spoke with the advantage of experience, because at a particular place in the North he was desirous of having a siding, and found out afterwards that objection was raised, and very sensibly raised, by the Board of Trade, who wished to safeguard against accidents arising from the creation of sidings at busy junctions where collisions might result. He submitted that the railway companies were just as anxious to give facilities to the public, and to increase their profits, as other people were; and he anticipated that they might probably hear from the President of the Board of Trade whether the measure had the sanction of his Department.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said the object of the Bill was to restore what was always believed to be the law until two or three years ago. He was glad to find the Bill found favour with the railway companies, and all he had to say was that the Board of Trade were prepared to consider with a fair, open, and im-
60
partial mind, any Amendments which it might be thought desirable to move.
MR. CRIPPSexpressed himself as being in favour of the Second Reading. It was clearly in the interest of the railway companies and the traders that where facilities of this kind could be given, subject to the general convenience of the working of the railway and satisfactory to the public, that they should be given, and the companies, he thought, would not oppose them save where such facilities would, in their opinion, be dangerous to the travelling public. He thought the Bill ought to receive the assent of the House. It would do away with the technical difficulties of the case, and each case could be referred to the Railway Commission to be dealt with on its merits.
MR. COHENsaid he had no difficulty in accepting the view of the railway companies as expressed by the hon. Member for Peckham in this matter. He was glad that for the first time this Bill had met with the cordial assent of the railway companies, but, when the hon. Member stated that the companies had always been in favour of benefiting the interest of the traders, he could only say that had they been as much opposed as it was stated they were in favour they could not have adopted a stronger attitude. The impression created in his mind had always been that the railway companies were unfavourably disposed to granting facilities. He agreed that the word "reasonable" ought to be defined as in an Act of Parliament its meaning was much too vague, and he hoped when the Bill got into Committee a proper definition would be found. He trusted that the Bill would be unanimously read a second time, and that in due course it would become statute law.
MR. REGINALD LUCASdeclared that traders in many parts of the country were subjected to great disadvantage in this matter and he, therefore, gave the Bill his support with the greatest satisfaction.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSalso supported the Bill and was glad that the House of Commons was attempting to deal practically with a situation of difficulty that had been created by technical legal decisions. He looked on the Bill as a vindication of the practical good sense of that Assembly. He traced a change in the attitude of the railway companies towards this Bill. It was all very well for them to claim that the interests of the trader and of the company were identical: the interests were too much like those of master and servant, and it was a well-known fact that those who were the first to get sidings were often placed in a far more advantageous position in regard to terms than those who applied later. He would, however, urge the desirability that the words of the Bill should be made as broad as possible. No trader would desire to have a siding in a position dangerous to passenger traffic, and the experts of the Board of Trade would be well able to decide what were reasonable facilities.
Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

HALL MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it dealt with the question of the hall marking of foreign plate imported into this country. He introduced a similar Bill last year and then had the support of the Board of Trade. Last year a large deputation waited upon the President of that Deparment and presented to him a petition signed by those interested in the question at Sheffield, Birmingham, and London. The signatories to the petition included the London Wholesale Jewellers Allied Trades Association, the National Association of Goldsmiths, the Birmingham Jewellers and Goldsmiths Association, the Sheffield Master Silver Smiths Association, the Workmen's Association connected with the trade, and the Sheffield Federated Trades Council. He might also tell the House that the
62
Associated Chambers of Commerce had unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the principle of the Bill. It was, in fact, a measure which both masters and men were united in pressing on the Legislature, and in the preparation of which he was indebted for assistance to the President of the Board of Trade. It had indeed been drafted under the superintendence of the right hon. Gentleman, who he believed would speak in favour of it that day. He would first explain to the House how the law at present stood with regard to the hall marking of plate in this country, both for goods manufactured here and for those imported. It was evident that for the protection of the public gold and silver plate must be tested in some way to ensure the quality of the metal. For that reason assay offices had been established in various places. No gold or silver plate could be put on the market without being first sent to an assay office and tested and marked accordingly. Hon. Members would agree that that was a reasonable provision. Not only must goods made in this country be so tested, but foreign plate also had to be dealt with in the same way, and to have impressed upon it the same marks. The marks which were now required to be put on plate made in this country were for silver wares, first, the local mark of the Assay Office, as in London a leopard's head, in Birmingham an anchor, in Sheffield a crown, and so on; secondly, a lion, indicating silver; thirdly, a letter varying with every year to indicate in what year and what century the plate was assayed. These were the three standard marks which all silver plate sent into the Assay Offices had to bear. These marks were likewise put on foreign plate, but in addition to them it was provided by the Customs (Tariff) Act of 1876 that foreign plate should be marked with a letter F on another escutcheon. It was not often that Acts of Parliament indicated reasons for their existence or provisions, but in this case it was noteworthy that the Act stated that this was to be done in order "to denote that the plate was imported from abroad." The object thus indicated in the statute had not been secured, because the letter F had not been recognised as an indication of foreign origin. He might explain to the House

63
that in addition to the ordinary hall, marks it was usual for the manufacturer's initials indicating his name, to be added, and not unnaturally this letter F had been mistaken for the initial of the manufacturer. The public on seeing the lion mark were satisfied that the goods were silver and did not look at anything else. Foreigners were now bringing their plate into this country for the purpose of getting the lion stamped on it, and so securing by aid of the British hall mark a better price for their manufactures in their own and in neutral markets. That was the grievance of which British manufacturers complained.
The grievance was that the foreigner sent his goods into this country for the purpose of getting the English hall mark and then sold them at an enhanced price. That was a practice against which the Legislature intended to guard in 1876, and the object of the present Bill was to enable that intention to be carried out. A precedent existed for what was now sought. By the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 an exception as to marking was made with regard to watch-cases. Foreign watch-cases had been sent into this country in large quantities for the purpose of getting the hall mark, and were then sold as British. The Committee which inquired into the subject came to the conclusion that—
"it was clearly proved that while the hall mark was intended as a mere mark of standard quality yet it had become an indication of British origin, and that when it appeared on foreign watch-cases it was taken to attribute British origin to the whole of the watch."
Consequently, watches were given a different mark altogether, and the letter "F" did not appear. It was now I alleged that the grievance which existed in 1887 with regard to watches had been proved with regard to all kinds of plate, and a special mark was asked for. The Bill provided that foreign plate should be assayed in exactly the same way as at present, but that, instead of having the present hall marks with the letter "F," it should have some mark readily distinguishable from those used for marking plate wrought or made in the United Kingdom, "as His Majesty may determine by Order in Council." The particular mark to be applied would be
64
decided by the Privy Council, who would doubtless consult the different Assay Offices. It was believed that when that Order had been made the grievance would be remedied. He had shown that there was a demand for this Bill on the part of the wholesale and retail traders, that by the Customs Tariff Act of 1876 the Legislature meant to make a difference between the marks on foreign and those on British plate, and that the object of the Legislature had not been attained. The Bill created no new principle, inasmuch as it followed the precedent of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, and it involved no fiscal protection of any kind. British manufacturers did not object to any fair competition, but they did object to foreign goods being sold as British-made, and he hoped the House would agree to the Second Reading of the Bill. He begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CALDWELLsaid that when this Bill was before the House last session he felt that it was not one that could be allowed to pass without full discussion. It was true that the hall mark was the same both for British and for foreign plate, with the addition in the latter case of the letter "F," that letter being added for the express purpose of denoting that the plate was made abroad. The object of the hall mark was to guarantee that the material of the article was of standard quality, and that held good whether the letter "F" appeared or not. The indication of the place of origin was another question altogether. The Bill proposed the adoption of a different mark to distinguish foreign made goods, and that was exactly the object of the Merchandise Marks Act. Why was it not proposed to place on the articles "Made in Germany "or "Made in Italy" as the case might be? That would be very useful as it would enable people to know where the designs came from. Everybody knew that the Merchandise Marks Act had ruined the trade of this country.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTThen why does the hon. Member always oppose a Bill to amend it?
MR. CALDWELLsaid he opposed it because the amendment was as silly as the Act it sought to amend. That act had simply advertised Germany and her trade, and the Germans had been competing with us ever since. The Act of 1837 had seriously injured this country, and the present Bill would not do any good. When people were attracted by a design which had been made abroad, they would find out where it was made and buy it there instead of in the British market. He had refused to allow this Bill to pass after midnight without discussion, and he was glad it had come up now so that he could give his reasons for taking that step.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire left out two main considerations—firstly, the interests of the working people; and secondly, the consumer. He would consider first the interests of the working classes. What higher interest could the worker have than the interest he had in seeing that the name of his country should not be misused by foreigners? Upon this point he addressed himself particularly to labour Members. This was the one direction in which the working man might be said to have a share in the asset which was contained in the goodwill of the business. The representation that goods were made in Great Britain when they were not was one of the most dangerous ways in which that most valuable part of a working man's property could be attacked. It was idle to contend that this Bill was intended to protect any particular trade, for its object was to protect the consumer, who was being deceived to the prejudice of the wage-earning producer. He thought ho had shown that this Bill was drawn upon genuine democratic lines, and its aim was to defeat malpractices, not on the part of the producers, but on the part of the middlemen. It was only drawing a red herring across the path for the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire to introduce the failure of certain proposals in the Merchandise
66
Marks Act, for they were admitted defects, and there were nearly always some defects in every Act of Parliament. The requirement that you should have the place of origin marked upon the goods was put in because of our treaty obligations, and in the expectation that the executive administration of that Act would be wholly different. It was not expected that affirmative indication of foreign origin would be required in more than a very small proportion of cases. In his opinion the Customs Department were wrongly advised, and a Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Act ought to be passed, and with the passing of such an amending Bill would disappear the only grievance which could be alleged against the Merchandise Marks Act, except by middlemen who wanted to obtain that to which they were not entitled. He hoped hon. Members would not be led astray by all this talk about labour in Germany, with which this Bill had nothing whatever to do. He entreated the House to go back to first principles, and consider in this matter the good of the greatest number, namely, the consumers and buyers of these goods who had been deceived; and the great mass of working men who were interested in the fair fame of this country for genuineness and sincerity in manufactures. He hoped the House would resolve not to allow working men's property to be filched away by the practice of obtaining custom under false pretences.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid the speech they had just listened to was a fair sample of the speeches they were constantly hearing upon questions of this kind. The hon. Member for the Hallam Division's main argument was that this measure would benefit working men. He hoped his hon. friend would insist upon a division, because this Bill was only a bit of protection for certain manufacturers in this country. They were told the same thing and the same arguments were used in favour of the Merchandise Marks Act, and he remembered Mr. Mundella making a powerful speech against it.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: He was in favour of it.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: This statement relates to a deceased Member of this House for whom I had great respect, and I must absolutely contradict the statement that he ever made any speech against the Merchandise Marks Act.
SIR JAMES JOICEY: I was certainly under that impression.
MR. STUART WOETLEY: He may have spoken against some extension of the Bill in later years.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that so far as filching away working men's property and selling goods under the name of Great Britain which were not made here was concerned, he could not see that such a case had been made out in regard to this Bill. Hall marks were well known to the general public in this country, and he did not see why they should change them. As for selling things under a wrong name, the letter "F" showed clearly that the article was not made in Great Britain. He was satisfied that this Bill was simply intended to protect a particular industry, and if possible to prohibit the importation of foreign-made silver articles. He hoped the House of Commons would not sanction this Bill.
SIR E. DURNING-LAWRENCEsaid the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire had stated that it did not matter what marks were upon silver. He disputed that argument, for there was often a question whether it was the real thing or a copy. They might make silver to-day exactly the same as that which was 130 or 140 years old but they could not put the same mark upon it without fraud. If it were a genuine old piece, instead of fetching 3s. or 5s. per ounce it might fetch £50 per ounce. Therefore it was important that the mark of silver should be understood. It was also very desirable that the public should quite clearly understand when they saw the mark whether the article was of English or of foreign manufacture. He did not say that in all cases the foreign article was worse, for he possessed some articles of foreign
68
plate of extreme value, but he did not want to possess foreign plate that pretended to have been made in England. There never was a time like the present when genuine articles possessed such an extraordinary value. A great many wealthy men were desirous of possessing articles which old British families once possessed in times past, and if dealers could only persuade these men that the articles were real and genuine they did not care what price they paid for them. He very strongly supported the passing of this measure. Watches were sent over to this country from abroad by tens of thousands, and formerly the public, looking at the cases of those watches and seeing the British mark of the lion upon, them would naturally assume that the whole of the watch was British. It had therefore been found necessary to put a mark upon watch-cases which could not be mistaken for a British mark. He failed to see any reason why they should not also put a mark on all foreign plate which would indicate plainly that it was not made in England. He failed to see that this Bill was in any way unfair to foreign workers. If people wanted foreign goods by all means let them buy them, but the public ought not to be misled by a lion being placed upon foreign goods. He was not prepared to say what special marks should be used, but he thought the Board of Trade could settle that. He strongly objected to marks being put on plate which would deceive the ordinary public. He did not think anyone realised the enormous extent to which at the present time cheap silver goods were being made. The price of silver used to be 5s. an ounce, and at that time there used to be a duty upon it of 1s. 6d. per ounce. To-day the price of silver was about 2s. 2½d. an ounce. He was told recently by a wholesale manufacturer that his firm had started works for the manufacture of small silver articles which could be sold at 3s. an ounce, but great complaints were made that purchasers were not able to distinguish between British and foreign-made articles. He asked hon. Members opposite not to oppose the Bill.
MR. SCHWANNsaid that when he saw the names on the back of the Bill he had a suspicion that there was something against free trade in connection with it. The hon. Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield distinctly said that he supported the measure because the free-trade doctrine was old fashioned.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: I said nothing of the kind.
MR. SCHWANN: I am in the recollection of the House.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to quote my exact words.
MR. SCHWANN: I had no satirical motive in making the statement. I understood that was one of the chief reasons why the hon. Member supported the Bill.
MR. STUART WORTLEY: I would ask whether, if it is not a law, it is not the unbroken custom of this House for one Member to accept from another the explanation of what he has said.
MR. SCHWANNsaid he accepted the statement from the hon. Member, and was glad to hear that he was a free-trader. He thought it would only add to the difficulty of the buyer if there were put on the goods a certain trade mark which would require much greater knowledge of hall marking on the part of the outsider before he could comprehend what the mark meant. What had taken place under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 ought to be a warning to those who were in favour of British trade. He could state from long experience as a merchant in Manchester that until that Act was passed an immense amount of goods made in foreign countries were ordered through England. The profits upon those transactions spread throughout Manchester and other places. Those profits were now lost to this country, and the worst of it was that not only was the shipping of foreign goods by English merchants prevented, but an immense number of
70
orders had been lost which otherwise would have come to English firms.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The hon. Member knows that that was not borne out by the evidence before the Commission.
MR. SCHWANN: I am giving my own experience.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The hon. Member did not give evidence.
MR. SCHWANNsaid he could assure the House that that was a fact. A number of foreign-made articles used to be ordered through Manchester houses in conjunction with English goods, but when buyers found that they were made abroad they followed up the manufacturers and gave them the orders. The result was that all sorts of new fabrics were introduced into those countries—fabrics of which it was not perhaps very easy to send out samples from England. The effect was that an immense amount of trade which was formerly done in this country had gone to the manufacturers in other countries. His hon. friend had said that it was ruining British industry. He did not believe that for a moment. He hoped the House would pause before it passed this Bill It seemed to be a measure in the interest of some manufacturers, and no doubt the working people of Sheffield and Birmingham, but it was not in the interest of the public generally. He should regret, even for those trades concerned, if we were to abandon the free-trade principles upon which we had acted in England for the last fifty or sixty years. The effect of the measure would be indirectly to put considerable difficulty in the way of importing foreign plate with the result that actually less plate would be introduced into this country. One great advantage which our own manufacturers derived from these imports was that they were able to see the beautiful designs produced in France and ether countries not second to this country in the matter of taste. If we once commenced to rope in a trade, to confine it within bars, and to protect it, the imagination of manufacturers would diminish. They would not see the necessity for employing first-class workmen, and would think that anything

71
would do for this country, because the public would be compelled to buy the goods. He would support his hon. friend in pressing this matter to a division.
MR. LAWRENCEsaid reference had been made to the Merchandise Marks Act and its effect on the foreign trade of this country. He wished to inform the House that he had received a request from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce to support this Bill. When they heard so much of the injury done by the Merchandise Marks Act in certain quarters, he could not help thinking that this important body would not have asked him to support the Bill if they thought there was anything in that objection. It was only proposed by this Rill to follow on the lines of the previous Act, and therefore they were not entering upon any new departure. By passing this Bill Parliament would enable the public to know what they ought to know, namely, from where the goods were imported. He believed that a well-designed article would sooner or later obtain the appreciation of the public. He felt convinced, however, that foreign goods should be marked in the way proposed. By passing the Rill they would only be doing justice to British workmen, I while not preventing the entrance into this country of really good foreign goods.
MR. HENDERSONsaid all the speeches to which he had listened from the other side of the House were more or less of a protectionist character. The hon. Member for the Hallam Division put in a strong appeal to the labour representatives to support the Bill, and assured them that its promoters were actuated by a desire to do something in the interest of the particular trades affected. He had heard no argument which at all wont to prove that the workers as a whole were going to be benefited if this Bill were passed. There was no evidence that the articles were made under unfair conditions, although they were often told that such was the case in connection with foreign-made goods. Nor had the question of inferior quality been raised.
72
That had been settled by previous legislation. If no attempt had been made to prove that the articles imported were of inferior quality what could be the object of the measure? To his mind the object was to promote not the interest of the workers but that of the manufacturers. Several speakers had said that under present conditions the purchaser did not know that an article was of foreign manufacture. That seemed to him to be a reflection on the intelligence of the purchaser. Surely all the purchasers did not go into the question whether the firm's name began with an "F," or whether "F" represented that the article had been made abroad. He supposed that the hon. Gentleman wanted two "F's' to represent that the article had been made abroad. How far was this principle going to be carried. It might be driven much further than the hon. Gentleman desired. Some hon. Members who represented labour might demand that there should be some mark to distinguish articles which were made under unfair or sweating conditions in this country; and then it would be found that those who were asking for support for this Bill would go into the Lobby against them. He spoke in the House directly in the interest of labour, and he would oppose this measure, believing that it was not in the interest of the workmen but that it was of a protectionist character, and instead of helping the workmen it would have the opposite effect.
MR. LOWEsaid that the Rill was simple and reasonable. There were a large number of people engaged in this trade in his constituency who were unanimously in favour of the Bill and who had asked him to give it his support; and he intended to do so. It was quite erroneous to suppose that the Bill raised the question as between free trade and protection. It was not intended to restrict the sale of these articles, but that people should see that they were purchasing foreign-made articles. The principle had been recognised in the Act of 1876,which provided that goods should be marked in a distinctive way showing that they had been made abroad, and that they should be marked

