Sitting of 17 February 1905

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS, AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1896.
  Petition from Lancashire, for continuance; to lie upon the Table.
  JUVENILE SMOKING.
  Petition from Burnley, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SUGAR TAX.
  Petitions for repeal; from Newport (Mon.) (two); and Salford; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Paper [presented 14th February] to be printed. [No.34.]
  GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE AUTHORITIES, ETC.
  Return [presented 14th February] to be printed. [No. 35.]
  PUBLIC OFFICES SITE (DUBLIN) ACT, 1903.
  Account [presented 14th February] to be printed. [No. 36.]
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 TO 1894.
  Copy presented, of Sixteenth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County Palatine of Lancaster, dividing the Chorley Parliamentary Division into two convenient Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (REGULA- TIONS).
  Copy presented, of Regulations made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the management and discipline of the Lancashire Certified Inebriate Reformatory [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE- PARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION AC- COUNTS).
  Appropriation Accounts presented, for the year ending 31st March, 1904, together with the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon and certain Reports upon Store Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 37.]
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Accounts presented, for the year ended 31st December, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 38.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council continuing certain provisions contained in the Order in Council of 6th March, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 39.]
  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th February; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 40.]
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896, AND MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
  Copy presented, of Order by the Secretary for Scotland prohibiting Motor Car Traffic on certain roads in the county of Midlothian [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896, AND MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
  Copy presented, of Order by the Secretary for Scotland prohibiting Motor Car Traffic on special roads in the county of Perth [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896, AND MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
  Copy presented, of Order by the Secretary for Scotland prohibiting Motor Car Traffic on a road in the county of Perth [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Friendly Societies, Workmen's Compensation Schemes, Industrial and Provident Societies, and Trade Unions.—Reports of the Chief Registrar for the year ending 31st December, 1904 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 41.]
  Building Societies.—Copy of Tenth Annual Report by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies of the Proceedings of the Registrars under the Building Societies Acts, etc. [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 42.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House, at the rising of the House this day, do adjourn till Monday next."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  NEW WRIT.
  For the county of Bute, in the room of the right hon. Andrew Graham Murray, Lord Justice General and Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Imperial Exchequer and Cost of Tibet Expedition.
  MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that the expedition to Tibet was determined on partly through Imperial interests and not in the interests of India solely, will the Government consider the expediency of charging the Imperial Exchequer with part of its cost.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) On l3th July, 1904, † the Secretary of State for India informed the hon. Member for West Denbighshire that the Tibetan question was essentially an Indian interest. Under these circumstances it seems neither just nor expedient that the expenditure should fall upon the British Exchequer.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvii., 1467.

  Salary of Secretary of State for India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the expediency of placing the salary of the Secretary of State for India on the Estimates.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any action in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

  Overtime in Linen Factories.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon what representations he decided to issue the Special Exception (Overtime) Order with regard to the employment of women in the making up of any article of table linen, bed linen, or other household linen, and processes incidental thereto; and whether the Home Office took any steps to inquire what were the views of the workers concerned, either by communicating with the Textile Operatives Society of Ireland, the Belfast Trades Council, or with any other labour organisation in the districts affected by the Order.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) It was brought to my notice last year that overtime was being worked in certain places in Ireland in the processes referred to, and inquiry showed that the practice had been in existence for many years, that the particular processes were carried on to a large extent in the same places, by the same classes of operatives, and under much the same conditions as other similar processes in which overtime was legal, and that the operatives concerned would strongly object to any interference with the practice. I informed the manufacturers that the practice could not be continued without an Order under the Factory Act; and, on an application being made for such an Order, I caused a draft Order to be published for forty days in accordance with the provisions of the Rules Publication Act. No objections having been sent to me within that period, I decided to make the Order. I may point out that textile workers were not concerned, as the

  471
  Order applies only to non-textile factories and workshops.

  Compensation Allowance for Indian Medical Service in Burmah.
  MR. HEMPHILL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a memorial presented over three years ago on behalf of the officers of the Indian Medical Service in Civil employ in Burma, praying for the grant of compensation allowance for the extra expense of serving in that province, on the same footing as such allowance is made to the officers of the public works, telegraph, forest, and postal departments; and whether any steps are about to be taken to grant the prayer of such memorial.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Officers of the Indian Medical Service in Civil employ in Burma were placed upon the same footing as officers in other departments in respect of local allowance in December, 1903.

  Increase of Salary for Strabane Dispensary Doctor.
  MR. HEMPHILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent resolutions of the Board of Guardians of the Strabane Union increasing the salary of Dr. Trimble, the medical officer of the Strabane dispensary district, from £120 to £150 a year, in consideration of his length of service and the heavy duties which he has to discharge; and, if so, whether he can state on what grounds such resolution has been disregarded by the Local Government Board; and whether effect will now be given to same.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Local Government Board has not disregarded the resolutions. With a view to carrying out the proposal of the guardians the Board suggested that a scale fixing minimum and maximum salaries with interim incremental additions should be formulated and made applicable to the entire dispensary medical staff of the union. The Board consider that this alternative is preferable to increasing individual salaries at irregular intervals. In September last
  472
  the guardians decided to prepare and submit a scale, which, however, has not yet been received.

  Disposal of Site of Duke of York's School.
  MR. WHITMORE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at as to the disposal of the site of the Government's Military School at Chelsea.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The question of the disposal of this site cannot be definitely decided until the provision of accommodation for the school elsewhere is further advanced.

  British South Africa Company.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House what is the total share capital of the Chartered Company of South Africa; at what price these shares have been respectively issued to the public; what is the amount, if any, of the debentures issued by the company; what is the amount of shares held by the company in other companies or undertakings; what is the monetary amount of interest held by the company in other companies, based upon the value of the shares of such companies at par; and what is the annual amount of the interest guaranteed by the company in respect of other companies or other undertakings.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Much of the information desired by the hon. Member may be derived from sources which are open to the public, such as the published annual accounts of the company and "Burdett's Official Intelligence." For the rest the Secretary of State would be obliged to ask the British South Africa Company for a Return and for permission to publish it, and it would probably save correspondence if the hon. Member would apply to the company direct.

NEW BILLS.

  SHIPOWNERS' NEGLIGENCE REMEDIES BILL.
  "To enlarge the remedies of persons injured by the negligence of shipowners," presented by Sir Harry Samuel; supported by Mr. Brynmor Jones, Major

  473
  Evans-Gordon, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Mr. Ernest Gray, Mr. Jacoby, Sir Ernest Flower, Mr. Marks, Sir Albert Rollit, and Mr. Harold Reckitt; to be read a second time upon Friday, March 3rd, and to be printed. [Bill 1.]