73
by the letter "F." But they had heard from the hon. Member who had introduced this Bill that it had been found, from experience, that that mark was not sufficient; and all he asked was that the mark should be made sufficiently distinctive. That seemed to him to be eminently fair and reasonable, and he would give the Bill his warmest support.
SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that his objection to the Bill was that it was unnecessary. Why should they load the Statute-book with unnecessary measures? The Act of 1875 provided very clearly and distinctly that full notice should be given to the consumer or purchaser that what he wanted to buy was not made in this country but abroad. Under that Act the letter "F" in an escutcheon was required to be stamped on the article alongside the marks indicating the quality of the metal. By Statute that, letter "F" was declared to moan foreign make. If that notice to the buyer was insufficient what kind of mark would be substituted? He could not see how either workpeople or manufacturers would be benefited by this Bill. In nine cases out of ten the buyer would purchase what most took his fancy whether foreign or British. Under these circumhe objected to the Bill as wholly unnecessary.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that if he thought this Bill was a protectionist proposal he would vote against it, because he entirely concurred with the First Lord of the Treasury in his objection to a protectionist policy. But this Bill was not of that character. The only intention of the measure was that the purchaser should have the right to know what was the character of the article he was purchasing. There were some goods, such as silks, which were better produced in, say, France than in this country, and always would be, because of the delicate artistic faculty of the French workman, which had not been given to the English workman. Some reference had been made to the Merchandise Marks Act in connection with the discussions in Committee on the Musical Copyright Bill. He believed that that Act had worked in restraint of trade;
74
although the representations made that day by the representative of the shipping houses in Liverpool that it had not so acted, had made an impression on his mind.
MR. BULLsaid he understood that the object of this Bill was to have a separate mark for foreign-made goods. He was connected with a firm which had manufactured gold and silver articles for a century. They had encouraged native artists and had a largo collection of models; and they found that these models wore copied abroad and the manufactured articles wore brought into this country and were purchased here under the idea that they came from his firm. He hoped that the Board of Trade would alter the whole of the marking of these goods, and would make the marking entirely distinct so as to show which was home and which was foreign-made. What was wanted was that in the case of foreign plate the old heraldic marks of the lion, crown, anchor, etc., should not appear at all, but something entirely distinct.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that this was in no sense a measure connected with protection. All the bodies connected with the manufacture of gold and silver urged the adoption of the Bill. The hon. Member opposite said he represented labour in a special sense. Ho denied that. He himself represented labour. The great majority of his constituents were working men. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle did not represent labour any more than any other hon. Member in the House. He contended that the interests of the working men were injuriously affected by the present state affairs. The hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division said that he understood perfectly well the marks on these foreign-made goods. Might he ask the hon. Member to look at his watch and see whether it was of English make or of foreign make? He very much doubted whether he would be able to do it. He remembered when the Merchandise Marks Bill was being considered in Committee, the late Mr. Mundella was in the Chair, and when the members of the Committee were asked to produce their watches it was found that the only member who had an English-made watch was Mr. Mundella himself, although several

75
of the members had watches which bore the names of English firms on them. The hon. Member for Durham maligned the late Mr. Mundella in connection with the Merchandise Marks Act. Mr. Mundella took a very active part indeed in the enactment of the Act of 1887. He was also a member of the Committee of 1896 and 1897, but unfortunately his death occurred just before the Committee reported, so that he was not at the final sitting. The Committee reported that they were "satisfied that the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 has been on the whole beneficial. There has been abundant evidence that it has, to a great extent, stopped the fraudulent practices against which it was directed." On behalf of the watchmaking trade it was represented that the marks of foreign origin placed upon watch-cases should be in visible letters, inasmuch as it was found that die watches were made abroad and imported in order to be placed in British hall-marked cases and then sold as British manufacture. The Committee thought the demand reasonable. The Member for Mid Lanark was very emphatic in his condemnation of the Merchandise Marks Act, and he was very glad to hear him say that the words "Made in Germany" had done an immense amount of injury to the trade of this country. If so, why did he continually oppose this Bill, and not alter the words and put in something more definite?
MR. CALDWELLsaid his answer was that the proposals of the hon. Members were quite as ridiculous as the present system of marking.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid why, then, did not the hon. Member suggest some change? It was all very well condemning everything. The hon. Member was a very clever and a very persevering man and opposed everybody's Bills except his own. He invited the hon. Member to confer with him and see in what way they could remove this injury to the trade of the country. It had been shown by his hon. friend most clearly that the word "F" was of a diminutive character and passed totally unobserved by the ordinary purchaser. That meant
76
that great injury was done to the purchasers of British plate. It was absurd to attempt to distinguish between the interests of the manufacturers and their workmen in this matter. He hoped, therefore, the House would give the Bill a second reading.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEthought it was a great pity that this subject could not be discussed without the question of free trade and protection being brought into the discussion. However foreign manufactured silver was marked it would make no difference to the quantity that came into this country or the amount of foreign manufactured silver sold. In his opinion this was a question which the House was entitled to consider and discuss from the consumer's point of view. They had different hall marks for England, Ireland, and Scotland, and it was a common custom for English manufacturers to send silver over to Ireland to be marked, and the letter "F" which was put on foreign manufactured silver was not sufficient to tell the ordinary buyer where the silver came from. Hall marks were at first marks of origin, and for his part he would go much further than this Bill went. He did not consider it was fair that either English, Irish, or Scotch marks should be put on any silver of foreign manufacture, and it would be a wise thing for the Board of Trade to come to that conclusion and to prevent any of the British hall marks being put on foreign silver, and if at the same time some other mark were put on to show that that silver had paid a tax it would be a much better arrangement than that, which obtained at present. If people wanted to buy Irish, English, or Scotch silver they should be at liberty to purchase it, and none of these marks should be put on silver of foreign origin.
MR. MURRAYsupported the Second Reading of the Bill. He repudiated the suggestion that the question of free trade was involved by the measure, declaring that the Party that it was supported by, the Members for Birmingham, did not necessarily raise the question of protection. He stood in a different position, for he was a free-trader, and as a free-trader, declined

77
to associate free trade with fraud. He saw no necessary connection between free trade, which he desired to support, and fraud, which he desired to put an end to. Would it be one of the planks of the platform of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark when, under another Government, he became Secretary for Scotland, or Lord Advocate, to do away with all hall marks.
MR. CALDWELL: I must absolutely decline to make any answer to that, because if the event takes place, which the hon. Gentleman predicts, which is very unlikely, one cannot do anything without consulting one's colleagues.
MP. MURRAY: The hon. Member had laid down the point that hall marking simply stamped the quality, hut it went beyond that; it identified the origin, and the date, which was a very important point in the question of the price of gold and silver. Parliament had gone a step further than the date; it had added the letter "F," to distinguish between foreign and British plate. The supporters of the Bill, who spoke for a very large interest in the country, simply argued that what Parliament did then was in the right direction and was justified, but was not sufficient, and all they asked now was to make that measure more effective. It had been said that the letter "F" might refer to a certain manufacturer, but there could be three different "F's" on different shaped shields, one showing the article was of foreign manufacture, one the nominal mark of the maker, and the third signifying the date; and he did not think the doing away with this confusion could be stigmatised as protection. The Bill, he declared, was brought forward in justifiable defence of interests against fraud, and they ought to be thus protected whether they were those of consumer, manufacturer, or worker. This was not a small matter; it was a matter which interested large sections of trade, and it could not do the slightest harm, for any one who wished would still be able to purchase foreign plate.
MR. NORMANrepudiated in the strongest possible way that any question of protection or
78
free trade was involved by the Bill. If it had savoured of protection, he need not say that his own name would not have appeared in connection with it. The question at issue was a very simple one; it was whether there should be a big "F," or some corresponding mark, to denote that the article was of foreign manufacture. The law had decided that these goods should be marked in a certain fashion, but they were now marked in such a way that the British hall mark, perhaps the highest standard, could be and was regularly, fraudulently used. This was not only obviously defeating the intentions of the law but also the interests of this country. The issue, therefore, was simply whether the mark was to be used as intended by Parliament or used in such a way as to lend itself to fraud; ond he hoped his hon. friends would not vote against the Bill simply because its srigin was in the Birmingham conatituency.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said the Bill was supported by the Board of Trade for reasons stated by the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield. The question was one of extreme simplicity. The Legislature had already laid down the principle that foreign-made plate should be distinguished from British, and to effect that distinction the Act o fl876 enacted that he letter "F" should be stamped on foreign-made plate sold in this county. It was found, however, that the mark was insufficient, and this Bill proposed in lieu of it a more distinctive mark. The sacred principles of free trade had been invoked against the Bill, and the Merchandise Marks Act had been dragged in and its principle assailed. But was that Act inconsistent with the principles of free trade? If so it would hardly have passed that House without a division in 1887. It might be desirable that the Merchandise Marks Act should be amended in certain directions, but he thought the Select Committee who inquired into its operation were right in maintaining that on the whole its effect had been beneficial. But it was possible to condemn the general effect of the Merchandise Marks Act and yet hold that this Bill was amply justified. The case of this

79
Bill was a peculiar one, for while the Legislature enacted that a mark should be applied, it had been shown that the mark, which was originally intended to be a guarantee of the quality of the material, had gradually become to be taken as an indication of origin by the great mass of customers. Both customers and producers were entitled to have such a distinctive mark put upon plate that they would be enabled to know what was British-made and what foreign-made. The only consideration which should lead them to leave things as they were was that some particular section of the trade would be seriously damaged by the change. This was not so in the present instance. Every section of the trade, employers and workmen alike, were agreed that the change now proposed
would be advantageous, and he hoped the Bill would be read a second time.
COLONEL DENNYsuggested that, in the discussion of the principles of this Bill, the President of the Board of Trade should avoid giving a great and gratuitous advertisement to foreign competitors, as the Merchandise Marks Act had unhappily done. He thought that that Act was one of the greatest disasters to British trade, and had undoubtedly been the origin of other competing lines of steamships from Germany.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 53. (Division List No. 63.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury.

Reckitt, Harold James

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Helder, Augustus

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Runciman, Walter

Balcarres, Lord

Holland, Sir William Henry

Russell, T. W.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Spear, John Ward

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Knowles, Sir Lees

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Bignold, Arthur

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Black, Alexander William

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N.R.)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Layland- Barratt, Francis

Thornton, Percy M.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tuff, Charles

Chapman, Edward

Lowe, Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

Charrington, Spencer

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheff'ld

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Macdona, John Cumming

Walker, Col. William Hall

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Malcolm, Ian

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Morrell, George Herbert

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Denny, Colonel

Mount, William Arthur

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Donelan, Captain A.

Murnaghan, George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

O'Mara, James

Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R.(Bath

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

O'Shee, James John

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Flower, Sir Ernest

Parrott, William

Forster, Henry William

Pemberton, John S. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Mr. Norman.

Fyler, John Arthur

Platt- Higgins, Frederick

Gardner, Ernest

Plummer, Walter R.

Garfit, William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Grant, Corrie

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crean, Eugene

Ffrench, Peter

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Crombie, John William

Flynn, James Christopher

Burns, John

Delany, William

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Cameron, Robert

Dunn, Sir William

Hammond, John

Causton, Richard Knight

Edwards, Frank

Hayden, John Patrick

Channing, Francis Allston

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fenwick, Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Joicey, Sir James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Toulmin, George

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Priestley, Arthur

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Kitson, Sir James

Reddy, M.

Wallace, Robert

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Roche, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Levy, Maurice

Schwann, Charles E.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Lundon, W.

Slack, John Bamford

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

M'Kenna, Reginald

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sullivan, Donal

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Henderson.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Etc.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
[SECOND READING].
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it was intended to promote the efficiency, economy, and better administration of savings banks, dealing as it did with various points as to which defects had been shown to exist. It was an omnibus Bill of six clauses, which he would briefly explain. Under the Act of 1891 an Inspection Committee was formed and charged with the duty of inspecting the trustee savings banks accounts so as to protect the public against any repetition of those scandals which had, in preceding years, caused so much serious injury to the poor, both in the loss of their savings, and in the consequent discouragement of habits of providence and thrift. The Inspection Committee had found that as a general rule the accounts were well kept; and that the bookkeeping—though in some few cases rather antiquated—was such as to disclose the real position of these banks. Since the appointment of the Committee it had been necessary to report only one or two cases in which the managers had refused to do their duty. The great body of managers had met every reasonable requirement, and had performed their duties assiduously and attentively, thereby securing the safe and sound administration of these banks. The Inspection Committee reported annually to Parliament on the
82
results of their inspection, and the reports of the last few years had pointed out where defects existed, and how reforms might be effected. The Committee consisted of the Chief Accountant of the Bank of England, the President of the Law Society, the Deputy-Registrar of Friendly Societies, and representatives of the banks, all of whom were experts. Their unanimous recommendations were embodied in this Bill, which consequently had their endorsement. Then again, a Select Committee was appointed in 1902, and presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, which considered the recommendations of the Inspection Committee, and unanimously adopted them as likely to prove conducive to the welfare of the banks. Lastly, the attention of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had been drawn to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious to do all he could co aid these banks, and was prepared on behalf of the Government to promise support to the Bill.
Now he came to the clauses of the Bill, each of which dealt with a separate matter. The first clause provided that the auditors of savings banks need not give security. The Committee had found that the duties of the auditors did not involve anything like the responsibility which was cast on the managers and clerks. One of the best guarantees of the safety of a bank was to be found in a frequent change of auditors, and it was thought that, if security were always insisted upon, it might prove an obstacle in the way of securing the services of chartered accountants, who might be willing to give them for one year only; in these cases security would be unnecessary. The second clause enacted that the Government, through the National Debt Commissioners, might allow the expenses of forming penny

83
banks. It would be admitted that there had been no better movement in connection with our elementary schools than the establishment of these banks, and that they had done much to help and strengthen the savings bank movement throughout the country, by inculcating in yonng children habits of thrift. The next clause gave power to superannuate. The absence of that power had, in some instances, been a temptation to the trustees to wind up the bank, in order that compensation which could not be given in annual payments might be given in a capital sum to those who had grown old in the service, and the continued employment of whom did not conduce to efficient working. There was also a clause enabling banks to sell, exchange, and let their bank properties on advantageous terms. This power could only be exercised with the consent of the National Debt Commissioners, on the recommendation of the Inspection Committee. Clause 5 dealt with the amalgamation of banks, and assimilated savings banks in this respect to the friendly and industrial societies and provident societies. It was quite obvious that in neighbourhoods where there might be declining banks, or where branch banks were rapidly growing into larger institutions, the power of amalgamation was almost essential. For that purpose also the consent of the National Debt Commissioners and of the Inspection Committee was necessary. The next clause was wide and of rather more importance. Prior to the Act of 1891, there were sixteen or twenty savings banks which had special investment funds. Those departments were accessories of the bank and curried on the habits of saving to larger amounts. He thought the Committee of 1891 made a mistake when they restricted that power to the then existing banks. It was desirable to restore this power to banks, with £200,000 of deposits, which were open daily, and the clause assimilated the English practice to Scottish practice. It would enable trustees by investing in local securities of which they had knowledge—such as municipal investments and School Board rates—to serve local interests while obtaining really good; securities. The last clause provided
84
that there should no longer be an obligation to give notice, when the depositor's account had reached £200, that it would be invested in stock. Under this clause the deposit would rest in the bank, but, while the £200 would continue to bear its interest, any excess beyond that amount would not be interest-bearing so long as no directions wore received from the depositor for its investment in Consols. This provision was, perhaps, more important in a pecuniary sense to the Post Office Savings Bank than to trustee savings banks, because he believed that in the case of the former the cost of sending out these notices amounted to some £33,000 annually and involved in addition a good deal of clerical work. The provision might also avoid a repetition of domestic differences which had not been unknown when, in consequence of the sending of the notice to the house, the fact that the deposit existed, which had been kept secret up to then, was disclosed either to the master or the mistress of the household as the case might be. That clause had not been put forward by the trustee savings banks, but it was one of the recommendations of the Committee, and he had thought it proper to include it in the Bill. He believed that expenditure on savings banks was a gain to the State, not only by saving people from the rates, but also by accumulating a larger national capital. Ho could not agree that the larger depositors were rich people who took advantage of the banks. He believed that many of them were the depositors who had lived longest and saved most, and were therefore the most meritorious class of depositors. He believed, further, that the Bill would conduce to the efficient and economical administration of savings bank, sand seeing that it bore on its back the names of hon. Members belonging to all Parties in the House, that it had the approval of a Parliamentary Select Committee and of the Inspection Committee, and that further it was endorsed by the Government who were the guardians of the national purse, he earnestly trusted that it would be read a second time that afternoon.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. YOXALLsaid that at the request of the governors of one of the oldest trustee savings banks in the provinces he heartily supported the Bill. He had the greatest admiration for the noble work done by the managers and officials of these banks. Although in Committee some slight modifications might have to be introduced he felt that for the purposes of Second Reading very little criticism was needed. There was one point he would like especially to refer to. Some thousands of penny banks had been established in connection with our public elementary schools, but unfortunately there were no funds out of which the expenses of management could be defrayed. It was too much to expect that officials who gave their services voluntarily and gratuitously should pay them out of their own pockets, and it was equally undesirable to reduce the interest allowed on deposits. They had heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had no intention of reducing the interest on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank. He believed the provisions of this Bill would assist the banks to work with renewed vigour, and for this and other reasons ho begged cordially to support the Second Reading.
MR. LAWRENCEhad pleasure in supporting the Bill upon the authority of one of the largest savings banks of the country. The Liverpool Savings Bank had over 123,000 subscribers, and he had been requested on their behalf to support his hon. friend. It was very gratifying that the proposals of the Select Committee had been received with so much approval. The terms of the Bill had been lucidly set forth, but he might point out that when amalgamations took place, although savings banks might hold buildings, yet they had no means of giving a title when they desired to part with them. That was a point to be dealt with. Another was that, as far as funds allowed, pensions should be allowed to workers who had spent their lives in the service of the community. It was quite true that the real aim of most investors was security rather than high interest, and he certainly thought that when a subscriber
86
had put together £200 he might fairly be considered to have learnt the art of thrift, and to be capable of forming right opinions as to the proper investment of his money. Having regard to the difficulty some banks had in meeting their expenditure, he fully approved of Clause 7, by which some economy might be effected without any real injustice being done to the subscribers. It was unnecessary to dwell further on the merits of this short but useful Bill; he cordially wished it success, and hoped the House would give it favourable consideration.
SIR JAMES HASLETT,speaking on behalf of the savings bank of Belfast, heartily endorsed the Bill, which he thought would be a benefit to savings banks generally. Public savings banks were taking the place of private lending associations in Ireland, and it was for the welfare of the country that some public form of bank should be general, with Government audit, and management without personal interest. The Belfast Bank was one of the most successful in Ireland, and it cordially supported the Bill.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONas a trustee of a large and successful savings bank, heartily approved of the Bill. The elasticity of administration which the Bill would afford had long been desired. Certain points would require consideration in Committee, but the Bill as a whole ho cordially supported.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)congratulated the mover on the unanimity with which his Bill had been approved, and did not propose to raise any discordant voice. On behalf of the Government he welcomed the measure, and the hon. Baronet would have what assistance he could give in passing it into law. He reserved the right to move some Amendment in detail in Committee if he found that course to be necessary; but there was complete agreement as to the object to be attained, which was to embody in legislation the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Bristol. The Bill