  TRADES UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Trades Unions and Trade Disputes," presented by Mr. Whittaker; supported by Mr. Henderson, Mr. Bell, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Beaumont, Mr. Johnson, Mr. John Burns, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Paulton, and Mr. Fenwick; to be read a second time upon Friday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]
  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To improve the position of Tenants in Towns in Ireland," presented by Mr. Patrick O'Brien; supported by Mr. John Redmond, Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Joseph Devlin, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Field, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Mooney, and Mr. Charles Devlin; to be read a second time upon Friday, 24th March, and to be printed. [Bill .3.]
  COAL MINES EMPLOYMENT BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Acts which relate to Employment," presented by Mr. Jacoby; supported by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Joseph Walton, Mr. Parrott, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Thomas Richards, Sir Joseph Leese, and Mr. Norman; to be read a second time upon Friday, 17th March, and to be printed. [Bill 4.]
  COAL MINES (WEIGHING OF MINERALS) BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, which relate to the Weighing of Minerals," presented by Mr. Compton Rickett; supported by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. William Abraham, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Haldane, Sir William Holland, Mr. Warner, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Parrott; to be read a second time upon Friday, March 31st, and to be printed. [Bill 5.]
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister," presented by Colonel Lockwood; supported by Sir William Gurdon, Sir Gilbert Parker, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Burt, Colonel Denny, Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, Mr. Hambro, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. David Maclver, and Sir Barrington Simeon; to be read a second time upon Friday, 7th April, and to be printed. [Bill 6.]
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  "To provide for the separate Assessment and Rating of Land Values," presented by Sir John Brunner; supported by Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Bell, Mr. Charles Douglas, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. McCrae, Dr. Macnamara, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. J. H. Whitley, and Mr. Watson Rutherford; to be read a second time upon Friday, 14th April, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To give the ratepayers a direct veto on the Liquor Traffic in their respective areas in Scotland," presented by Mr. Hunter Craig; supported by Mr. Asher, Mr. Black, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Crombie, Sir William Dunn, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. John Hope, Mr. Robert Wallace, and Mr. Eugene Wason; to be read a second time upon Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]
  VEHICLES LIGHTS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to lights upon vehicles on highways," presented by Mr. Bigwood; to be read a second time upon Friday, 12th May, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]
  LAND VALUES TAXATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the taxation for local purposes of Land Values in burghs in Scotland," presented by Mr. Ainsworth; supported by Mr. Black, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Hunter Craig, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Findlay, and Mr. J. D. Hope; to be read a second time upon Friday, 19th May, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
  CANALS BILL.
  "To establish public trusts under one control, with power to acquire, develop, extend, and administer the Canals and inland navigations of the United Kingdom, and to exercise all powers and authorities conducive or ancillary thereto," presented by Mr. Barran; supported by Sir John Brunner, Sir William Tomlinson, Sir William Holland, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. Channing, Mr. PlattHiggins, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Field, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. McArthur, and Mr. Alexander Cross; to be read a second time upon Friday, 26th May, and to be printed. [Bill 11.]
  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  "To prevent Plural Voting at Parliamentary elections," presented by Mr. Soames; supported by Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Henderson, Dr. Hutchinson, Mr. J. A. Pease, Mr. Price, Mr. Runciman, Mr. Shackleton, and Sir Edward Strachey; to be read a second time upon Friday, 2nd June, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  "To enable women to vote at Parliamentary elections," presented by Mr. Slack; supported by Colonel Denny, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Nannetti, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. George Whiteley, and Mr. Keir Hardie; to be read a second time upon Friday, 12th May, and to be printed. [Bill l3.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  "To enable women to be elected and act as members of county and borough councils and metropolitan borough councils," presented by Dr. Shipman; supported by Mr. Channing, Sir Richard Jebb, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Emmott, Captain Norton, Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Yerburgh, Mr. Crooks, Sir Henry Kimber, Mr. Lough, and Mr. John Burns; to be read a second time upon Friday, 3lst March, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (WALES) BILL.
  "To provide for improving and extending the procedure for obtaining Parliamentary powers by way of Provisional Orders in matters relating to Wales,"
  476
  presented by Mr. Vaughan-Davies; supported by Sir Alfred Thomas, Mr. Brynmor-Jones, Mr. Osmond Williams, and Mr. Herbert Roberts; to be read a second time upon Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  "To prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday," presented by Mr. Perks; supported by Mr. Bell, Mr. Cameron, Sir Frederick Mappin, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Charles Wilson, and Mr. John Wilson; to be read a second time upon Friday, 26th May, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS BILL.
  "To give compensation for damage by fires caused by sparks or cinders from railway engines," presented by Mr. Mount; supported by Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Spear, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Courtenay Warner, and Mr. Gardner; to be read a second time upon Friday, 3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
  DUBLIN POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Dublin Police Acts," presented by Mr. Clancy; supported by Mr. Harrington, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Field, Mr. Mooney, and Mr. Waldron; to be read a second time upon Friday, 19th May, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Local Government (Ireland) Acts," presented by Mr. Mooney; supported by Mr. Clancy, Mr. Roche, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Kilbride, Mr. Hayden, Mr. J. P. Farrell, and Mr. Conor O'Kelly; to be read a second time upon Friday, 2nd June, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  SMALL HOLDINGS BILL.
  "To further facilitate the provision of Small Holdings," presented by Mr. Channing; supported by Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Herbert Samuel, Mr. Price, Mr. Bright, Mr. Lyell, Dr. Hutchinson, Mr. George White, and Mr. Slack; to be read a second time upon Friday, 24th March, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
  LAND DRAINAGE AND SEWERS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the drainage of Land for Agricultural Purposes and the Law of Sewers," presented by Mr. Harold Reckitt; supported by Mr. Seymour Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Perks; to be read a second time upon Friday, 31st March, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
  CATHOLIC DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
  "To remove certain disabilities affecting Catholics," presented by Mr. MacVeagh; supported by Mr. Kilbride, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Sheehy, Mr. Moony, Mr. McKean, Mr. Vincent Kennedy, Mr. Waldron, Mr. Delany, and Mr. Boland; to be read a second time upon Friday, 2nd June, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SATURDAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Ireland on Saturdays, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Sloan; supported by Sir James Haslett, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. T. L. Corbett, Mr. Wood, and Mr. O'Shaughnessy; to be read a second time upon Friday, 7th April, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
  HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the system of House-letting in the burghs of Scotland," presented by Mr. Alexander Cross; supported by Sir John Leng, Mr. Hunter Craig, Colonel Bain, and Mr. T. W. Russell; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  "To deal with Church Discipline," presented by Mr. Austin Taylor; supported by Mr. William Lawrence, Mr. Charles McArthur, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. David Maclver, Mr. W. W. Rutherford, Mr. Channing, and Major Seely; to be read a second time upon Friday, 12th May, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  "To grant certificates to Persons in Charge of Steam Engines and Boilers,"
  478
  presented by Mr. Joseph Walton; supported by Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Parrott, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Levy, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. John Johnson, and Mr. Arthur Henderson; to be read a second time upon Friday 26th May, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  "To provide for the Enfranchisement of Leaseholds," presented by General Laurie; supported by Mr. Spear, Mr. Cohen, Sir George Fardell, and Mr. Louis Sinclair; to be read a second time upon Friday, 7th April, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
  MEDICAL ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Medical Act, 1886," presented by General Laurie; supported by Sir Walter Foster, Sir John Tuke, Mr. Rothschild, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Middlemore, and Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree; to be read a second time upon Friday, 14th April, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
  COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.
  "To legalise certain Colonial Marriages," presented by General Laurie; supported by Mr. Rothschild, Mr. Arthur Stanley, Sir Gilbert Parker, and Captain Jessel; to be read a second time upon Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
  CONTEMPT OF COURT (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to committals for Contempt of Court in Ireland," presented by Mr. Patrick Aloysius McHugh; supported by Mr. O'Dowd, Mr. Conor O'Kelly, Mr. Clancy, Mr. James O'Kelly, and Mr. William McKillop; to be read a second time upon Friday, 2nd June, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
  DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Drunkenness in Ireland, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. T. W. Russell; supported by Mr. Hugh Law, Sir James Haslett, Captain Donelan, and Mr. Wood; to be read a second time upon Friday, 31st March, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
  FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL.
  "To establish a single Franchise at all Elections, and thereby to abolish University representation and to remove the disabilities of women," presented by Sir Charles Dilke; supported by Mr. Bell, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Dr. Macnamara, Captain Norton, Mr. Shackleton, and Mr. Sheehan; to be read a second time upon Friday, 28th April, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
  WAGES BOARDS BILL.
  "To provide for the establishment of Wages Boards," presented by Sir Charles Dilke; supported by Mr. Bill, Mr. John Burns, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Tennant, and Mr. Trevelyan; to be read a second time upon Friday, 28th April, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, 1881, and to make further provisions respecting the sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Wales and Monmouthshire," presented by Mr. Herbert Roberts; supported by Sir Alfred Thomas, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. Herbert Lewis; to be read a second time upon Friday, 19th May, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
  CHILDREN'S COURTS BILL.
  "To establish Children's Courts," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Mr. Samuel Smith and Sir John Gorst; to be read a second time upon Friday, 3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  "To amend the sixteenth Section of The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Middlemore, Sir. Carne Rasch, and Mr. Field; to be read a second time upon Friday, 3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR BILL.
  "To provide for the appointment of a Public Trustee and Executor," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. Howard, and
  480
  Colonel Tufnell; to be read a second time upon Friday, 3rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