87
dealt exclusively with trustee savings banks, and did not touch those recommendations of the Committee which had reference to the Post Office savings banks. He had announced the other night that it would be his duty to propose legislation to carry out certain recommendations made by the Committee in reference to the Post Office banks, and also in regard to the trustee banks in respect of the deficiency annuity, a subject with which his hon. friend's Bill naturally did not deal. He had not yet arrived at a definite conclusion as to the form in which those Amendments could be most conveniently proposed to the House. It might be possible for him to move the insertion in this Bill of clauses embodying what he desired. It might, on the other hand, be more convenient to bring them in as a short Bill of his own and to refer the Bill to the same Committee, with an Instruction to the Committee to consolidate the two measures. He would consider which course would be the more advisable. Under the conditions now prevailing he did not think it necessary, or even right, to make a proposal to reduce the interest payable, and the changes he sought to make were such; s he believed would receive the unanimous approval of the House.
SIR SAMUEL HOAREexpressed his satisfaction with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everybody would be glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared, not only to support the Bill, but also to make the measure more effective in its working. For the last year or so savings banks deposits had not increased with the rapidity that might have been expected, but there had been an uncertain feeling with reference to the question of interest and also as to the future working of savings banks, whether private or Post Office. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman would give general satisfaction, and doubtless tend to the more rapid increase of deposits. He was in the same position as other hon. Members, inasmuch as he had been requested by the largest trustee bank in East Anglia to support this Bill. He congratulated his hon. friend on
88
finding the House so unanimously prepared to accept the measure, and he hoped it would pass into law in the course of the present session.

RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND,in moving the Second Reading, said that this Bill had been under consideration on several previous occasions, and if the House was to be at all consistent it would again pass the measure by a substantial majority. The kinds of machinery to which the Bill related were not now, in practice, rated by those unions in which the machinery most largely existed; therefore the passing of the Bill would not in any way interfere with existing practice. Whilst it could not be said that the promoters of the Bill had any reason to complain of the practice in most of the unions of the country, their desire was to crystallise that practice and to remove certain obscurities which sometimes led to considerable litigation. On the other hand, the owners of the kinds of machinery and tools covered by the Bill had no reason to complain of the decisions which had been obtained from the Courts of Law. When previously before the House the Bill was opposed by the city of Sheffield because of a false alarm as to the probable effect of the Bill on the present rating practice in that large industrial centre. He was assured, however, by leading authorities that the Bill would in no sense interfere with that practice, but that the heavy machinery and tools at present assessed within that borough would continue to be so assessed. On the other hand, if the practice which obtained in a few unions, where there was very little loose machinery and tools, was universally followed, a serious additional burden would be imposed upon the industries employing that machinery, an additional burden which might even involve the ruin of some concerns. In most of the constituencies represented

89
in this House the provisions of the Bill were a matter of indifference, as the loose machinery and tools affected did not there exist in any large quantity; but in a few constituencies, such as Oldham, Bolton, and Preston, in Lancashire, and Bradford, Huddersfield, and Leeds, in Yorkshire, it was a life and death matter that the principles embodied in the Bill should be approved by the House. Seeing the matter was of such importance, it was no wonder that the textile operatives were as strongly in favour of the Bill as the employers themselves. The Bill had been before the House on so many occasions that Members were doubtless familiar with the arguments in its favour; he would, therefore, merely say, in conclusion, that in this, as in many other matters, Scotland set a good example, for the Scotch practice was one of which the promoters of the Bill approved and which they do-sired to see adopted in England. If the system of carrying over Bills from one session to another had been in existence this Bill would have been the law of the land long ago, as it had often reached an advanced stage, but had never been able to complete its stages through both Houses. With the hope that it would be more successful this session, he begged to move that it be now read a second time.
MR. CHAPMAN,on rising to second the Bill, said that according to its opponents the theory of this Bill was that as soon as a mm had saved a little money, obtained a patent, taken a shed, the power being supplied by his landlord, and put therein his movable machinery, down would come the valuer, with the result that the industry would be practically strangled at the beginning. That was not the object at all. The Bill aimed at relieving small industries from increased taxation; consequently it would encourage them. It affirms that machinery provided by a tenant should not increase the value of the buildings. The Bill did not propose to take the taxes off all machinery. The landlords' fixed machinery, such as boilers, shafting, and so on, was taxed already, and it would not be affected by the Bill; the intention was to prevent the tenant
90
who moved his machinery into a building from being taxed out of existence by the rates on the valuation of the building. Moreover, the Bill would diminish the enormously costly litigation caused by appeals to quarter sessions. In the Hunslet Union, Leeds, fifty-five members of the Machinery Users' Association had entered appeals against their assessments. Under the old assessments the gross estimated rental amounted to £45,000 (taking round figures) and the rateable value to £33,000; under the new assessment the gross estimated rental was £94,000, an increase of 103 per cent., and the rateable value £62,000, an increase of 85 per cent., the increases being in consequence of the rating authorities having taxed the tenants' machinery on the premises. The cost of this litigation was estimated to be about £400 in each case, or a total of £20,000, the whole of which would probably have been avoided had this Bill been in force. That was a very startling and instructive instance. He read a letter from Messrs. Early & Co., Witney Mills, Oxford, saying, "It is of the greatest importance to us, as the local manufacturers are rated at double what they would be in the North, and it seriously handicaps us in competition." He gave one example. He was informed on the best authority that the well-known Westinghouse manufactory established recently near Manchester would have been taxed out of existence had not the Corporation wisely followed the lines of valuation laid down in this Bill, a line adopted usually in Lancashire. The Bill would prevent the hampering of small trades, and it would encourage the establishment of small manufactures. These were important considerations in view of the present industrial depression, for by encouraging the growth of home industries, with the consequent increase of employment for working men, the country at large would be benefited. He begged to second the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he had often

91
protested against the name given to this Bill, as it created the greatest confusion throughout the country. That confusion, however, was gradually disappearing, and as the people got more thoroughly to understand the real principle of the Bill their objection to it increased. The Bill was called a "Rating of Machinery (Exemption) Bill," but the impression in many districts was that it was a Bill to rate machinery, not to exempt it. The example of Scotland had been cited. He understood from a prominent Scotch Member that many Scotch municipalities were now beginning to adopt the English system in their assessments, and to rate the machinery in connection with their mills. The debates on the subject had been of great service in opening the eyes of various localities to the disadvantages which would ensue if the Bill were passed. Complaint was made of the cost of litigation. But what was its cause? In the North of England they knew what the law was, and they had made their assessments in accordance therewith. In an evil moment there was a dispute in the Midland district between a municipality and certain traders; a gentleman from Sunderland was called in to make a fresh assessment, and he made it in accordance with what they in the North believed the law to be. Litigation ensued, and the Courts upheld the view of the North, with the result that the municipality adopted that method of assessment. This Bill practically proposed to punish those who had been conforming to the law, and to bring the law into agreement with the practice of those who had been systematically breaking it. It was not proposed to exempt all machinery. Greater injustice than at present existed would be created, because the Bill proposed to exempt certain machinery and to rate other machinery. He could not think that this was a time when the House ought to narrow the area of taxation. They were constantly hearing of the injustice that personalty was not taxed in the same way as real property, but if there was any class of personalty which ought to be rated surely it was that which increased the productive power of an industry.
92
The hon. Member opposite said this Bill was intended to assist the working classes, but he was satisfied it would have the opposite effect. This measure did not deal with industries as a whole, and surely workers were as much in need of consideration as the owners of machinery. This Bill proposed to take the tax off machinery and put it on to the workmen, and he protested strongly against any such process. The rates and taxes of this country were going up by leaps and bounds. Municipalities found their expenditure increasing, and all kinds of public improvements were wanted, and the difficulty they were experiencing was to find money for them. Public bodies; were unable to carry oat these much-needed improvements owing to increases in the local rates. Personally he could not see how this measure was likely to benefit any particular industry simply by taking this burden off the manufacturers and placing it upon the general public. This was in reality a manufacturers' Bill. Had hon. Members considered how this measure would affect some of the towns in the North of England. Take Gateshead as an example, where 95 per cent of the inhabitants belonged to the working classes. At the present time machinery there was rated, but if this Bill were adopted the rateable value would be considerably reduced, and who would pay the amount which the manufacturers had been relieved of? Why the population of Gateshead. Consequently the only effect of this Bill would be to transfer a burden from the manufacturer and place it upon the public at large. That was not a justifiable method of attempting to deal with this question, and as a matter of fact it was equivalent to a reduction of the wages of the workers. If the ratepayers had to pay higher rates upon their houses the rents would increase, and therefore this Bill was equivalent to a reduction of wages. At the present time there was a good deal of talk about the housing of the poor, and how would this measure affect that question? It would operate against the housing of the poor, and surely this was not a time to reduce rateable value when they had so many expenses looming in the distance. The present system of assessing the rates

93
had been given in the past as security for loans, and what was now proposed by this Bill would interfere with the security which had been given for those advances. If they reduced the rateable area they must necessarily reduce the value of the security, and this House ought to hesitate before pursuing any such policy. If, in a mining district, they introduced machines for coal cutting to do away with the severe labour in mines, and in order to produce 30 or 40 per cent. more coal, under this Bill they would have to pay increased rates and that would be simply taxing the output.
This Bill only dealt with a small part of a large question, and he could not think that the House would be well advised to begin to deal with the great question of rating in a piecemeal fashion. The Government ought to deal with the whole question of rating, and he thought it would be very unwise to tie the hands of any future Government which attempted to deal with this matter by passing this measure. This was a question which ought to be dealt with by the Government and not by a private Member's Bill. He thought the time was fast coming when, instead of people being gathered together in large mills, they would have smaller industries in the country, the motive power being supplied by electricity. He had opposed this Bill for many years, because he contended that, if they were to rate personal property, they ought not to exempt machinery, which would simply relieve the manufacturers at the expense of the working classes. [Cries of "No, no!"] He maintained that that was so. He recognised rates as a handicap to all industries, but they could not get along without taxation, and it was the duty of the House of Commons to see that taxation was levied justly upon all classes, whereas this Bill only created another injustice He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that although they had heard this measure debated over and over again, on this occasion they had not heard one single new argument. Therefore the difficulties which stood between them on the last occasion still
94
existed, and they were still waiting for an answer to the arguments used in previous debates upon this subject. They had just been listening to the giants of commercial enterprise, but ho wished the House to bear in mind that the great industrial communities were not the only communities concerned in legislation. This was to a certain extent a struggle between the rural and the industrial interests. [Cries of "No, no."] At any rate, agriculturists thought they knew what was best for agriculture better than hon. Members representing industrial centres, and they thought that this Bill would have an unhappy and unfortunate effect upon some of the industries they were sent to support. It had been said that if they could tax the whole of the personalty there might be something said for rating machinery, but it was no argument to say that because they could not carry out a reform all at once it was wrong to perform a little measure of justice. As a matter of fact, they all knew that under the law, as it stood, all personalty was liable for rates, and it was only by a sort of accident that a person escaped. Those who were connected with the land considered that they had at present a very heavy and direct grievance by this escaping of personalty from taxation, and it was solely because the owners of land were a long-suffering race, and had not the same power of making themselves heard, that the land was suffering at present from those unjust burdens which had been so long imposed upon it. This extremely unfair condition of things had been allowed to go on too long, and they were looking forward to an alteration in the existing state of affairs through reform in local taxation. Last year he was very much struck by an argument used by the hon. Member for Oldham, who said that if they could not rate personalty there ought to be some increase in the Imperial subventions to local authorities. He thought that was a sound and wholesome doctrine, and when the hon. Member had done his best to support the agricultural interest in obtaining such local subventions, then he thought it would be time to support such proposals as were contained in this Bill. Was this an opportune moment to suggest that they

95
should transfer certain burdens now borne by one class of the community to the shoulders of the agricultural class, who would have to take up the burden which others would lay down under this measure? This House had been too much accustomed to hear what was the condition of things in rural districts to entertain a proposal of that kind, they knew only too well how heavily the pressure of the rates affected rural districts, and how difficult it was to carry on agricultural industries, partly on account of the burden of new rates.
Under recent legislation a considerable increase had been laid upon the agricultural community whom they now proposed to burden still further by measures like this. Not only had there been new rates involving a considerable amount of money, but in his own rural district there had been a new assessments of all the houses and hereditaments which came under the Rating Acts. He agreed that some of those assessments were absurd in the extreme, and he would give an instance. Recently he had endeavoured to do what he could to provide better housing for the agricultural labourers in his own district, and ho had spent a considerable amount of money upon improving their cottages. Not only this, but immediately after carrying out these improvements, he lowered the rents to those who stayed on the land. Nevertheless, under the new system of rating, in the case of every one of those cottages, although the rent had been dropped, the assessments had been doubled on the ground that the rental was worth more than that which he had chosen to let his cottages for. Of course if a business man was to conduct his affairs upon those principles, a rise of rents would always have to follow a rise of rates. He was aware that many landlords did not follow out this principle, but he wished to impress upon the House if the existing state of things was such as to justify any further imposition of rates, and if this Bill were passed, there would be some additional burden put upon the agricultural community from which a certain section of the people would escape. No doubt he would be
96
told that agriculturists got their share under the Agricultural Rating Act; they did not get under that Act as much as they ought to have got, but if the Agricultural Rating Act was fair and just why should the House of Commons now try to neutralise its value by passing an Act like this. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Rotherham, he still insisted that he understood agricultural matters bettor than he did, and he thought he had given some good reasons why from an agricultural point of view this measure would be inequitable and unfair.
He had been very much impressed with the argument which had been repeated by the hon. Baronet opposite to the effect that in his opinion this was a Bill which would injure the working classes and help the manufacturers. In this respect he should like to call attention to an argument which had not yet been answered and which was referred to in the debate last year. He alluded to the question which was asked as to whether it was true that the effect of this Bill would be to place a fine upon West Ham to the extent of £27,000 a year, which would be equivalent to a rise of 7d. in the £ on the rates. Assuming that to be a fact, what justification was there for such an immense burden being placed upon that borough? It had been said that the effect of this measure upon large towns in the North of England would be to increase the rates paid by the working classes by an amount varying from 3d. to 8d. in the £. If that was true, how could it possibly be said that this Bill was an equitable measure in the interests of the working classes, and how could it assist in providing them with better and healthier homes? Since this question was discussed last, the House had suffered a great loss by the death of one of its most picturesque personalities. Hon. Members would always remember the speech made upon this question by the late Sir William Allan, who spoke from personal knowledge, and who pointed out the evil effect this measure would have in the borough he represented, and the extent to which it would oppress the working classes by putting upon them a burden which was borne at the