  VOTING DISQUALIFICATION (POOR LAW) REMOVAL BILL.
  "To prevent the disenfranchisement of persons receiving Poor Law relief," presented by Mr. Schwann; supported by Captain Norton, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Churchill, Mr. Kearley, and Mr. Fenwick; to be read a second time upon Friday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (COMPANIES) BILL.
  "To confer the municipal franchise upon mercantile corporations and companies, and to amend The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882," presented by Sir Albert Rollit; supported by Sir James Woodhouse, Sir Fortescue Flannery, Sir William Holland, Mr. H. C. Richards, Mr. J. Howard, and Captain Jessel; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
  CHURCH ORGANISATION AND DIS- CIPLINE BILL.
  "To repeal certain enactments; to provide for the constitution of churchwardens' councils in England and Wales; to amend the Law relating to institution to benefices, to ecclesiastical suits, and to public worship; and to otherwise make better provision for the organisation and discipline of the Church of England," presented by Lord Hugh Cecil; to be read a second time upon Friday, 17th March, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMEND- MENT BILL.
  "To amend The Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854," presented by Mr. McCrae; supported by Mr. Bryce, Sir John Leng, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. John Dewar, and Mr. Robert Wallace; to be read a second time upon Friday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

  PHARMACY BILL.
  "To provide for the further regulation of the sale of poisons and the compounding of medical prescriptions, and to amend the Pharmacy Acts, 1852 and

  481
  1868," presented by Mr. Lough; supported by Sir Mancherjee Bhownaggree, Mr. Henniker Heaton, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Osmond Williams, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. James Reid, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Marshall Hall, Mr. Remnant, and Mr. Ernest Gray; to be read a second time upon Friday, 24th March, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

  MILK DEPOTS (LONDON) BILL.
  "To allow metropolitan borough councils to establish and maintain Milk Depôts," presented by Mr. Lough; supported by Dr. Shipman, Sir Charles Dilke, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. J. H. Whitley; to be read a second time upon Friday, 12th May, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [14th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Mount.)
  Question again proposed.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that last year, when the Transvaal Labour Ordinance was before the House, there were grave misgivings expressed, and not alone by men on one side of the House, lest we might be committing ourselves to a policy which would be fraught with great evil to the future of the Transvaal. To allay this apprehension the Colonial Secretary gave certain assurances, and without them the Ordinance would hardly have been passed. But as the session went on it became painfully clear that these assurances were not being carried out, though no discussion of the subject in the House was possible, because of the appearance on the Order Paper of a very remarkable variety of ingenious
  482
  blocking Motions. They had consequently to fall back on the unfruitful task of bombarding the Colonial Secretary with questions. He did not think that under the circumstances the right hon, Gentleman would now complain because he had deliberately seized this opportunity of raising the whole question. The first grave apprehension was that, if the Chinese coolies went to the Transvaal unaccompanied by their women-kind, we should be setting up in the heart of our newest colony a cesspit of Oriental immorality. The Bishop of Worcester on that matter wrote a powerful letter to The Times on October 7th last year, in which he said—
  "I am informed by some who appear to speak with knowledge that the transportation of a great number of Chinese to the mines, especially apart from their women-folk, is certain to result in the establishment of demoralisation of a sort which I do not care to characterise more exactly.''
  The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Rochester and many others in an other place expressed pretty much the same view, and in order to meet this anxiety, Lord Onslow gave an assurance that facilities would be offered, in the freest possible way, at the cost of the importer for the passages of the wives and children of the coolies. On February 16th, in the House of Commons, the Colonial Secretary in reference to the arrangement thus foreshadowed said—
  "Manifestly it would be most wrong that they should go without their women-folk. I undertake on behalf of the Government that all the coolies who wish to take their wives and children shall have the opportunity of doing so."
  That reassured hon. Members. But what had proved to be the sequel? The right hon. Gentleman gave a Return on January 10th this year which showed that down to October last there were 12,965 coolies on the Rand; on Saturday last there were 27,182; and in a short time there were to be 34,000. Of all these thousands two only had brought their wives with them. He could not accept the excuse that the Government were not to blame, as they had provided all facilities, and he would tell the right hon. Gentleman why. In the first place, in the first draft of the Ordinance of December 5th, 1903, there was provision made for bringing the wives and children of the coolies. In the second draft—that

  483
  of January 25th, 1904—that provision was dropped out, because, as he suggested, the mineowners looked upon it as an expensive, troublesome, and intolerable nuisance. Then the Bishops began to get apprehensive, and the provision was reinstated, in order, as he suggested, to allay the tender susceptibilities of the Episcopal conscience. He did not believe, however, that the Government, when the reinstatement was made, thought that it was worth the paper it was written upon. The Colonial Secretary would no doubt remember a letter sent to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton from a Chinese missionary, the Rev. Mr. Arnold-Forster, alleging that the recruiters were making no endeavour to inform the coolie that he might bring his wife and children. The Colonial Secretary promised, on August 1st, to send that letter to Lord Milner for his observations. Had these observations reached the right hon. Gentleman?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): Not from Lord Milner himself; but I have had information on the subject.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the undertaking was given six months ago, and yet no observations from Lord Milner had arrived. Lord Milner had said that he did not care twopence for the opinion of people 6,000 miles away; but it was about time to make him care. He had in his possession a facsimile of the advertisement issued by the recruiting agents of Tientsin. He did not pretend to understand the document, but the translation of it showed that there was no hint of facilities being provided for the coolies taking their wives and children with them. Even the Colonial Secretary and the Archbishop of Canterbury could find no hint of that in the hieroglyphics. He would be interested to know what answer the right hon. Gentleman had to make to the charge that this particular assurance of his had not been carried out. Was the right hon. Gentleman quite easy in his mind when he thought of all these thousands of coolies cooped up together without their women-kind? "concerning whom it would be manifestly most
  484
  wrong that they should come without their women folk."
  Now, the next assurance which he held had not been fulfilled was with reference to the wages paid to the Chinese coolie. When they were discussing the Ordinance, a great many of them expressed the apprehension that the competition of the coolie would be used to make the Kaffir work for less than 2s. a day. But the Colonial Secretary repeatedly denied this. On March 21st the right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would not be a deplorable thing to prevent the coming of a Chinaman who is anxious and willing to work, and who would receive in the Transvaal "at least 2s. a day." They were very pleased to hear that, and said "Put it in the Ordinance," to which the right hon. Gentleman replied—
  "I do not consider it necessary or desirable to specify a minimum wage, but I have no fear that the standard of wages of the Chinese will be lower than that of the Kaffir labourers."
  That was perfectly clear and unmistakable. The coolie was to have at least 2s. a day, and he was not to be paid a lower wage than the Kaffir. What was the sequel? On June 22nd, after the Ordinance was passed, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that, while the minimum wage of the Kaffir was 45s. a month, that of the Chinese labourer was 30s. a month; but he added that after the first six months the minimum was to be increased from 30s. to 45s. a month. The six months had expired, but the minimum still remained at 1s. a day. In that matter he submitted a grave charge rested against the Government for having got this Ordinance by the assurance that the coolie would not undercut the Kaffir and would get at least 2s. per day.
  The third point to which he had to refer had reference to the nature of the work which the coolie had to do on the Rand. They were assured in the House any number of times that the coolie was to be engaged wholly and exclusively on unskilled labour. These were the precise words of the Colonial Secretary on May 2nd—
  "The indentured Chinese are restricted under the Ordinance to unskilled work in the mines, such as is usually performed by natives. This restriction would appear to exclude the Chinese from work of the class in which white men have hitherto been engaged."