97
present time by another class. Those who remembered that speech would not be very easily convinced that the measure which was now before the House ought to pass. It was difficult to trace out what the effect of this Bill would be upon minor industries in the country. Some of his hon. friends thought that by starting minor industries in country districts they would benefit agriculture. He did not deny that when certain industries were in flourishing condition they benefited agriculture, but they did assert that at the present time, when they desired to keep a larger agricultural population on the land not only to develop agriculture but also to produce a stronger and a healthier population, they failed entirely to see how this measure would do anything but add to the difficulties which at present existed. Until he had heard a satisfactory answer to the objections he had put forward to this Bill, until some conclusive proof was given that the facts asserted by Sir William Allan and the hon. Baronet opposite were erroneous, and until he could be shown that this Bill would not operate adversely to the agricultural interest, he should associate himself with the hon. Baronet opposite in endeavouring to secure the rejection of this Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir James Joicey.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. EMMOTTsaid the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down had spoken of this Bill, not as it really was or as it would turn out to be if passed, but what he imagined the Bill aimed at. He had quoted a remark which he had made in regard to increasing the subventions to local authorities, but he thought the hon. and gallant Member was mistaken in supposing that this Bill would operate against the interests of agriculture. What was meant by minor industries being discouraged was that owing to the uncertainty of the law at the present time people were indisposed to erect factories in agricultural centres on account of the rating of machinery, because they knew that as soon as they erected their factories, and placed their machinery in them, the local authorities would
98
come down and rate that machinery. Probably nine-tenths of the amount they often put on for machinery might be taken off on appeal, but so long as that uncertainty existed manufacturers were not inclined to erect their buildings and put in machinery in agricultural districts where no such factories now existed. The hon. Member for the Chester-le-Street Division objected to the title of this Bill as being misleading, but there were many other Bills to which a similar objection might be taken. Very often it was almost impossible to give in a few words a name which would adequately describe what a Bill was really meant to carry out. That, however, was a minor objection. The hon. Member stated that in Scotland they were trying to rate machinery. As a matter of fact they did try to rate machinery a few years ago, but the Scotch people knew immediately that any such action would drive industry and manufactures away from the country, and a Machinery Bill was introduced and carried through this House without any opposition which enacted precisely what they wanted for England. So far as the supporters of this Bill were concerned, they were willing to take exactly the words of the Scotch Bill and apply them to England. When his hon. friend the Member for the Chester-le-Street Division of Durham said that machinery in mines was rated, he he was going beyond the actual facts of the case. In some cases machinery was rated. In other cases the presence of machinery affected the rating of the mine in that the assessment of the mine was increased because the assessment was made on the output. There were some mines which were very expensive to work, and where a great deal of pumping machinery was required. He did not mean to say that the presence of machinery made the assessment lower, but the fact that it was wanted tended to make the assessment of the mine lower. He knew nothing about the rating of mines himself, but he had told the House what had been stated to him by a rating authority.
SIR JAMES JOICEY: All the machinery in connection with a mine tends to increase the output, and in that way machinery is rated.
MR. EMMOTTsaid it was not the machinery that was rated. The mines were rated on the output. He had stated the case as it had been stated to him by a very competent assessing expert. His hon. friend went on to say that what the promoters of this Bill were aiming at was to reduce the rating area of the country. It was nothing of the kind. It was stated that in Northumberland and Durham, and also in Sheffield, machinery was rated by the rating authority. He did not know whether that was the case or not, but he was told that the assessments made by the rating authorities there were not greater than were made in Manchester or Oldham for similar manufactures. He was certain, at any rate, that there were textile districts in the country where machinery was not rated, and where the local authorities would be absolutely opposed to anything which would bring it within the purview of assessment, from the fact that it would tend to add to the cost of production, and that to do anything which would operate against great industries of that kind would be a very serious and a very unwise matter. There were stated to be two principles at work. One principle was carried out in one part of the country, and the other in other parts. He was not able to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the information he asked in regard to Oldham, because he did not know the circumstances. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree with him that, if two principles directly opposed to one another were being carried out in different parts of the country, the fact showed that there was a case which should be examined by a competent and independent authority on behalf of the Government, and that some settlement of the question should be made. He appealed to the Secretary o the Local Government Board, if he should speak this afternoon, to state what the Government was going to do in the matter. The King's Speech promised a Bill dealing with the question of assessment. As soon as the question was dealt with, in order to put the assessing system on one uniform basis, the question of the rating of machinery must also be dealt with. They could
100
not in a great country like England put manufacturers on a different basis from those in Scotland. If they attempted to do that, Lancashire and Yorkshire would be practically in revolt on this matter.
This was a question on which an enormous amount of misunderstanding existed, and it was for that reason that he said there ought to be a thoroughly independent inquiry. If they were going to carry out in connection with the cotton industry what was carried out in Northumberland and Durham, he feared it would mean absolute disaster, and therefore he hoped that hon. Members would see that this was a very serious matter which wanted more investigation than it had yet received. It was a matter on which they could not afford to depart, with regard to the textile industries at any rate, from what had been carried out in the past. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said that if he would help him to get a large subvention from Imperial sources for agriculture, he would do what he could in their case. He would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if there was one place which suffered from the system of Imperial subvention, and which would benefit by the alteration of that system in the direction which the Royal Commission suggested, that place was the constituency for which he had the honour to sit. He ventured to say that Oldham would benefit much more than any agricultural county if that principle were carried out.
SIR SAMUEL HOAREsaid this question had been before the House on several occasions, but those who had supported the Bill, year after year, in the past would continue to do so, knowing that a great grievance existed in the country. The hon. Baronet who moved the rejection of the Bill criticised the name, but that could be easily altered. He asked the House to confirm the decision which had been arrived at again and again with reference to this measure. There was admittedly a grievance felt by many people in the country in connection with this matter, and, if that was so, something ought to be done to remedy it. He wished to speak on behalf of the city of Norwich, whose industries were of the greatest inportance to it, and where

101
they laboured under difficulties which did not exist in the North of England. It was a city which depended a great deal for its prosperity on agriculutral prosperity. He therefore claimed to be able to speak on this question both from the point of view of manufacturing industry and agriculture. In answer to the suggestion which had been made that this was a Bill introduced by employers and manufacturers he would state, as showing that this was not so, that he had received memorials signed by the workers in connection with fifteen of the manufactures of Norwich urging him in their interest to support this measure. The chamber of commerce in his city had also asked him to support it. He should like to ask his hon. and gallant friend whether movable machinery was assessed in the agricultural district in which he lived. His impression was that it was not, for it was assessed in comparatively few places at the present time. The city of Norwich was one, and that was why they felt the grievance there. It was because the system of rating machinery was not uniform that those in the districts which were assessed felt that there was an uncertainty which ought to be done away with. It was necessary to bring forward the same arguments year after year, but it appeared to him that the arguments in favour of the Bill were stronger now than they were last year in view of the experience they had had. A great deal had been heard during the past year about the desirability of furthering the industries of this country. They had seen their village or small town industries drifting to the great centres. He thought this had been a very serious matter for the agricultural districts. He would put this case to his hon. and gallant friend. Supposing there were some old buildings in his district which he did not want, and three or four active and enterpising young men with a turn for machinery rented them for a small amount. Some movable machinery was put in, and these young men started a little industry which one day might be a great industry in that district. The very moment they put that machinery into these disused premises the assessment would be raised. Such cases had happened, and that was not the way to encourage young men to start small industries. There were places in the United States, and he believed
102
also in Germany, where, in order to encourage the starting of industries, the buildings were either free from rates, or only a very small assessment was imposed, until the industries were properly established. He hoped his hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board would be able to say more to-day on the question than the House had heard from the Front Bench on previous occasions.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he had taken an interest in this question for many years, and he was bound to say that their labours with regard to the Bill did not seem to be much nearer fruition than they did some years ago. The question was a very narrow one. Movable machinery was personal property, and the question was, was it right or desirable that personal property should be rated? He was entirely of opinion that it should be; but at the present time it was not rated generally, and if that was so, was it right or fair that one peculiar productive form of personal property should be rated? If they were to be logical, consistent, and fair-minded in this matter they would, with regard to the agricultural interest, be obliged to rate ploughs, harrows, and theshing machines; and in connection with the coal industry they must rate trolleys, pickaxes, and shovels. At Liverpool docks and wharves were heavily rated, but to be consistent, why should they not also rate even the ships plying on the Mersey? At present the agricultural interest was receiving half of its rates from the Exchequer, and the people in the towns were obliged to contribute a large portion of that relief to the counties where the rates were only half what they were in the towns. He ventured to say that land was not rated at all. It was income derived from land that was rated, and why should income from land be treated differently from income derived from other forms of property? He wished to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether it was the fact that shortly after the passing of the Agricultural Rating Act the Government agreed, on the entreaty of Mr. Ascroft, the late

103
Member for Oldham, not only to withdraw their opposition to this Bill, but to support it.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)said that was certainly not the case. His right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board said in the House last year or the year before that the Government, as all Governments had done, left it an open question.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he believed that up to that year the Government of the day did oppose the Bill. He hoped the Government would leave it an open question on this occasion, and also that the House would again affirm the principle that machinery was personal property which should be exempted from assessment.
MR. CHAPLINsaid he entirely agreed that this was a narrow question. The hon. Member for Norwich said that a grievance was felt in that city. But was there no grievance on the other side? Agriculturists had considered for years that they had a great grievance in the matter. If there was a grievance, let it be remedied by all means, but let it be remedied all round. If by this Bill they gave a modicum of relief to a particular portion of the community, some part of the burden must fall on other interests. It would fall on the agricultural interest, which, as the agriculturists had always claimed, was more unfairly rated than any other interest in the country. He would vote against the Bill.
MR. FENWICKsaid the hon. Member for the city of Norwich said many people had a very serious grievance in connection with this matter. It seemed to him a very curious and unsatisfactory proceeding to endeavour to remedy one grievance by creating another. The grievance was only a local one, and by passing the Bill they would create even greater hardships in the districts in which it would operate than
104
existed now. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Oldham that this was a serious question, but it was only the fringe of a still greater question, viz., the entire basis of local assessment and local rating. The Government were pledged to deal with the whole question of local taxation, and he thought it would be preferable that they should wait until they had the Government's scheme before them rather than that they should tinker with the fringe of so great a question as was proposed by the Bill. His hon. friend the Member for Norwich said that this was not a manufacturers' question, but he was afraid that he could not subscribe to that doctrine; it was a manufacturers' question almost entirely. The first to get relief by this Bill would be the manufacturers; workmen would obtain no relief, at least in the first instance. The area of rateable property would be reduced, the workmen's wages would not be increased, while rents would rise. In the North of England, at present, machinery was rated, and all those who had carefully studied the question—boards of guardians and town and district councils—maintained that if this Bill passed it would reduce the area of rating, and increase the rating of householders. Hard as the workman's lot was at present, he would find it much harder if this Bill was passed into law. He therefore hoped that the measure would not be endorsed by the Government. They had been told that the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by the House, but hon. Members must have been struck by the fact that on each occasion when a Second Reading was carried, it was by diminishing majorities. That showed that the opinion of the country—which had been captured by the false and fanciful title under which the measure had been brought into the House, was now becoming alive to the real facts of the case and the true inwardness of the proposal. Believing that if the Bill were carried in its present shape it would prove unjust to owners of small properties, to agriculturists, and specially to householders, he would give his vote against the Second Reading.
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that this was a question in which he had always

105
taken the keenest interest. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Member opposite had just stated, that the Government were pledged to deal with the whole question of rating; but when they did so they would deal not only with the question of how light machinery should be valued, or heavy machinery should be valued, or how this and that industry should be rated, hut with the subject as a whole. The hon. Member for Oldham seemed to think that the Valuation Bill, which was mentioned in the King's Speech, and which the House had given his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board leave to introduce, was the occasion to deal with these matters. He was not revealing any Cabinet secret when he said that that was not so. That Bill did not deal with the manner in which a particular hereditament was to be valued, nor with any subject of that description. It dealt only with valuation authorities, and the areas over which those valuation authorities were to rule. He had been asked to intimate to the House what was the attitude of the Government in regard to this Bill. Many Presidents and Secretaries of the Local Government Board of both Parties had declared that the matter was one on which individual Members, if a division was called, might proceed in whatever direction they saw fit. That had always been the general attitude adopted by Governments in the past towards this measure, and it was the attitude which was taken up by the present Government on this occasion. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill, with an exaggeration of language at which he was astonished, said that this measure was a life and death measure for the industries of the country. If that were the case these industries would have been dead long ago. Speaking in an unofficial capacity, and as one who had given great attention to questions of local taxation, he said that with regard to all these rating Bills the attitude he consistently took up was that every man who received an annual benefit from the expenditure of the rates ought to make an annual contribution to the rates in proportion to that benefit; and that, as far as possible, valuation, as forming the basis of taxation, ought
106
to be founded on actual knowledge of facts, and not on efforts of the imagination. The Bill before the House was not supported by any rating authority in the country, except one.
MR. EMMOTTsaid that it was supported by many.
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that only one rating authority had communicated with the Local Government Board on the subject: and he himself knew that many rating authorities were violently opposed to the measure. To discuss reasonably in that House a proposal for either the imposition of further local taxation or the exemption of certain hereditaments from rating, they ought to look at the matter from the point of view of two considerations. The first was, what annual benefit would the owner of the hereditaments receive from the expenditure of the rates; and the second was, what was the capacity of the owner of the hereditament to bear the rates? He had not heard any hon. Member approach the subject from either of these points of view. No one had attempted to prove that the owners of light machinery received less benefit from the expenditure of rates than the owners of heavy machinery, or, indeed, than the owners of hereditaments to which no machinery whatever was attached. And he was sure that no one would ever attempt to prove that mills containing this light machinery produced less value to their owners, and were, therefore, less capable of bearing taxation than were other works in the same district in which machinery was of a ponderous character. He did not agree with the view that the law in this matter was uncertain and that this Bill would make it more certain. He believed that the law was as certain on this matter as the law of this country would ever be on any matter. The question had been fought out for years. Ever since 1840 it had occupied the attention of the Courts, and at last something like a definite decision had been arrived at. He considered the judgment of Lord Esher in the Tyne boiler case was as plain as anything could be. If this Bill were passed, the whole thing would be again thrown into the melting

107
pot. He did not think it would be fair to ask the House to come to a decision after so short a discussion; but, if a division was taken, he hoped the House would be against the Bill.
MR. HENDERSONrose to continue the debate, when
Sir WILLIAM HOLLANDrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
MR. SPEAKERsaid that this question had been a long time before Parliament, and although the debate had been only a short one on that occasion, he thought it had come almost to a natural termination; and therefore he would accept the Motion.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 64.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Forster, Henry William

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Fyler, John Arthur

Russell, T. W.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Garfit, William

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Barron, Rowland Hirst

Gibbs Hon. A. G. H.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Goddard Daniel Ford

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Bignold, Arthur

Groves, James Grimble

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

Black, Alexander William

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Bond, Edward

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Boulnois, Edmund

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Helder, Augustus

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Caldwell, James

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Horniman, Frederick John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Causton, Richard Knight

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Charrington, Spencer

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Thornton, Percy M.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Kitson, Sir James

Tomkinson, James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Knowles, Sir Lees

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Tuff, Charles

Cremer, William Randal

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheff'd

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Crombie, John William

Leng, Sir John

Wallace, Robert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Levy, Maurice

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Denny, Colonel

Lloyd-George, David

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Dickson, Charles Scott

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Morrell, George Herbert

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Dunn, Sir William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Nicholson, William Graham

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Norman, Henry

Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R.(Bath

Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw's Bghs

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Emmott, Alfred

Parrott, William

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Perks, Robert William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Holland and Mr. Chapman.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Fergusson Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Finlay Sir Robert Bannatyne

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Ambrose, Robert

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Blake, Edward

Hammond, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hare, Thomas Leigh

O'Shee, James John

Boland, John

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Paulton, James Mellor

Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

Hayden, John Patrick

Pemberton, John S. G.

Burns, John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Plummer, Walter R.

Cameron, Robert

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Price, Robert John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Reddy, M.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jacoby James Alfred

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Robson, William Snowdon

Cautley, Henry Strother

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crean Eugene

Lundon, W.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Spear, John Ward

Cust, Henry John C.

M'Kean, John

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Malcolm, Ian

Tennant, Harold John

Delany, William

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Morpeth, Viscount

Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Donelan, Captain A.

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

Edwards, Frank

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir James Joicey and Mr. Fenwick.

Ffrench, Peter

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Grenfell, William Henry

O'Mara, James

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Ainsworth, John Stirling

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Flower, Sir Ernest

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Norman, Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Parrott, William

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Garfit, William

Perks, Robert William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bignold, Arthur

Groves, James Grimble

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Black, Alexander William

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Bond, Edward

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Boulnois, Edmund

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

Caldwell, James

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Horniman, Frederick John

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Causton, Richard Knight

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Channing, Francis Allston

Horniman, Frederick John

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Tennant, Harold John

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Crombie, John William

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Kitson, Sir James

Tomkinson, James

Denny, Colonel

Knowles, Sir Lees

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw M.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Tuff, Charles

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheff'ld

Dunn, Sir William

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Leng, Sir John

Wallace, Robert

Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw's Bghs

Levy, Maurice

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Emmott, Alfred

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Malcolm, Ian

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morrell, George Herbert

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

The House divided:—Ayes, Noes, 94. (Division List No. 65.)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Holland and Mr. Chapman.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R.(Bath

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Fenwick, Charles

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Ffrench, Peter

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Mara, James

Ambrose, Robert

Forster, Henry William

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

O'Shee, James John

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Grenfell, William Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

Hammond, John

Pemberton, John S. G.

Blake, Edward

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Plummer, Walter R.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hayden, John Patrick

Price, Robert John

Boland, John

Helder, Augustus

Reddy, M.

Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (M'ddles'x)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Burns, John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Robson, William Snowdon

Cameron, Robert

Jacoby, James Alfred

Roche, John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Cautley, Henry Strother

Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

Russell, T. W.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Loder, Gerald E. Walter Erskine

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Lundon, W.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Coates, Edward Feetham

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Spear, John Ward

Crean, Eugene

M'Kean, John

Sullivan, John Ward

Cremer, William Randal

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sullivan, Donal

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Morpeth, Viscount

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Cust, Henry John C.

Mount, William Arthur

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Delany, William

Nicholson, William Graham

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Donelan, Captain A.

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Edwards, Frank

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir James Joicey and Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

SIR WILLIAM HOLLANDmoved that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."
And, it being after half-past Five of the clock, and objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday next.

THE VOTE OF CENSURE.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,in moving that "the House do now adjourn," said that on behalf of the Prime Minister he wished to announce that arrangements had been made to postpone the discussion on the London County Council Bill, and that the whole of Monday would be devoted to the discussion of the Vote of Censure. A Motion would be made for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule on that day.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that the arrangement announced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a convenient one, and he hoped that the House would accept it.
Adjourned at twelve minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

MARQUESS OF SLIGO.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Henry Ulick Marquess of Sligo, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the election of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The Lord Monteagle (Mr. Sligo) sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable
2
to the following Bills have been complied with:—Whitby Gas; Hampton-in-Arden Gas. The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
St. Marylebone Chapels (St. James', Westmoreland Street) Bill [H.L.]. Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Victoria University of Yorkshire Bill [H.L.]. Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
Metropolitan Railway Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with amendments.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Fermanagh (E. Erne) be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Barnard, and that the Lord Fermanagh (E. Erne) be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.
Blyth and Cowpen Gas Bill. Read 2a and committed.
New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Corbridge Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway (Steamboats) Bill; South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  VENEZUELA, No 1 (1904).
  Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration constituted in virtue of the Protocols signed at Washington. 7th May, 1903, between Germany, Great Britain, and Italy on the one hand, and Venezuela on the other hand.
  Further correspondence relating to the Transvaal Labour Question (in continuation of [Cd. 1941], March. 1904).
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  General abstract of marriages, births, and deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1903.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties, as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st December, 1903, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34 and 35 Vict., cap. 78, together with Reports of the inspecting officers, assistant, inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade, upon certain accidents which were inquired into; Part I. Accident Returns. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Order made by the County Council of the county of Middlesex, altering certain polling districts in the Harrow Parliamentary division.
  METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
  Account of moneys received and paid by the Chamberlain of the city of London for the year 1903, also account of extra-ordinary works executed, other than general repairs, for the same period. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ST. PAUL'S CHURCH, BEDFORD.
  Petition for redress of grievances; of inhabitants of Bedford; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CHINESE LABOUR FOR THE TRANSVAAL.
  LORD COLERIDGErose to move to resolve, "That this House disapproves of the importation of Chinese labourers into the Transvaal under the recent Ordinance until the grant to that country of full representative government." He said: My Lords, I do not apologise to the House for bringing on this question, although it has been alluded to and debated, in some measure, already twice this session. On the first occasion on which the matter was mentioned the discussion was limited in its scope, and although the Report of the Transvaal Labour Commission was then in the hands of your Lordships the evidence upon which that Report was founded was not; and on the second occasion on which the matter was raised, the discussion ranged over a still more limited area, and was wholly confined to the questions of the legality or the advisability of the regulations under the Ordinance. As the question of the importation of Chinese into the Transvaal is of so great importance, I do not apologise for introducing the matter again. Of great importance it is, because many people believe—I myself among the number—that upon the decision of this question hangs the ultimate fate of the Transvaal, and not only the Transvaal, but of all the non-self-governing African Colonies—whether or not they will be populated in the future by the white man, by British settlers, or whether they will be the home—the temporary home—of a few people deriving vast revenues from a horde of servile labour.
  If the latter is a true picture of the future of South Africa it certainly is in

  5
  violent contrast to the objects for which we asserted we were fighting in that country. We certainly did not for that object expend the millions that we spent or sacrifice the lives that were lost; and certainly it was not for that object, not with the notion that that would be the result, that the working men of this country on the whole approved of, and voted for, the continuation of the war. Nor, my Lords, was it so very long ago our mode of dealing with the Boers in the Transvaal Republic. We had strong views about slavery, and at the time of the Sand River Convention in 1852, which was the beginning of the independence, or semi-independence, of the Transvaal, we made this stipulation between ourselves and the Boers—
  "It is agreed that no slavery is, or shall be, permitted or practised in the country to the north of the Vaal River by the emigrant farmers."
  Then came the Pretoria Convention and the London Convention, and in those two Conventions that stipulation was widened. In the London Convention of 1884 we placed this clause—
  "The South African Republic renews the declaration made in the Sand River Convention and in the Convention of Pretoria that no slavery, or apprenticeship partaking of slavery, will be tolerated by the Government of the said Republic."
  We were told that the outcome of the war would be—and we hoped it would be—to throw open the Transvaal to British settlers, to British industry, to the British race. I think it was in the middle of the last election, or just at the close of that election, that the late Colonial Secretary made an important speech at Lichfield. It was on 8th October, 1900, and in the course of that speech Mr. Chamberlain said—
  "A second reason which, I think, has affected the Vote of the miners in the North is that this war is, in a certain sense, a miners' war; that is to say, it has been undertaken in order that justice may be done to the miners in the Transvaal."
  and on 29th January, 1902, the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, in language that I cannot hope to rival, said—
  "What magic charm was it that surrounded the British Islands that from all parts of our dominions men were willing to help us? The
  6
  fact was realised that where the British flag flies there shall be liberty."
  Mr. Balfour, at the Guildhall on 13th February, 1902, said—
  "All alike are enamoured of freedom, all alike are pledged to those institutions which have their origin in English freedom."
  That language would sound strange if repeated in the middle of a Chinese compound. At Johannesburg on 8th January, 1902, Lord Milner used these memorable words—
  "A great Johannesburg—great not only in numbers but in the character of its inhabitants, in intelligence, cultivation, and public spirit—means a British Transvaal. A British Transvaal turns the scale in favour of a British South Africa, and a British South Africa will go a long way to consolidate the British Empire."
  These were brave words, and I could wish that they were repeated now. I have tried to find out to whose mind it first occurred to introduce Chinese into South Africa. The idea of importing Chinese, under conditions of servitude, seems first to have occurred to the mind of Mr. Rhodes, who desired to introduce them into Rhodesia; but that desire was, happily, at once objected to and frustrated by Mr. Chamberlain, who, in a letter to The Times on 1st October, 1900, wrote these words—
  "Before assenting the Government would have to consider the general welfare of the South African population, both black and white, and the general public opinion in the South African Colonies."
  Until the holding of the Bloemfontein conference in the month of March, 1903, the matter seems to have been closed by those words, and not to have attracted any public attention. But in that month there was a conference of the official representatives of the various South African Colonies at Bloemfontein, and there a hypothetical resolution was passed that, in the event of its being proved that there was not sufficient black labour forthcoming in South Africa, measures should be taken to obtain some labour—it was not stipulated what—from outside. But at that time the theme of, or the thread which ran through, all the speeches made by the great financiers of the Rand was that they did not want British labour.
  I would point out to the House this important fact, that at that time the objection to white labour was not founded

  7
  on the score of expense. It had not then apparently occurred to the great financiers of the Rand that there was any financial difficulty in employing a great many more white people than had been hitherto employed upon the Rand. The objection to white labour was not on the score of expense, but on political grounds. A memorandum was presented to Mr. Chamberlain at Johannesburg in 1902, which has often been referred to in these discussions, which spoke of—
  "The trail of the serpent, the formation of labour unions."
  Mr. Percy Tarbutt, a director, I believe, of the Consolidated Goldfields Company and chairman of the Village Main Reef, writing to his manager in July, 1902—his manager was then about to undertake, or was undertaking, the experiment of employing a greater number of white men—said this—
  "I have consulted the Consolidated Goldfields people, and one of the members of the Board; of the Village Main Reef has consulted Wernher, Beit, and Co., and the feeling seems to be one of fear that, if a large number of white men are employed on the Hand in the position of labourers, the same troubles will arise as are now prevalent in the Australian Colonies, i.e., that the combination of the labouring classes will become so strong as to be able to more or less dictate, not only on questions of wages, but also on political questions by the power of votes when a representative Government is established.
  Mr. Rudd, another magnate, writing to The Times on 10th February, 1903, said—
  "They would simply hold the Government of the country in the hollow of their hand, and, without any disparagement to the British labourer, I prefer to see the more intellectual section of the community at the helm."
  Therefore, up to that date it had not apparently occurred to any of these great magnates that it was impossible, on the pcore of expense, to supplement any dearth of black labour by the larger employment of white labour. Then came the conference at Bloemfontein, which took no evidence, and whose report was a mere expression of opinion of the official representatives of the colonies there assembled. I do not desire in any way to detract from its weight on that account. That it did not accurately represent public opinion is shown conclusively by the fact that Sir Gordon Sprigg, who took part in that
  8
  conference and voted for that Resolution, shortly afterwards—in July—was forwarding to the High Commissioner a Resolution passed unanimously by both Houses of the Legislature at the Cape recording their strong opposition to any importation of Chinese labour as prejudicial to the interests of all classes of people in South Africa. Meanwhile, it appears that Lord Milner, who up to a certain time seemed to have had an equally strong desire to resist any importation of the character described, had become a strong advocate for the importation of Chinese labourers. He followed most accurately the financiers of the Rand, and supported Chinese labour on the same grounds. He did not object to the accession of white labour on the ground of expense, for in a speech made to an organisation called the White League, formed for the encouragement of the importation of white labour, he said—
  "We do not want a white proletariat."
  Therefore, my Lords, up to this time, scarcity or no scarcity, the feeling of the financiers and of Lord Milner was that there was no objection on the score of expense to making good any scarcity by the importation of white labour, but that the political danger from such importation was over-whelming.
  By this time men's minds had turned to the solving of the question by the importation of indentured Chinese. A Commission was appointed to inquire into the scarcity of labour in South Africa. I do not quarrel—it would be foolish and unreasonable to do so—with the composition of that Commission. This was a burning question, and if you were to appoint persons out there of commanding importance, of commanding position, it was inevitable that you must appoint persons of strong preconceived ideas. Unless you imported the members from abroad, you could not get a tribunal to consider this question which was free from bias or free from preconceived ideas. The Commission was composed of twelve men. There was a Majority Report signed by ten and a Minority Report signed by two. Of the ten who signed the former Report eight had expressed

  9
  the very strongest views in favour of I the importation of Chinese labour, and I have no doubt that the other two had similarly expressed themselves, but I have been unable to put my hand on the passages. One would have thought that a Commission formed to discuss this question would have been empowered to inquire into the advisability, or otherwise, of importing Chinese. That was the subject uppermost in everybody's mind; yet it was the one subject eliminated from the purview of the discussion. It was like King Charles' head—it was continually coming up; but they steered round and round it, and whenever the word Chinese was mentioned the chairman ruled it out of order. The evidence which was presented to that Commission was selected and arranged by a preliminary commission of the Chamber of Mines. Five of the members of the Commission wore members of the Chamber of Mines, or of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, which the evidence shows is the same thing under another name. Twenty out of twenty-three witnesses representing the mining industry were specially deputed by the Chamber of Mines to appear. We might have had very valuable evidence, if the Commission had been empowered to examine into it, of the effect of the importation of Chinese labour on the farmers, the Kaffirs, and the British. But the House is left in total ignorance with regard to that. They were restricted to examine into the quantity and supply of black labour. In substance the Majority Report was to the effect that there was a shortage of labour, and that the deficiency could not be supplied from South Africa.
  Now, my Lords, I think there is very grave reason to question the soundness of those conclusions. I do not dispute for a moment that there was a shortage of labour. But why? I submit that the evidence is very strong to show that it was partly because of the conditions imposed, and largely on account of the awful mortality in the compounds, and the treatment which the natives received there, and there is evidence to show that it was also largely to be accounted for by the absence of activity in recruiting. There was not always a
  10
  shortage of Kaffir labour in the mines. In 1895 and 1897 there was a surplus supply over the demand, and in 1892 and 1897 so strong was the position of the mine-owners in respect to labour that wages were reduced. The Commission opened with some very significant evidence. Several missionaries were called, and they stated that the confidence of the Kaffir had been largely shaken by the reduction of wages, which is now lamented by the mine-owners as well as by everyone else—the reduction which took place immediately after the war, when there was a scarcity rather than an abundance of labour. It also appeared from the evidence of these missionaries that the labourers are kicked about, and are compelled to go to mines not chosen by them, but by their employers, and mines against which they are prejudiced. The Rev. R. H. Dyke says—
  "A man comes up and loses a limb, and goes away maimed for life, and no compensation is given him."
  He describes the great difference between the treatment of the Kaffirs on the Rand and their treatment in the Kimberley compounds, and shows that there has never been a scarcity of black labour at Kimberley, owing, as he describes, to the very different treatment which the blacks receive in the Kimberley mines. The Rev. E. Creux, another missionary, spoke of the fearful corruption and contamination in the compounds, and said that:
  "If the general conditions were improved you could get a largely increased supply. The best touts and the best labour commissioners are the natives themselves."
  And I should think that was common sense. The Rev. F. Suter, who came from Zululand, stated that he had seen them sick and neglected; and right rev. Prelates will be interested to hear that when he was asked why he had not complained he said he feared that if he complained he would be prevented from going into the compounds, and that great difficulties were placed in the way of missionaries going into the compounds.
  Sir Godfrey Lagden, whose evidence was largely relied upon by the Majority Report, spoke of the conditions in the compounds as being

  11
  very bad. He said that it was necessary that there should be better food, and that one doctor paying an occasional visit to each mine—one visit a day—was wholly insufficient. And then he gave a most remarkable piece of evidence, which is quite enough to account for any shortage of labour. He stated that there is a mortality in the mines of seventy per thousand, and it is also quite clear that some mines are better looked after than others, and that in a great many of them the mortality is not so large. But if it is less than seventy per thousand in some mines, and the average is seventy in all, what a picture is presented of the state of things in those compounds where the average rate of mortality is largely exceeded! Under the process of recruiting instituted by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, the native is unable to choose which mine he goes to, and he knows that he has the chance of being drafted off against his will to a compound where the mortality may largely exceed seventy per thousand. It is said that the Kaffir in South Africa is idle and indolent, and disinclined for work. In the face of that mortality it seems to me that the eagerness of the Kaffir to work, considering the numbers that come, is beyond all praise. I should like to know how many British workmen would go into a compound or into any mine where the mortality approached anything like the figure which obtains in the mines of the Transvaal. Therefore I say, from pure humanitarian reasons as well as from sound common sense, the mine-owners have no right to ask this House or the country to give them greater facilities for the introduction of labour until they have remedied this awful mortality, which must minimise the attraction of mines to the Kaffir in the Transvaal. Then there was evidence as to the meal supplied. Mr. Douglas H. Eraser described the meal as entirely unfit for food; and Mr. William Grant, Native Commissioner of Witwatersrand, spoke of the outcome to-day—that is, the scarcity to-day—as the result of ignorance or design; and he added—
  "I go as far as that,"
  That leads me to investigate, shortly, what reason there is to suppose that
  12
  the shortage of labour is due to inactivity of recruiting. Before I pass to that I may state that on 22nd October, 1900, the whole system of recruiting was altered, As far as I can gather, up to that time, there had been private recruiters who conveyed Kaffirs to the mines and got a commission on the numbers brought; but in the year 1900 the Chamber of Mines determined to have a monopoly of recruiting. They formed an association called the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, and said they would have no labourers except those recruited by their Association. The result was that they held in their hand the whole of the recruiting, and it depended upon their activity as to the number of labourers recruited. I desire, my Lords, to call your attention to the evidence of a witness named Cabral. He had been a private recruiter in Portuguese East Africa, the part of South Africa from which it is admitted that something like 80 per cent, of the labourers are recruited. He said—
  "When the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association began to recruit for themselves they sent down compound managers accompanied by natives."
  Compound managers to hire the natives; and the natives, presumably, to show their gold and to tell their friends how advisable it was that they should go to the mines—
  "I received a circular asking me, encouraging me, to put all facilities in the way of the agents of the company; and, on the other hand, I also received a letter from the Association in which I was told to lay every obstacle in the way, and not to give them any facilities."
  The letter which he produced was written from the agency of the Witwatersrand Labour Association at Lorenço Marques. It was signed by J. M. Murray, who is still the secretary of the company, and was written by the authority of a Mr. Pickard, who was the manager of the agency at Lorenço Marques. The letter ran as follows—
  "Dear Sir,—With reference to the compound managers who proceed to the country to-day, you will understand that it is important that these managers should get only those natives recruited by native collectors, and must not get natives recruited by your own runners. It is to your interest that I point this out, because if these men go back to Johannesburg with a large haul of natives, they will make the most of the fact and create an impression

  13
  that the recruiters have not done their best in the past, and that these compound managers make more successful recruiters than the present staff'. These men have the idea that they have only to present themselves in the country when the natives will immediately flock round them, and so, I think, it rests with you to see that they leave your camp with a different opinion. I do not wish you to put obstacles in their way"
  Of course not—
  "But it is not to your interest to make them presents of natives recruited by your self."
  He was then asked whether the circular which he received was sent to the other men down there, and his anwer was—
  "All over the country."
  He said—
  "I did not understand at first their instructions, one telling me to encourage the compound managers and the other to discourage them, so I asked them verbally and I received additional instructions verbal instructions—to hinder them in every way I could."
  He was then asked—
  "You say that having got two sets of instructions, one to help and the other to hinder them, you did not know what to do, so you asked?"
  His reply was in the affirmative. He was next asked—
  "And then you were told to hinder them all all you could?"
  And he replied—
  "Yes."
  He was asked—
  "Did the compound managers return to Johannesburg with a good haul of boys?"
  "No."
  "So you did your work all right?"
  "Yes, according to instructions."
  If that is the way in which recruiting is carried on in that part of Africa, which it is admitted produced 80 per cent, of the labourers in the Rand, it is not very wonderful that there is a scarcity of labour. I do not at all wish to place the thing in a worse light than it appears. Mr. Perry, who was the manager in Johannesburg of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, was then called and asked to explain this letter. This is his explanation—
  "It may be convenient if I explain what the position was with regard to the native collectors and compound managers. As regards this letter, I may say this first, that neither I, nor anyone connected with the Association here, saw it till
  14
  to-day, and I may say at once that I do not approve of it. It is not that there is anything in the letter itself to object to, when the circumstances are understood, but I think that the tone of it is wrong."
  That is Mr. Perry's explanation. Then Mr. Perry was asked whether Mr. Cabral had not been dismissed from the Association, and he said he had, and I have no doubt Mr. Cabral was prejudiced against the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association and was trying to do that Association all the harm he could. But there was the letter he produced and the explanation given by Mr. Perry.
  Recalled, Mr. Cabral stated that he went to Coguno, on receipt of these double instructions, and received from the agent there, a man named Neerguard, instructions to make one of the compound managers miss his boat to Delagoa Bay. He was going to start on 20th April—
  "Do your best," (Neerguard said) "to pursuade him to leave on 28th April, it will be one less."
  On that day there was no boat. He complied with those instructions. He said—
  "Well, on the 28th there was no steamer, and this the agent knew very well. What he wanted was to get rid of one of them. As he said, 'there will always be one less.' I complied with those instructions, and pursuaded Munyer to leave, and the result was that lie came back to Imhabane in time to take the boat on the 28th which never existed in the Machiavellian plans of the agent."
  He continued—
  "You have already had the opportunity of seeing that the Association has, like certain merchants with invoices, two sorts of correspondents—the one 'private and confidential,' containing the instructions to its stall, and the other one to show in case of complications."
  Mr. Cabral later oil said—
  "If you are willing to call the said manager, Mr. Pickard, now in Johannesburg, I have no doubt he will confirm what I declare."
  I think the matter is left in a very unsatisfactory state, because Pickard, who, at the time the Commission sat, was in Johannesburg, and was challenged to be produced by Mr. Cabral, was not called. Moreover, Mr. Murray, the man who wrote that letter, is still secretary of the Association, and he, too, was not called. Neerguard, the man who gave the verbal instructions when Cabral went to him in his difficulty, was not called.