  485
  On June 8th the right hon. Gentleman said that Section 9a of the Ordinance read in conjunction with the first schedule, made it clear that Asiatics were not excluded from acting as overseers, and that the actual gangers would probably be Chinese. On that point he desired to make a serious complaint. Before the Ordinance, under no circumstances were Asiatics to touch anything but unskilled work or act as overseers; immediately the Ordinance had been sanctioned the announcement was made that they could be overseers and gangers—positions which before the Ordinance were specially reserved for the white men. Then there was the assurance, without which the Ordinance would probably never have been passed, that the coming of the coolie would mean a large increase in the opportunities of employment for white men. Lord Milner stated in a letter that every ten Chinamen introduced would mean employment in mining operations for one more white man, and there was not a Unionist platform last year on which that declaration was not repeated. What were the facts? There had been an increase of white labour to the extent of 1,600 or 1,700 since the introduction of the coolie, but they had been engaged, as the Colonial Secretary admitted, not in mining work, but in the building of compounds and other incidental occupations which would disappear almost immediately. Moreover, the increase in the number of white men employed was going on at a rapidly diminishing rate, and would soon be extinguished. In a month, at the end of 1904, there were ninety-two additional white men employed on the Rand, while the number of coolies introduced during the same period was 5,583, or one white man, not for every ten, but for every sixty Chinamen, and there was no assurance that even those white men had been employed in mining operations. Never was a greater fraud perpetrated upon the British public than when they were assured that the introduction of the coolie would mean increased opportunities for the permanent employment of white men in the mining industry. These were four specific points as to which he would be glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Last year if any hon. Member
  486
  ventured to whisper the echo of a doubt that all would be well, the Colonial Secretary waxed very indignant indeed, laying his hand upon his heart, and soundly rating his opponents for doubting the word of a British Minister. In fact, there was just a little too much "hand-upon-the-heart" about the Colonial Secretary's attitude. On February 22nd last year, the right hon. Gentleman specifically stated—
  "I have given pledges in this House, a breach of which, if I should be so base as to depart from them, can be visited on me by this as well as by that side of the House, with the condemnation which I shall be worthy to receive if I do break them.''
  He did not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's word or his honour; what he doubted was his capacity to make the Rand magnates carry out his pledges. The Colonial Secretary was an English gentleman and a first-class sportsman, and he must often have thought that the way in which his pledges had been handled was not precisely "cricket." The right hon. Gentleman had one of two things to do—either to make the Rand magnates carry out the pledges given to the House or to resign his office as Colonial Secretary. He further complained that no attempt had been made to test the opinion of the Transvaal on the question of the introduction of coolies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham took up an absolutely correct attitude on this point when, in a letter on April 21st last year, he wrote—
  "You are aware that while I was Colonial Secretary I laid down the principle on which I proposed to deal with the question—viz., to offer no opposition on the part of the Imperial Government to the employment of Asiatic labour if it were clearly shown that such employment was desired by the great majority of the white inhabitants of the two Colonies. … I assume that the Government have satisfied themselves that the condition I laid down is now fulfilled, and that the feeling of the white inhabitants is strongly in favour of the proposed employment."
  That assumption was the absolute reverse of the fact. The present Colonial Secretary had flatly departed from the policy laid down by his predecessor. The Prime Minister himself had taken up a most amazing position on this point. In a letter to the electors of Chertsey, on

  487
  July 5th last year, the right hon. Gentleman stated—
  "All fair-minded men will remember that these labourers, who came willingly on the terms offered to them, have been introduced into the Transvaal at the express wish of the white population."
  Allowance had to be made for everybody at election times, but this suggestion of the Prime Minister was what the Americans call "rather steep." What evidence was there of the "express wish of the white population?" The Government would doubtless answer that the Legislative Council, by twenty-two to four, I adopted the Ordinance. But who were the Legislative Council? That body consisted of twenty-seven persons, not one of whom was elected, there being thirteen Government officials and fourteen selected outsiders, and to say that the act of such a body represented "the express wish of the white population of the Transvaal" was the climax of effrontery. But there was some expression of the wish of the white people. First of all there were the Boers. ["Oh."] The Boers were now British subjects, and their opinion was surely worth some consideration. Two hundred delegates attended an important Congress at Pretoria on May 23rd, and unanimously passed the following resolution—
  "This meeting expresses its approval of the cable sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the Boer leaders with reference to the importation of Chinese labourers for the mines, and expresses the feeling of the Boer population that this step is a very dangerous one, which should not, under any circumstances, be taken without the constitutional approval of the people of the Transvaal."
  The other section of the white population was the British, and at a congress in April last, British working-class representatives unanimously resolved—
  "That this council, comprising the whole of the trade unions of the Rand, carpenters 'engineers, engine-drivers, typographical union, plasterers, bricklayers, boiler-makers, miners, bakers, masons, confectioners, shop-assistants, musicians, do hereby protest against the importation of Asiatics, being firmly convinced that it will ultimately result in a reduction of white labour, and thereby be detrimental to the State."
  And the conviction of these men had been amply confirmed by the figures officially supplied. He was surprised that they were able to hold that meeting without being smashed
  488
  up. They had all heard of that historic meeting in the Wanderers' Hall, Johannesburg, in favour of a referendum, which was smashed up by ruffians hired for the purpose at 15s. a time. Referring to this incident the South African Guardian said—
  "The day following the meeting at the Wanderers, a scene was witnessed in Johannesburg the like of which it may be safely said has never occurred before in a British colony. This was the paying off of the men engaged to attend the meeting to prevent Mr. Quinn getting a hearing. This was done in the building at the corner of two streets. On Friday afternoon hundreds of people congregated in front of the building, the crowd stretching right across the road. At the entrance to the room and standing in the street were two constables to preserve order in the admission of applicants, one by one, for the 15s., the pay of the night. The doorkeeper stood inside, and, with the door slightly ajar, took the name of each man, and admission was not granted until an inspection had been made of the register inside, which had been signed the day previously. Amongst the onlookers exclamations of surprise at the utter shamelessness of the proceedings were heard on every side."
  If the Colonial Secretary would like to go further into this matter he could let him see a photographic reproduction showing those gentlemen receiving their 15s. for having broken up that meeting. Then there had been expressions of opinion from Australia. Lord Northcote, the Governor-General of Australia, had forwarded to the Government the following Resolution passed in both branches of the Federal Legislature—
  "That this House records its grave objection to the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal until a referendum of the white population of the colony has been taken on the subject, or responsible government is granted."
  The Colonial Secretary's reply to that was curious—"The Government adhered to the policy of treating the Transvaal as a self-governing colony."
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not think that is an accurate account of what I said, and I should prefer the hon. Member to quote the words from my telegram.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid as far as he could remember it was to that effect. The Colonial Secretary appeared in this instance to have broken all records by his classic official evasion. With