  15
  I make no accusation against the head people of the Witwatersrand Association. I daresay they were not cognisant of what was going on, but that something in the way of hindering recruiting was taking place is absolutely certain; and in the absence of those witnesses who were challenged to be produced, I do not think I am saying more than I am justified in saying when I state that the matter is left in an exceedingly unsatisfactory condition.
  How did the Report of the majority deal with this matter? As showing the manner in which it struck their minds I will read what they say—
  "The inquiry into the administrative methods of, and results obtained by, the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association was of a more searching character, as accusations against the sincerity of its officers had been freely made. No evidence whatever was brought in support of these accusations."
  This is an amazing statement, which seems to me to qualify a good deal the importance we attach to the conclusions of the Majority Report. Only one miner was called before that Commission, and he was summoned by the Chamber of Mines. He came up in such terror, apparently, that he desired his name might not be disclosed. Of course, that request was not granted. It was observed that he seemed very nervous. That was the attitude of the only miner called before this Commission. Two Kaffirs were called, and two only, and they, to use a vulgar phrase, entirely "gave the show away," because they said they received low wages and were kicked and bullied. They complained of their treatment, and one of them—Umhalla—said that since the war it was very bad, and much more so than when the Boers ruled. To show how deplorable an effect the lowering of wages had upon the recruiting power of the Association, I may mention that this Kaffir, Umhalla, was not aware that the wages had been raised, although they had been raised for some two years. That shows how patient we must be in the matter. We must not assume that everything we do immediately becomes known to the Kaffirs. There are 13,597,691 black people in South and Central Africa and Uganda, and it is obvious that there are plenty of people to come, if they can be got to come. The
  16
  Report of the Majority says that they want to run 7,145 stamps, at twenty per stamp. That is the basis of their claim. Why their own witnesses admitted that they were running throughout at from ten to twelve per stamp, and that in the old days before the war they never ran at more than fifteen per stamp. But now they are claiming to want twenty per stamp. Therefore I say that 142,000, which they say they want, is a gross over-estimate.
  I ask, why not employ white men more largely? There were two important witnesses, not called by the Chamber of Mines, who gave absolutely independent evidence before the Commission. One was a Mr. Creswell, who was manager of the Village Main Reef, and he said that from January, 1902, to March, 1903, he tried the experiment successfully, but was then stopped from further trying it. He said he was not ordered to desist until after he gave utterance to views to Mr. Chamberlain which were regarded by the managers as heretical. He said that if China and Asia had been sunk into the sea, the mines would be working very well to-day by white unskilled labour. The other witness was Mr. Wybergh, Commissioner of Mines, who stated that where there was a will there was a way. He gave reasons for the employment of white labour, and his views were also regarded as heretical. He was dismissed from the Consolidated Goldfields on political grounds, and ho stated in evidence before the Commission that he had been personally subjected to political pressure. I think I have given reasons for showing that there is grave reason to doubt the soundness of the judgment displayed upon the facts by the majority of the Commission. I am making no attack upon them. I say that they are only acting as everybody would act in their place. The mine-owners see before them the alluring prospect of cheap Chinese imported labour. They have the sole monopoly of recruiting black labour. If that recruiting were successful it would be the main thing to weaken the argument for the necessity of Chinese labour. In these circumstances I do not think it is unreasonable that their efforts at recruiting have not been crowned with conspicuous success. Mr. Chamberlain, when

  17
  in South Africa, gave to the country what was tantamount to a pledge on the part of the Government, that Chinese labour would not be introduced without the assent of the Empire. These were his words, spoken on 16th January last year at Johannesburg—
  "It is clear to me, and no doubt to you, that an overwhelming popular opinion in this very Colony is opposed to any solution of that kind. You have first to convert them. Then you will have seen that the other great Colonies of the Empire and the opinions of the mother-country herself regard a step of the kind as retrograde and dangerous."
  I do not always agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I cordially echo the sentiments he uttered in Johannesburg. In July, 1903, in answer to that, came, as I have told the House, the unanimous Re-solution of both Houses of the Cape Parliament—
  "Ministers are convinced that sufficient labour is available and can be secured, not only for working the mines in the Transvaal, but for all other requirements, if a fair wage be offered and considerate treatment in the way of housing and food be secured."
  That was followed on 30th July by the African Labour League, who sent this telegram to the Governor—
  "African Labour League appreciates endeavours to prevent deplorable Chinese invasion. People in the Transvaal being rushed by forced depression. Commercial representation upon Labour Commission quite inadequate. Mining and Stock Exchange element predominate. Decision of question should be postponed until representative institutions established. Otherwise public opinion could not be honestly gauged."
  On 17th August, the Cape Ministers, through the Governor, transmitted a further strongly-worded despatch. On 15th August the Pretoria Trades and Labour Council joined in the cry, and as late as 9th December last, Sir W. Hely-Hutchinson telegraphed to the present Colonial Secretary stating that—
  "The feeling against this does not decrease."
  More than that, at Kimberley on 15th December there was a meeting—the largest ever held at Kimberley—against the importation of Chinese labour; and on 17th December, a similar meeting was held in Cape Town. Lord Milner then set to work to deny that this was a genuine opposition. In spite of all this,
  18
  he telegraphed, on 3rd January this year, to the Colonial Secretary—
  "Great change in public opinion in Transvaal. Quite a minority against it at the Cape. Opposition quite clearly due to electioneering. Both parties competing against one another in protesting against Asiatic labour."
  A stronger proof of the general feeling I can hardly conceive. Dr. Jameson, the new Prime Minister, telegraphed on 4th January last confirming and insisting upon the Resolution passed by both Houses on 17th August, 1903. And on 20th Febuary there was this Minute from the Cape Ministers—
  "No sincere effort has been made to secure labour."
  The language is not mine, but that of His Majesty's Ministers at the Cape. What does Lord Milner say to this? On 11th January he sent the most remarkable despatch that I think has ever been forwarded to the home country by a Governor occupying a position which should be above and independent of all parties. It was as follows—
  "The Bond working the anti-Chinese cry for all that it is worth and the anti-British newspapers from Cape Town to the Zambesi fulminating in chorus against Asiatic importation at the Cape. The majority of the Boers are anti-Asiatic, not from any interest, but in order to "dish" Progressives. The Progressives have been forced to try and compete with the Bond in anti-Asiatic fervour. But it is quite evident that many of them are doing this without conviction."
  It appears, my Lords, that there is no honest politician on either side at the Cape, and that honesty, integrity, and independence lie solely with Lord Milner. That is followed hot-foot by telegrams from New Zealand and the Commonwealth of Australia, protesting that they would never have helped us in the war if they had known that it was going to lead to the importation of Chinese into the Transvaal. And what does Lord Milner say on 29th January? He goes from strength to strength and says—
  "Local opposition to Labour Ordinance apparently extinct."
  That is followed by something which proves to demonstration that his conclusion is erroneous. I refer to the impressive protest on 10th February from the leading Boers of the Colony—General de la Rey, General Botha, Smutz, and

  19
  others whose names are familiar as having been leaders in the war against us, and who speak of this as—
  "A public calamity of the first magnitude."
  Had that protest any impression upon the mind of Lord Milner? Not at all. The next day he telegraphed home to say—
  "Opinion not the least affected."
  I should be surprised to hear what would impress him. He continued—
  "Boers not unfavourable; many are strongly in favour of it. If they saw a chance of making political capital out of the opposition to imported labour the temptation would be too strong."
  There is a very easy way out of that, which is to take the opinion of the Transvaal itself. In six months you could get a ballot. It is stated that it would take six months to prepare the list of voters. But Lord Milner would rather not wait. That ballot would show—and, perhaps, it is the only thing that could show definitely—whether all these demonstrations of popular opinion are ignorant or dishonest, or whether Lord Milner is mistaken in the view he holds. Meanwhile, protests come from all parts of Cape Colony, and the only way in which Lord Milner alludes to them is, on 25th January, that—
  "They are of interest"
  —and why?—
  "Because they betray ignorance."
  The High Commissioner in South Africa is quite entitled to his own opinion, however obstinate or wrong—that only effects our estimate of the accuracy of his statements and the value of his judgment—but what I venture to submit to the House is, that he is not entitled to bring groundless and ungenerous accusations of ignorance or craft against all who differ from him, merely because they differ.
  I do not propose to discuss the question of the position of the Chinaman when once imprisoned in the compound. That was referred to the other day, and no doubt other speakers will discuss it in the course of this debate. But you cannot stop at the Rand. I understand that His Majesty's Government are proposing to introduce the same thing into Rhodesia. If you introduce it into
  20
  Rhodesia, can you stop there? Can you prevent the coal mines and the railways from demanding similar cheap labour? And I want to put this question to those who know South Africa far better than I do. Have they considered whether or not they are running the risk of a great Kaffir uprising—an uprising which will be different from all others in that country, inasmuch as it will have the secret or open sympathy of many, if not of most, of the white men, Boer and British, in the Colony? But besides and beyond this there is a moral aspect to the question. You are incarcerating together in a compound, for three years, men in the prime of life. It is said that they are to bring their wives with them. The most rev. Primate the other day, however, said he was assured they would not. H' said that a captain whom he had consulted, and whose judgment he relied upon, had stated that they would not bring them. I doubt whether a single woman will leave China, because, of course, the object of every recruiter will be to recruit only men who have no domestic encumbrances. They frankly admit that their object is to make as much money as they can. They will not sacrifice dividends for the sake of these domestic encumbrances. Money, not morality, is the chief factor in the minds of these financiers.
  I do ask—Have right rev. Prelates nothing to say to this? I understood the right rev. Primate the other night to refrain from outspoken condemnation on the plea of necessity. Necessity is a very old plea, and if the most rev. Primate will look in his "Paradise Lost" he will see who first raised it. I think we ought to consider whether it is right or wrong, and not the necessity or supposed necessity of it. I appeal, even at this last hour, to the most rev. Primate, in his great official position, and with the great personal respect which he commands in this House and elsewhere, to speak in bold, clear, unqualified condemnation of this traffic. If he does, I believe that even now he might stop it But if he does not, then I am afraid we must sorrowfully admit that the people outside have come to a clear conclusion on the moral aspect of the question unaided by any spiritual guidance whatever from the bishops. It is not only true to say that the people disapprove of this policy

  21
  They have a positive detestation of it. There has never been put forward so unpopular a policy in my lifetime. I know of no other policy of which it could be said, with truth, that you cannot hold a meeting in its favour in any place in the United Kingdom. It is abhorrent to the people at homo, it will bring the fame of this country into discredit with the Empire beyond the seas, and not only with the Empire, but with the rest of the civilised world.
  Moved to resolve, "That this House disapproves of the importation of Chinese labourers into the Transvaal under the recent Ordinance until the grant to that country of full representative government."—(The Lord Coleridge.)
  LORD STANMORE,who had given notice "To call the attention of the House to a communication recently addressed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Society of Friends," said, My Lords, I had intended to have called your attention last night to a remarkable document which has been issued by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but it was suggested to me that it would be better to bring the matter on to-night so that this question and the Motion of my noble friend behind me might be discussed together. A short time ago my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said, what, if I may venture to say so without impertinence, appeared to me to be one of the truest and most sensible things that have been said on this question in this House. The noble Marquess cast aside the pretence which has been put forward that the Ordinance by which, in this case, Chinese labour is to be regulated is essentially similar to those Ordinances which regulate immigration in other colonies. He said, and said with truth, that the circumstances of the Transvaal are very different from those of other coolie-importing colonies, and that the circumstances under which labour was to be introduced being different, it was only natural that the Ordinance which provided for its introduction should be different also. I heard that with much satisfaction, and I have no doubt that my noble friends who share the same opinions as myself heard it with equal
  22
  satisfaction. We felt that by that admission all unnecessary wrangling as to whether this Ordinance was like some other Ordinance, or whether such and such a provision was better than, or worse than, some other provision in another land, might be set aside and disregarded, and that the only question we had really to consider was whether the provisions of this Ordinance were in themselves just and equitable.
  But our satisfaction was of very short duration. Two or three days after the words were out of the mouth of the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for the Colonies wrote a letter to the Society of Friends, in which he absolutely threw over the doctrine the noble Marquess laid down, and insisted on the almost exact similarity of the Ordinance which is to introduce Labourers into South Africa to those that introduced them into other colonies. The letter is a remarkable one for another reason. It consists mainly of what may be called two sneers—the first is a sneer, and a very undeserved one, upon that most respectable body the Society of Friends. It chooses to assume what the writer of the letter must, I think, know he had no sufficient ground to assume, that the members of the Society of Friends oppose coloured immigration under all circumstances and in all places; and on the strength of that covert sneer, he proceeds to an open sneer at my noble friend sitting near me (the Marquess of Ripon), and at noble Lords on the other side of the House also, to the effect that those who had approved of Immigration Ordinances in other colonies had no right to object to this Ordinance. I will leave the two Secretaries of State to arrange their difference of opinion between themselves—an occupation, by the way, in which by this time His Majesty's Ministers must have become tolerably proficient—and will merely notice that the interpretation of the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been reinforced by the interpretation of Lord Milner. He has taken up the same view of similarity, and, in answering a deputation which waited upon him with regard to this subject, he not only repeated that view, but, as my noble and learned friend Lord Coleridge said, charged all those who took an opposite view with ignorance, including, I suppose, the noble

  23
  Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Now, my Lords, I do not pretend to be less ignorant than my betters, still less do I profess to be wiser than my neighbours; but, after all, experience derived from eighteen years close personal observation of the practical working of Immigration Laws in the West Indies, in Mauritius, in the Pacific, in Ceylon, counts for something; and it is because of that experience that I feel myself compelled, not without reluctance, to warn your Lordships as solemnly as I can that this Ordinance involves a new departure, and, I fear, a departure on a dangerous and downward road. This, my Lords, is the essential difference—it is one which has not been alluded to in the course of these debates, but it is far-reaching and most important—that all the restrictions, whether they be mild or whether they be severe, which have been imposed in former Immigration Ordinances in other parts of the world, have had one object, and one object only, namely, that of securing that the work which the labourer has contracted to do shall be done. All the restrictions have been for that purpose and that purpose alone. But in this unfortunate Ordinance the restrictions are not confined to effecting that purpose; they are directed to a totally different object. They are restrictions, imposed not to make certain that the work shall be performed, but imposed because the labourers are Asiatics. You enter there on a course of restrictions, not to enforce a contract, but to gratify the prejudices, the fears, and the pride of race and colour. That makes an essential difference in the whole spirit of the legislation in the one and the other case.
  I have pointed out that the spirit and the object of these Ordinances are wholly different, and yet Lord Milner tells us they are precisely similar. Now, of the 150 Ordinances which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has quoted, can ho produce one in which the labourers are brought over by a private importer and then—not sold, indeed—but "transferred" by him, at his own pleasure, in batches of such number as he shall choose, to private proprietors of mines? No, he cannot. Can he find one in
  24
  which the condition of those labourers, when they have been imported, is one of close imprisonment, ending, at the conclusion of their indenture, with their being returned to their own country by compulsion? No, my Lords. Among all those 150 Ordinances he will not find one with those provisions. Nor, again, will he find among them one in which there is not some provision with regard to the minimum of wages and the maximum of work. Nor will he find one in which the labourers are not entitled to holidays as of right. He will not find one in which their holidays are limited to such days only as the employer may choose. There is no compulsion upon the employer in this Ordinance, and he may not choose to give a holiday from one end of the year to the other. I maintain that there is no such provision to be found in any of the other Ordinances. Is there any Ordinance among them all in which there is a prohibition on the labourer to own property? Is there any one in which there is a prohibition to rise in the world by employment at other labour Is there one in which a man is prohibited from rising even in the work in which he is engaged? Is there one in which there is a list of minor and subordinate posts, actually connected with manual labour, to which it is provided that these unfortunate people shall not under any circumstances rise? No this list of occupations and this minute care that immigrants shall not be employed in any kind of position of superiority are totally absent from any Immigration Ordinance. But, as I have said, it is not a matter of detail, not a matter of whether this or that provision is more or less desirable. There is an essential difference between the enactment of provisions to enforce the performance of a labour contract, and the enforcement of restrictions which are made to seclude and segregate these people from the rest of the population, and which are imposed on them from the fact that they are alien labourers and not because it is necessary to compel them to do the work they have stipulated to do.
  I shall very likely be charged with rhetorical exaggeration in having said

  25
  that the period of the indentured labourer's stay in the Colony would be one of perpetual imprisonment. There is no one who more dislikes rhetorical exaggeration than I do. But that is no rhetorical exaggeration. At least, I think not. Let me quote, in proof of that, what the Secretary of State for the Colonies recently said in the House of Commons. An hon. Member asked some questions with regard to what would be done with the children of mixed parentage. The answer was that there would be no children of mixed parentage. Now, what does that mean? How can the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or anyone else, say that there shall be no children of mixed parentage in the Transvaal, unless it is meant that the Chinese population introduced is to be so closely imprisoned, so closely watched, that there shall be no opportunities for any intercourse whatever between them and the general population of the country. If that is not close imprisonment I do not know what is. I think that the cool statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that there will be no children of mixed parentage is a very remarkable and a very formidable one, and, in view of that statement, which means, if it means anything, that from 10,000 to 100,000 Chinese imported labourers will be kept under close supervision and imprisoned in these compounds, I would venture to say that the moral state of things that will arise can hardly be called altogether satisfactory. I would ask the most rev. Primate most earnestly to consider what the full meaning of that statement of the Colonial Secretary's is; what the full consequences of such a segregation as is there implied means; and whether he can feel that, as far as the moral question is concerned, the arrangements of the Government can be considered satisfactory.
  I have said that it was with reluctance that I ventured to address to the House a warning as to the new departure it is taking. It is with reluctance, because I have no sympathy whatever with those who would try to confound slavery with the system of indentured labour. There is no comparison between them. Indentured labour
  26
  is a totally different thing from slavery. I have no sympathy with those who indulge in that exaggeration, and I am reluctant, therefore, to say anything that may seem to tell against indentured labour. I have as little sympathy, I confess, with those who wish altogether to prevent the introduction of Chinese labour, supposing it to be necessary, out of any idea that white labour can ever replace coloured labour in the Transvaal. That I believe to be utterly chimerical. I believe that the introduction of coloured labour of some sort is necessary; but, if you introduce it, for heaven's sake introduce it under fair and proper conditions as regards the persons imported! Do not go out of your way to depart from old usage. Give them as much liberty as possible, and do not impose restrictions on them because of the race to which they belong. It seems to mo that a strange change has come over public feeling in this country. Fifty years ago this Chinese Ordinance would have been looked upon from a different light from that in which it is now viewed. On 22nd March, 1858, I happened to be occupying a place on the steps of the Throne, and heard Lord Brougham raise a question with regard to an Immigration Ordinance which had then just been passed in Jamaica. That Ordinance, as Immigration Ordinances went, was a very good one on the whole; but Lord Brougham objected to certain details in it which, ho said, pressed with undue severity on the immigrant. The place now occupied by my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies was then filled by the late Lord Carnarvon. He took a little time to consider the matter, and then informed Lord Brougham that, having looked into it, the Jamaica Ordinance certainly contained some very good provisions, but was open to some of the objections that had been raised, and consequently the Queen would be advised to disallow it. And yet that Ordinance was as whips are to scorpions compared to this Transvaal Ordinance.
  I do not know whether it is the case now, but for the thirty years that I myself happened to be a Colonial Governor the Governors received, on obtaining their appointment, a Commission under the Great Seal which conferred on them certain powers, and also Instructions under

  27
  the Royal Sign Manual which limited and defined the exercise of those powers. Now, in those Instructions the Governors were told not to assent to certain classes of Ordinance. They were not to assent to any Ordinance, for instance, which debased the coinage, which was contrary to treaty obligations, and then, among others, came this Royal Order—
  "You are not to assent in our name to any Ordinance whereby persons not being of European descent or parentage are subjected to restrictions or disqualifications to which persons of European descent and parentage are not equally subject."
  I should like very much to know whether those are the instructions of the Governor of the Transvaal. If they are, they are at singular variance with the Ordinance we have been discussing; and if they are not, it would be curious to know when and why they ceased to form a part of those instructions. We of late years have heard a great deal—possibly too much—about Imperialism, but about that Instruction which I have quoted there is a ring of true and noble Imperialism—the fiat that in no part of the dominions of the Crown shall there be established that most odious of aristocracies, an aristocracy of colour. For, depend upon it, that is what is at the bottom in this case. These restrictions are imposed because, at the time when you go to these Chinamen, praying them to come and help you, you are determined that they shall not occupy in the Colony which they are begged to help the position which, as men, they are entitled to occupy. I say as men, because one of the rights which it is supposed a man cannot abnegate is the right to hold property. If you must have Chinese or Indians have them by all means, but have them upon a sound law. By agreeing to restrictions which are not to enforce the compact but to seclude one race from access to another, you are entering upon a step which leads, if not to slavery, to those practices analogous to slavery, which Lord Grey, when Minister for the Colonies and all through his long life, so vehemently denounced.
  As to the Motion before the House, I confess I cannot give my vote in its favour. The whole question is, Is it necessary or is it not that Asiatic labour
  28
  should be introduced into the Transvaal? If it is necessary, I should say that the sooner it is done the better, and that the existing Legislature of the time is the one to pass it. On the question of necessity I have not been able honestly to form an opinion. I cannot say whether it is necessary or not. I am prepared, so far as the abstract necessity for importing Eastern labour goes, to accept the decision of the Government of the Transvaal and the Government of this country; but not unless that importation is fairly conducted, and conducted without the influence of race prejudice and colour hatred, which certainly lie at the bottom of this Ordinance.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The DUKE of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, I am indeed gratified to hear that the noble Lord who has just sat down does not agree with the terms of the Motion which has been proposed by the noble and learned Lord opposite. I confess that in the speech of the noble and learned Lord there appeared to me to be an undercurrent that it was His Majesty's Government themselves who had initiated this Ordinance and forced it upon the unwilling Dutch and English population of the Transvaal. That is not the case. The question that we have been called upon to solve is this: whether we are to allow, or to disallow, others in the Crown Colony to import Chinese for work of a specific and definite character. We are aware that this measure has lent itself to a considerable amount of misconstruction and misrepresentation in the country. In making that observation, I do not refer to noble Lords opposite; indeed, the arguments and views they have expressed have been couched in very reasonable and proper terms; but in the country and elsewhere it has been very different. We thoroughly realise the prejudice, and, indeed, the passion, that this Ordinance has created. The noble and learned Lord has said that no meeting can be held in this country in favour of the importation of Chinese labour. The noble a ad learned Lord's experience is dissimilar to my own. I know of meetings which

  29
  have been held which have expressed contrary views to those which the noble and learned Lord has stated, and I thoroughly believe that no meeting where the matter was put forward simply and plainly would receive the proposition with that disapproval which the noble and learned Lord seems to imagine.
  It is true that the Government themselves have little to look forward to in I his matter. We know that we have enabled those who are opposed to the Government to stir up resentment and ill-feeling in the minds of many of those whose sympathies we desire not to lose or to alienate. We have nothing to comfort us in this matter except the knowledge that we have approached the subject with the sole object of doing our best conscientiously for the interests of the Colony. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that the importation of Chinese, and this Ordinance which authorises it, will be for the benefit of those who reside in the Transvaal. We shall not shirk from the duty which we believe we have to perform, in spite of the prejudice, the partisanship, and the passion which unfortunately the subject has created in this country. I think our duty in this matter is pretty clear. In the first place we have to decide whether this demand on the part of the Transvaal for the importation of Chinese is a reasonable one, whether the conditions necessitating the importation of these labourers really do exist. We regard this point as clearly proved by the Report of the Labour Commission, that there is a lack of labour in South Africa. It was pointed out in the Majority Report that those districts in South Africa from which you might expect to obtain labour required the labour for themselves, and it was established beyond all doubt that it was impossible to get a large number of natives from that part of Central Africa to which the noble and learned Lord referred. The noble and learned Lord said he did not quarrel with the composition of the Labour Commission.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I did not say that. I said that in the circumstances it was impossible to get a Commission of persons without preconceived ideas.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I will not labour that point. The noble and learned Lord said that the mine-owners had not done their best to get sufficient labour for their requirements. Indeed, he went further and said there had been a desire on their part to show that it was impossible to get labour in South Africa in order that they might obtain cheaper labour from Asia. Only half the stamps in existence in Johannesburg are working to-day, and if they were all at work it would mean an addition to the wealth of the Transvaal of £10,000,000 a year and the employment of something like 5,000 skilled white artisans, earning over £2,000,000 a year in wages; notwithstanding these facts, the noble and learned Lord is prepared to state that our fellow-kinsmen in South Africa are deliberately trying to prevent an adequate supply of labour being introduced in order that they may go abroad and obtain cheaper labour. Then the noble and learned Lord stated that one of the reasons why labour had not been forthcoming, was that the Kaffirs had been badly treated in the mines. I think he said the wages were low and the Kaffirs were not properly attended to. I would remind him that the wages which the Kaffirs receive to-day are between 50s. and 60s. a month, a considerably higher wage than that which they received under the Dutch Government before the war. As to their ill-treatment, I read a document only recently setting forth the manner in which they were taken care of, and I absolutely deny the statement of the noble and learned Lord that the Kaffirs in Johannesburg are not properly: and adequately provided for.
  LORD COLERIDGE: It was not my statement, but that of the witnesses before the Commission.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The noble and learned Lord was quite accurate in stating that the deaths among the Kaffirs on the mines amounted to 70 per thousand, but the reason of that is perfectly easy to explain. There was a great epidemic of influenza at the time, which carried off an abnormal number of Kaffirs, and when that epidemic passed away the percentage of deaths was considerably reduced. The noble and learned Lord

  31
  quoted instances in which the Transvaal Labour Bureau had disagreed with others with whom they came in contact. I need not enter into that matter. The noble and learned Lord read many paragraphs in connection with it, and I think it is quite clear that there was a certain amount of dispute and ill-feeling between the two parties concerned which was not very pertinent to the question of recruiting. Our next duty in this matter is, I think, to be sure that this measure is in conformity with the wishes of the people themselves. Your Lordships will remember that the Legislative Council had this Ordinance before them for many weeks. They discussed it thoroughly, and it was eventually passed without a division. I understood from the noble and learned Lord that he did not think that Lord Milner's opinion, nor, indeed, the opinion of the Legislative Council, reflected the wishes and desires, in their entirety, of the people of the Transvaal. When last year the War Contribution Loan Bill was before Parliament, no one suggested that a referendum ought to be taken in the Transvaal in order to discover whether the people who promised the contribution really represented the wishes of the population. But while the noble Lord will accept these persons as representative when it is a question of receiving something, he declines to trust them at all when they ask for the means of developing their industry.
  His Majesty's Government believe, and I think many noble Lords in this House will agree, that the members of the Legislative Council do represent and reflect the wishes of the people of the Transvaal in this matter. They have passed this Ordinance, and they believe that it is the wish of the majority of the people that it should be put into operation. I am reminded that only as recently as the other day the views of the Legislative Council were justified by a representative deputation which was received by Lord Milner. The deputation comprised some 300 delegates from thirty-seven meetings held at the mines, and twenty-eight representative bodies, including the Johannesburg and other municipalities, the Chambers of Trade and Commerce,
  32
  and mining, scientific, and technical associations. That deputation expressed I their anxiety at the delay in the ratification of the Labour Ordinance, and their; concern lest it should not pass. There is also the testimony of the Bishop of Pretoria in support of the view of the Legislative Council. One might suppose that the view of the Bishop of Pretoria I might be opposed to the acceptance of this measure, but, on the contrary, he telegraphed expressing his regret at his inability to be present, but declaring his belief that the introduction of Asiatic labour, under Government regulations, was the only solution of the difficulty. There is the still more remarkable expression of opinion of the members of the Free Church in South Africa, who have I sent a communication to their brethren in this country imploring them not to take a hostile view of this matter. They further stated that they did not think their brethren in this country thoroughly understood the question. The sequel was, that their brethren here passed a resolution in which they expressed the opinion that their brethren in South Africa ought to be removed from the membership of the Free Church.
  I pass to another point raised by the noble and learned Lord in connection with the question of white labour. The noble and learned Lord reminded us again of Mr. Tarbutt's letter. I confess I thought we had finished with Mr. Tarbutt's letter. We had it read to us at the commencement of these debates, but the noble and learned Lord has again brought it forward, and I do not think there is anything to add to what has been said with regard to that letter. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that the mine-owners were, in the first instance, favourable to the employment of white labour; that no question was at that time raised as to its cost, but that subsequently they determined, for political reasons, that it would be unwise to try the experiment. The noble and learned Lord forgets that the very first person in South Africa who attempted to use white labour was Sir Percy Fitzpatrick. At the conclusion of the war ho wrote to Lord Kitchener and asked that he might be allowed to have any soldiers who wore not required to

  33
  work in the mines. What has been the experience of the mine-owners as to the employment of white labour? They have found that the cost is too great. It has been conclusively proved by the experts, by the engineers, by everybody who understands this particular question, that white labour is too expensive to be employed in largo quantities. If the noble and learned Lord will look through this bulky Blue-book he will see telegrams and expressions of opinion on behalf of the Transvaal Government showing that we ourselves tried to use white labour on the railways. We sent men from these shores to South Africa and they worked there for several months, but our experience conclusively proved that we could get the work carried out much better and considerably cheaper by local labour.
  His Majesty's Government are satisfied that this Ordinance is not opposed to the wishes of the people of the Transvaal, that, on the contrary, if it had been disallowed it would have created a widespread feeling of apprehension in the Transvaal, and of irritation on the part of the population that Parliament and the public in general did not thoroughly appreciate and understand the extraordinary labour difficulties that of late have been created in South Africa. I confess that nothing in these debates, and nothing which has fallen from the noble and learned Lord this evening, has in any way shaken our confidence in our original contention, which we believe is thoroughly supported by facts, and we do not think that those facts have in any way been disproved by the noble and learned Lord. All the facts connected with this problem have been fully debated in both Houses of Parliament. A majority in the other House accorded its support to the Government, and I believe that when this question was first discussed in this House a similar result would have taken place if we had been pressed to a division. Our opinion in this matter has not been in the least shaken. We believe that the demand for labour is real and genuine, and that the conditions of the Ordinance are humane and not demoralising. We believe, also, that the experiment has behind it the goodwill of the Colony
  34
  itself, and that it encounters no serious opposition from other parts of South Africa less closely connected.
  We admit that our responsibility in this matter does not rest here. Let us for a moment examine the situation. On the one hand you have in South Africa a number of employers who are anxious to obtain a greater supply of labour; and, on the other hand, you have in China a number of Chinamen who are anxious to lend out their services for a remunerative and a better wage than they are able to get in their own country. Judging from the observations of the noble and learned Lord it would seem to be wrong to have any dealings with Chinese at all. If an employer in this country was anxious to secure the services of foreigners, under a system of contract, no objection could be taken. Why should the thing be inherently wrong when the employer is in South Africa and the employee is a Chinaman? If the industry had been cotton or wheat-growing no one would have; said that the demand for labour was based on morally bad principles. But because the individual concerned is yellow, and the industry is gold mining, the principle as to whether the immigration is legitimate or illegitimate is entirely lost sight of, and a prejudice is created, not against the principle itself, but against the nationality of the individual and the nature of his work. I confess that in these debates we have heard most interesting speeches from many noble Lords, but we have heard hardly any expression of opinion from noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite. There is not a single noble Lord on the front Opposition Bench who; has spoken on this subject except the noble Marquess (The Marquess of Ripon). There was, of course, Lord Carrington, but he, if I may use a naval analogy, commands the torpedo boat of the political fleet of noble Lords opposite, and his action, although, no doubt, very brave indeed, does not necessarily conform to the general movements of the political fleet. We want to know what the views are of those on the political flagship opposite. I have a profound respect for the views of the noble Earl the Leader

  35
  of the Opposition, although I do not always agree with them. The noble Earl occupies an extremely important position in the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong. He is not primus inter pares; his position may be described as facile princeps. I should like to know whether he thinks there is anything inherently wrong in principle in the desire of employers of labour in South Africa to import, under a system of contract, Chinamen from China. I hope the noble Earl will let us know whether he endorses and supports the somewhat wild and mischievous statements which have been spread throughout the country on many a platform in connection with this subject. I repeat that there is nothing inherently wrong in principle in the immigration of Chinese labourers into South Africa.
  I now come to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Stanmore. The noble Lord complained of the letter that the Society of Friends received from the Secretary of State, and he further claimed that there was a total difference of principle between the Chinese Ordinance and the Ordinances passed for the West Indies. It is perfectly true that there are certain differences, but the differences are due chiefly to the nature of the case—that is to say, whereas a coolie is employed in agriculture or in sugar planting in the West Indies, a Chinaman is to be employed in South Africa in the gold-mines. Except for that consideration, the two Ordinances are similar in principle; and I cannot agree with the view that the difference is more than a difference of degree. In each case the labourer is indentured for a period of years—in the Trinidad Ordinance it is for five years, and in the South African Ordinance for three years, and possibly three more. In each case his residence is circumscribed, whether it be the plantation in the West Indies or the location or Chinese village in South Africa. I do not know whether my noble friend would complain of the difference in size between a Chinese village and a plantation, but I notice in the Trinidad Ordinance that the plantation may be as small as five acres in extent, whereas the Chinese
  36
  village in South Africa may be as large as two miles in extent. In each case, leave of absence is fixed by regulation. The labourer in the West Indies may have twenty-five days leave of absence in a year; in South Africa the Chinaman may have forty-eight hours leave, which may be renewed at the discretion of the employer.
  LORD STANMORE: The number of days granted in the Trinidad Ordinance are as of right, but the forty-eight hours in the Chinese Ordinance is an indulgence at the will of the employer.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: In each case the transfer of the indentured labourer is supervised. In the West Indies he cannot be transferred without the consent of the Governor of the Colony; in South Africa, not only can he not be transferred without the consent of the Governor but the consent of the labourer himself is also required. In the West Indies there is a clause in the Ordinance to this effect, that the owner is entitled to sell his plantation and also the labour of the labourers upon it co any one he chooses. That is a stringent regulation, and one which has been in operation for thirty or forty years past and during the time noble Lords opposite were in office, and so far as I am aware they never complained of that regulation. In the Transvaal Ordinance, as well as in the West Indian Ordinances, provision is made for the health and well-being of the indentured labourer, and in each case the labourer has to conform to the regulations laid down. The similarity in principle between the provisions in the South African Ordinance and those in the Ordinances in the West Indies certainly did not justify the description contained in the letter of the Society of Friends that they are nearly allied to slavery. The Government are bound to exercise control in order to see that the contract is based on proper terms and on terms which are humane. The Chinese are, in a sense, the weaker party to the contract, and it is our duty to see that they are not misled by offers of work not being properly stated. It is our duty to see that they are properly transported, that their wives and families are also properly