  489
  regard to the opinion of Australia Mr. Deakin, the Federal Parliament Premier, made a very important statement. He said—
  "Australia had been told that the war was a miner's war, but not for Chinese miners; a war for the franchise, but not for Chinese franchise. The truth, if it had been told would have presented a very different aspect, and would have made a very different appeal to Australia."
  Associated with Mr. Deakin was the Leader of the Opposition in the Federal Parliament, Mr. Reid, who said—
  "The Chinese stimulant to Empire-building is peculiarly offensive to Australian sentiment. It lowers the best Imperial standards to put capitalistic interests before colonising ideals. Slow progress under better auspices is best."
  Next came the New Zealand Legislature, which had made urgent representations to the home Government in the following terms—
  "The Government of New Zealand foresees grave perils, racial, social, political, and sanitary, in the introduction of coolies."
  The Ministers of Cape Colony said that the importation of Chinese—
  "Will greatly hamper, if not altogether prevent, the federation of South African Colonies. They plead for patience as the wise means of solution, and are assured that native labour in plenty will be forthcoming if a fair wage be offered and considerate treatment in the way of housing and food be accorded."
  And all this time, while the Government were flouting colonial opinion upon this question, the ex-Colonial Secretary was going about the country on a pilgrimage as the missionary of Empire, insisting that they must, upon another question now before the country, respect colonial opinion. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham started his fiscal campaign in 1903 at Glasgow, he said—
  "Our children are calling to us. With them rests, as with us, the maintenance of the traditions of which we are proud—the continuance of the glorious history of our past. They invite you to co-operate with them. They stretch their hands to you across the seas. Will you not grasp them? Will you not do all in your power to make this vision real and hand down undiminished and untarnished the sceptre of that great dominion, and the recollection of that glorious past which we have received as an inheritance, due to the courage, the tenacity, and the self-sacrifice of our ancestors through many generations."
  This flamboyant exhortation was all very fine, but they had to forget altogether
  490
  the coolie on the Rand while they were saying it. They had also got to forget those appeals from the Colonies in protest against the introduction of Chinese labour to which they had to turn a deaf ear of cynical disregard. The ex-Colonial Secretary, in a speech at Birmingham on November 4th, said:—
  "For my part I say when I remember how the Colonies responded to our appeal, when I remember how when we were in stress and difficulty they sent us men in thousands and tens of thousands, how they paid money; when I remember how, when every one's hand seemed raised against us, we relied and rested on the moral support that we had from these great growing States across the sea—I for one am not prepared to treat their proposals with contempt."
  As a Colonial born he agreed with that, for they had no right to treat proposals from the Colonies with contempt; but if that was good enough in regard to imaginary offers relating to trade preference, it was equally good in respect of the protests from the Colonies in regard to the shameful sequel to a war in which our brothers across the sea freely and even eagerly spent their blood and treasure. He begged to move.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELin seconding the Motion, said that in some quarters this question appeared to be regarded as a mere Party agitation on the part of the Opposition with no reality or substance in it, as a question taken up solely in order to win support in the constituencies. He assured the House that that was not so, for many of them felt a profound conviction that the introduction of Chinese labour under the conditions in which it had been introduced in the Transvaal was unnecessary for the economic development of that country, was injurious to British labour, opposed to the future well-being of South Africa, and deleterious to those principles of liberty to which this nation had long been profoundly attached. Would those who regarded this merely as a Party agitation explain why our great Colonies, who were far removed from any such considerations, had expressed opposition to the introduction of Chinese labour even more emphatically than it had been expressed in this country? They had now had six months experience of Chinese labour. 27,000 coolies had