  37
  transported to their new homes, and that they are properly housed and cared for when they take up their new quarters.
  All these considerations have been raised in your Lordships' House, and perhaps I may remind the noble Lords of the pledges in connection with this matter which were given by the Colonial Secretary. All the regulations made under the Ordinances are not yet available, but the first pledge of the Secretary of State was that all reasonable facilities will be given for the introduction, reception, and accommodation of the families of labourers. It has been decided that the labourer may bring his wife and children with him, but if he chooses to leave his wife at home he can send for her subsequently, and the cost of transport will be provided by the mine managers. All that we ask the labourer to do is to notify in South Africa that he is a married man, so that they can make adequate provision for him in case he wishes his wife to join him. The next pledge which the Secretary of State gave was that the transfer of the labourer from one employer to another should not take place without the labourer's consent. The regulations, as I have already ventured to remind your Lordships, require not only the consent of the Governor-General, but also that of the labourer himself before his labour can be transferred from one employer to another, I and, furthermore, friends and associates will be kept together in each group of mines as far as it is possible compatible with the requirements of the mine managers. The next pledge given by the Secretary of State was that every precaution would be used to secure the proper treatment of labourers on the voyage. Their proper treatment will be provided for by a surgeon accompanying every ship, and the captain must obtain a certificate proving that the accommodation of his ship is in all respects satisfactory. Perhaps the most important pledge of all which was given by the Secretary of State was that an officer would be appointed by the Transvaal Government to go to China to see that every labourer fully understands the nature of his engagement. I may say that an officer selected by the Transvaal Government will go to China and explain the provisions
  38
  of the contract to each labourer before it is signed, and the labourer is obliged to possess a copy of the contract signed by himself in his own language.
  LORD COLERIDGE: Will the officer go into China or only to Hong-Kong?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: It will depend at which port embarkation will take place. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has promised that the compound will be suitable for Asiatic labourers. It will be carefully prepared for them by those who are familiar with Asiatic customs. The labourer and his wife and family will be provided with medical attendance, and get his housing, water, fuel, and daily rations free of charge. My noble friend Lord Carrington is interested in this question, and perhaps would like to know the daily fare which the Chinaman is to receive. It will consist of one and a half pounds of rice, with half a pound of dried fish, half a pound of vegetables, and several ounces of tea. I have referred to the pledge which the Secretary of State has given and the methods in which it is proposed to carry them out, and I submit that all these facts are sufficient to dispose of noble Lords' objections to this Ordinance.
  The debates in your Lordships' House have been frequent and protracted. Many speeches on this subject have been delivered, and I am not prepared to say that the discussion has been unprofitable or useless. Nor can the Government in any way resent the attention which has been paid to this subject. But I trust noble Lords will see that the Secretary of State has endeavoured to recognise every practical suggestion, no matter from what quarter it has emanated. I am willing to admit that the draft Ordinance and the regulations, so far as they have been drawn up, have gained in more ways than one by the labours that noble Lords in this House have expended upon the subject. Those who will be called upon to administer the Ordinance will realise the seriousness of their task by the fact that a strong and vigilant public opinion in this country will watch their discharge of them. That alone is a great security.

  39
  Speaking for those who sit on the Government Bench, I can say that we willingly and readily recognise the effort that has been made by noble Lords opposite in so far as they have been inspired by lofty considerations of humanity and morality. But elsewhere, where those efforts have been directed for the purpose of creating prejudice and passion, and, furthermore, where there has been a desire to seize upon a difficult and complex question of Colonial Office administration and to use it as a counter for furthering the cause of a political Party in the State, it is impossible for noble Lords on this side of the House to accord to the authors a similar measure of congratulation.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I desire at the outset to congratulate the noble Duke on the spirited and able speech which he has just delivered. The noble Duke was certainly under a disadvantage in this respect, that, although practice makes perfect, it is rather difficult when one subject is repeatedly brought on, to find new arguments. My noble friend has, I think, acquitted himself most admirably, and the House has derived much pleasure in listening to his speech. The noble Duke very generously referred to his principal critics in this House and admitted that their action has been of considerable benefit to the Ordinance and the regulations under it. I thank him for so generously making that allusion. The noble Duke was, however, I think, mistaken as to the undercurrent which he said he found in the speech of the noble and learned Lord behind me, who was accused of having suggested that His Majesty's Government had initiated this policy. I did not understand my noble and learned friend to differ in any way from the noble Duke as to the actual position of His Majesty's Government in this matter. The matter was not initiated here but in the Transvaal, and it was only on the representation of Lord Milner and others in the Transvaal that His Majesty's Government's responsibility began at all. The noble Duke made a somewhat playful allusion to Lord Carrington and myself. He said that I represented the political flagship, and he rather complained that I had not spoken before on this subject. I do not consider that it is my business to intervene in
  40
  every debate, especially when other members of my Party who have held high office and know probably more, from official experience, than I do of the subject take part. But the noble Duke was not correct in saying that I had not expressed my view on this question, because in my speech on the Address, I where it is often necessary to touch on a variety of subjects, I did allude to this Ordinance. The main point of my argument then was that, whatever opinion we might ourselves hold on a question of this sort, it made all the difference in the world whether the Colony was a self-governing colony or a Crown colony, and I denied the possibility of arriving at the real opinion of the Colony until they had representative government.
  I quite admit that any individual or company is entitled to employ Chinamen if they like, but what I do maintain is that it entirely depends on the conditions under which they are employed. My noble friend said there was a great deal of prejudice about this, and that if it had not been for the fact that yellow labour was involved and that this industry was connected with gold mining, there would not have been half the tumult that has arisen, f entirely deny that. I maintain that the opposition to it depends on the conditions under which this labour is to be employed. I at once admit that the regulations will probably improve the Ordinance; at the same time considerable doubt is entertained by noble Lords on this side of the House arid by my noble friend Lord Stanmore, who has had un-rivalled experience in this matter, whether regulations hold the same legal position as the Ordinance. What docs the Ordinance do even with the amending regulations? Are the conditions exactly what a liberty-loving people would approve of? Is there any parallel to these regulations in any part of the world? When asked that very Question in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for the Colonies answered very shortly "No." Let us look at one or two of the regulations. There is a clause in the Ordinance which enacts that if a labourer goes out of the compound and is living in another house he may be arrested and prosecuted, and any person who harbours him may also be prosecuted and convicted. It may be an

  41
  exaggeration to call that slavery, but I venture to say there are conditions about it which are of a servile or semi-servile nature. The noble Duke has said that he has found meetings—I do not know where they are, certainly not in Dorsetshire—where resolutions could be carried in favour of the Government's policy. The feeling of the people in this country is very strong in regard to liberty and freedom. They consider that every part of the territory of His Majesty is sacred to freedom, and anybody who puts his foot on British territory has a right to be defended, and cannot, unless he is proved to be guilty of some great crime, be given up to the State to which he belongs.
  There is, I admit, force in the argument that the importation of Chinese labour is not a movement against white labour. But I cannot help thinking, after a perusal of the Blue-book, that there is something political in the movement. The mine-owners seem to be afraid of the increase of white labour in the Transvaal on account of its probable political results. No doubt there is a shortage of labour for the mines, but the Minority Report of the Labour Commission makes out a strong case that there is much more Kaffir labour available in South Africa than people in this country generally suppose. Even the answers to Questions on the subject in the House of Commons show that Kaffir labour in the mines is increasing. The De Beers mine has no difficulty whatever in obtaining all the Kaffir labour it requires, because the natives receive high wages and are very well looked after there. I believe that the laws which have been passed by the Transvaal Government imposing a capitation tax on the Kaffir and another tax for the plurality of wives, though passed with the object of inducing the natives to work in the mines, has had the contrary effect of keeping them away from the mines. In June of last year Lord Milner said—
  "To listen to some of the extreme advocates of Asiatic labour one would think that this place was on the verge of total ruin. The production of gold now is greater than in 1895 or 1896, when the Transvaal was already, and had been for some time, the marvel of the world in the matter of gold production. The world progresses, no doubt, but what was fabulous
  42
  wealth seven years ago is not abject poverty to-day. Not only that, the rate of production is increasing."
  Why, then, is it necessary to force an extra production by the importation of Chinese labour? Is it because it is desired that great fortunes should be made in a short time? Cannot the mine-owners wait until the market has become more settled? I protest against a course of action so fraught with evil being taken merely for the sake of increasing the output of gold so that a few men may make their fortunes rapidly.
  The noble Duke has said that the conditions imposed in the Ordinance are humane. But are they consistent with full liberty? It is also said by the noble Duke that there is no serious opposition to the importation of the Chinese into South Africa. What is meant by that? In Cape Colony, which surely is the most important part of South Africa, both political Parties are strongly opposed to it. There is little doubt that the financial position of the Transvaal is very critical, and it is feared that unless something is done at once there will be severe suffering in the Colony. I admit that; but I think that those who cry out for the remedy of Chinese labour do not sufficiently look to the future nor consider what may be the consequences of that action. In my opinion, the consequences will be disastrous. I cannot help thinking that there is an intense feeling in many parts of that country against the introduction of Chinese labour. There is in one of the Blue-books a very strong statement from a number of Boer leaders. It may be said that these men have been, and still are, our enemies; but we must consider that they still have enormous influence in the country, and if they are opposed to this, as I believe it must be admitted they are, will not that be a profound and terrible difficulty to be met in the future? To pass an Ordinance of this kind, which is opposed by all the Dutch population and the leaders of the Dutch in the Transvaal, seems to me a very serious matter. We know that the lower stratum of the Chinese belong to a civilisation not as high as our own, and we know from experience in the Colonies and elsewhere that they are very often extremely immoral. If

  43
  it is impossible to confine them in their cages, will not this immoral influence be very serious for the people of the country? These and other considerations seem to be so grave that I would not myself like to agree to an Ordinance of this sort, though it might for the moment relieve financial tension.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): Do I understand that the noble Earl used the word "cage"?
  EARL SPENCER: Yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I strongly protest against the use of that expression.
  EARL SPENCER: I used the expression in a figurative sense. I think I am justified in using the word. The Chinese are to be restricted to particular districts. The cage may be a large one in some cases, but the Chinese must remain within certain limits and are deprived of that liberty of movement which is enjoyed by all people belonging to this country. I look with very grave apprehension to the passing of this Ordinance, even though amended by the regulations. I most earnestly wish that the Government could make up their minds, even now, to withhold this Ordinance, and to allow things to remain as they are, trusting to time and the development of Kaffir labour to do what is necessary for the mines. I do not for a moment say that we ought to neglect the mines. The mining industry is undoubtedly very important to the prosperity of the Colony, but it should not be developed in such a way as to be prejudicial to the true interests of the people.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Duke, not only on his admirable speech, but also on having elicited from the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition the statement that he is not opposed to the free importation of Chinamen into South Africa, but only to the conditions under which they come.
  EARL SPENCER: I do not think I quite said that. I said that, however
  44
  much one might dislike it, as I do, it made it much worse when the conditions are such as obtain in this case.
  EARL GREY: I do not think I have misrepresented the noble Earl. I suppose the noble Earl would prefer the free and unchecked influx of Chinese labour into the Transvaal to its admission under regulation.
  EARL SPENCER: I am not in favour of it.
  EARL GREY: Now, what are the conditions to which the noble Earl objects so strongly? He resents the idea that the Chinaman, or anybody else, should be confined to what he calls a "cage," but what would be much more correctly described as a garden city. I know some companies who are arranging that every Chinaman who is admitted to the compound shall have a garden plot of his own on which he can grow his vegetables. It is going rather far to say that the result will be demoralising if we do not prevent the Chinaman who earns a penny a day in China from earning 45s. a month in South Africa under conditions in which every care will be taken of his interests. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition referred in terms of enthusiasm to the arrangements made for the natives at Kimberley.
  EARL SPENCER: No.
  EARL GREY: I understood the noble Earl to point to the management of the natives at Kimberley as a proud example which could well be followed in other parts of South Africa.
  EARL SPENCER: I said that at Kimberley they could attract the natives. I did not say it was an ideal place to go to.
  EARL GREY: The noble Earl did quote it as a place where the natives were very well treated. I would point out that the native who goes into a compound on the De Beers mine is never allowed to leave it. There he is in a cage. But the Chinaman on the Rand, when he obtains a pass, is allowed to

  45
  go where he pleases. The noble Earl appealed to the feeling of the House, and said it would be monstrous if a Chinaman who violated the conditions of his employment, and left his compound without a permit, should be imprisoned. Is not the man in His Majesty's Navy and in the Army in very much the same position? If he is under orders not to leave his ship or his barracks, and he leaves without a pass, is he not liable to imprisonment? I think we are really losing our sense of proportion when we say that to allow a Chinaman the opportunity of obtaining highly-paid employment which he cannot obtain at home, and under conditions, as I have said, where every care will be taken of his interest—it is going rather far to say that that approaches slavery, or is demoralising in any way. I do not think the noble Earl has quite realised the fact that the whole organisation of Government, society, and railways has been based on the expectation of the expanding industry of the Transvaal. It is true that in 1898, before the war, they were raising gold at the rate of £20,000,000 a year, and that now the rate is £14,000,000 a year. It is also true that the expenditure, which, in 1898, was only £4,000,000, is now over £6,000,000 a year, and the debt of the Transvaal in the same period, if you take into consideration £6,000,000 wanted for municipal loans at Johannesburg, and the £30,000,000 pledged to this country, has risen from £14,000,000 to £71,000,000. How is the interest on that debt to be paid? There is already a very heavy deficit in the Transvaal.
  If the Imperial Parliament stands in the way of the industrial development of the Transvaal, I should like to know whether those who support such a policy are prepared to incur the obligation which will devolve upon us if the Transvaal cannot pay the interest on the debt? I entirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord when he said that the ultimate fate of South Africa would depend upon the present action of the Imperial Parliament. I approach this question from the standpoint of one who believes that every consideration except that of honour should be subordinated to the adoption of a policy which will
  46
  bring about an increase in the number of British settlers in the Transvaal. I believe it to be true that by means of the temporary employment of Asiatics we will secure highly profitable employment for a large number of British artisans for whom no employment can be found at present. We will also secureincreased trade, and a large increase of employment at home. It is because I believe this that I so strongly urge on the House the importance of helping the Transvaal to settle its own difficulties in the way it thinks best. The noble and learned Lord, in his modesty, thinks that he alone must be right and that Lord Milner and everyone else in the Transvaal who is in favour of the temporary employment of Asiatics must be wrong. Reference has been made to the two gentlemen who signed the Minority Report of the Labour Commission, and especially to one of them, Mr. Whiteside. I would point out that out of nineteen gentlemen nominated by Lord Milner Mr. Whiteside was the only one who was rejected at Johannesburg at a popular election. Does not that convince the noble and learned Lord that there has not been the crafty and unholy conspiracy to get cheap labour to which he referred.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I did not use the word "craft" in that connection. I used it in connection with Lord Milner's accusations against those who differed from him in politics.
  EARL GREY: I pass from that. The noble and learned Lord said there had been an absence of recruiting activity. He has made a diligent examination of the voluminous Blue-books and has picked out every point which tells against the British representatives in South Africa. He has not mentioned the fact, which is stated in the Blue-book, that since 1901 the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association has spent £445,000 in endeavouring to obtain labour. Does not that large expenditure prove that they were in earnest? I say that the expenditure of that sum in an organised attempt to ransack the whole continent of Africa to obtain coloured unskilled labour shows that they have done their utmost to meet the demand

  47
  at the mines. Some 68,000 natives were employed by the members of this association on the last day of last year, and they want 172,000 to-day in order to bring the mines into full working order. The natives are receiving 54s. a month and getting better food than they ever obtained outside Johannesburg in their own kraals. The noble and learned Lord made a point of the fact that no compensation was given for injury, but he will see in the Blue-book that Sir George Farrar definitely states that the natives do receive compensation on the same lines as working men in Great Britain, and that the compensation goes to their relatives in the event of death.
  I will compare the case of the Kaffir labourer with that of the English labourer. The Kaffir labourer receives from 54s. to 60s. a month with food and lodging. If he chooses to put in two years employment, at the end of that period, even allowing himself during the two years £20 for extra luxuries to improve the dietary, he can return home with between £50 and £60 in his pocket. What does he do with that? I have been in the country and I speak of what I know. He buys four or five wives, and these wives work for him. He can sit in idleness for the rest of his life getting fat on the money he receives from the grain grown for him by his wives. Is there any British workman who has got an opportunity of obtaining such great advantages in return for two years work? The Kaffir is practically a millionaire for the rest of his life, with nothing to do and five wives to wait upon him. The noble and learned Lord appealed, in a tragic voice, to His Majesty's Government not to extend the operation of this Act to Rhodesia. Parliament has the right, if it wishes, to ruin the Transvaal—as it will do if it does not allow the people in the Colony to do as they wish in the matter of the importation of labour—but what right has it to interfere with Rhodesia, towards which the British taxpayers have not paid a penny? Rhodesia has been obtained for the British Empire by the enterprise of private individuals, and has contributed certainly over £1,000,000 in stamp and transfer fees to the National Exchequer. Why should Parliament say that Rhodesia must not
  48
  have the help of Chinese labour? Chinese labour may be just as necessary for the Rhodesian mines as it is for the Transvaal, and, if it is, Rhodesia ought to have it. Rhodesia depends for its prosperity on the mining industry just in the same way as the Transvaal does. I therefore hope that Rhodesia will be treated in the same way as the Transvaal, and that the importation of labour will be allowed as it is required. The action of the Imperial Parliament is being watched with great anxiety in South Africa; and the leaders of the Opposition are simply playing the game of the disloyal faction throughout South Africa by trying to prevent a step which is absolutely necessary for a rapid increase in the number of settlers.
  Moved, "That the debate stand adjourned until Monday next."—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.