  491
  been introduced into the Transvaal and another 7,500 were upon the sea bound for the Transvaal mines. He thought the time had now come when they could review the results of this experiment. He had heard no complaints with regard to the feeding and housing of the Chinese coolies, and they seemed to be in this respect well treated; but there was still the essential evil, the essential blot upon the whole scheme, that this was an attempt to keep in isolation and subordination a vast body of men in the midst of the surrounding population. They had this helot community established in the midst of the surrounding white and black population on conditions degrading to those who suffered them, and still more degrading to those who inflicted them. Never in the history of the world had there been such an attempt as this to keep isolated and separated from the rest of the community a vast body of tens of thousands of labourers.
  The Colonial Secretary said that he had done no more in this matter than previous Liberal governments had done in the case of the West Indies. The employment of coolies in the West Indies was essentially different in principle to that of the Chinese coolies in the Transvaal, because there had never been any attempt to isolate them from the rest of the community. Nor were they limited to unskilled labour. The great majority of Indian coolies in the West Indies ultimately settled in the country—to the extant of about 62 per cent., and they were regarded as most valuable members of the community. This experiment of keeping 30,000 men within a ring fence was bound to break down. It was an impossible undertaking. There had been numerous cases of riots as a result of the conditions under which the Chinese labourers were confined. According to Mr. Harold Strange, the Chairman of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, there were in January last 168 coolies in jail, twenty-one had deserted and 685 had died or had been sent back again to China. It was reported that these riots had occurred largely on account of conflicts between the Kaffirs and Chinese, because the Kaffirs were defending their women-folk from
  492
  interference by the coolies. Last night the Prime Minister deprecated cross-examination across the floor of the House, but, nevertheless, he should like to ask a single question, which he thought would be considered pertinent and legitimate. Did the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the view that it would be manifestly most wrong that they should go without their women-folk?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I wish to point out that what I said is perfectly clear if the whole sentence is read. With the context the sentence makes it perfectly clear. I said it would be wrong for the coolies to go without their wives if they wished their wives. That is perfectly clear from the pledge I gave immediately afterwards.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: Is it quite right to desert their wives?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am answering the question of the hon. Member. I say that the context of the sentence which he read shows that what I said was that it was wrong that the coolies should go there without their wives if they desired to bring them. I gave pledges that they should have the opportunity, and full opportunity, of bringing them. I asked hon. Members whom I was addressing afterwards if they could make any suggestion whereby that facility could be increased. From that day to this I have heard none. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean showed that he understood the pledge which was given in that sentence.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he had not the whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in his hand, but he had one or two sentences which came before the one he had quoted. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I entirely agree that the provisions for the reception and accommodation of the wives and families of these people should be clearly made. We were advised in this matter by men the most experienced in the whole Empire on the subject of Chinese labour. We were advised that the coolies would not go without their women-folk. Manifestly it would be most wrong that they should go without their women-folk. I undertake that if they wish to bring their

  493
  wives and families they shall be allowed to do so. ["All of them?"] All of them … I undertake, on behalf of the Government, that all the coolies who desire to bring their wives and families shall have the opportunity to do so."
  He did not know what was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but he had always thought until this moment, and he thought the majority of the Members of the House were of the same opinion, that he regarded it on moral grounds objectionable that these Chinese should be herded together in large celibate communities on account of which certain practices were notorious. He had had the benefit of the advice of a man who was equal as an authority to any of those the right hon. Gentleman had consulted. This man, who had been for many years the Protector of the Chinese in the Straits Settlements, assured him that the Chinese would not take their woman-folk with them when they when temporarily, and the result was that in the Malay Peninsula there occurred the abhorrent evils which they thought must occur in South Africa. That was one of the grounds on which hon. Members on his side of the House had opposed the introduction of Chinese labour in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be manifestly most wrong that the Chinese should go there without their women-folk. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he now proposed to take to stop what was a manifest wrong.
  *There was a second result which was important. In the six months from June to December there were 1,600 more white workman employed on the Transvaal mines. His hon. friend had pointed out on the authority of an answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to a Question that a proportion, but he did not know how large a proportion, of these men were employed, not as miners, but as builders in providing accommodation for the Chinese, who were being imported at the rate of 5,000 or 6,000 a month. His hon. friend had pointed out that these white workmen were rapidly decreasing, and that while in December 5,500 Chinese arrived, only ninety-two additional whites were employed.
  494
  The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, and those who supported him, said that the effect of Chinese labour was to increase the number of white workmen. They on the other hand said that the effect of Chinese labour was to reduce the labour of the whites. Contradictory as it might seem, both these statements might be true, and both were true. We were increasing the number of supervisors, but we were excluding the labourers. We were increasing the employment of white men by hundreds, but shutting them out by thousands. A great deal turned on the question whether or not whites would work in the mines as unskilled labourers. That was a matter of controversy on the platforms throughout the country, and hon. Gentlemen opposite based their case on the statement that white men would not work in the Transvaal mines. On February 16th last year the Colonial Secretary said—
  "It is, I think, more than unfortunate, but still an undoubted fact, that white men in Africa will not do the work which black men do.''
  Again and again they had proof that white men actually did this work in South Africa, not indeed side by side and in the same gangs with the Kaffirs or Chinese. No one had ever suggested that. The hon. Member for Chester had made an offer to his constituents that he would send out a certain number of selected men if they would undertake to work side by side in the Transvaal mines with Kaffir labourers. That offer was entirely beside the mark.
  MR. YERBURGHsaid one reason he made the offer was because his statement that white men would not work side by side with Kaffirs was challenged.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the offer made by the hon. Member had fallen through, for local reasons, but the hon. Member was quite right in his contention that whites and blacks would not work together. No one had proposed that as a solution of the Transvaal Labour problem. But either in the mines or on the surface whites and blacks would work separately at unskilled labour. In his

  495
  report for 1903, the Government mining engineer said—
  "In the majority of the crushing mills the native has been entirely replaced by the European."
  If white men would not do black men's work, how did the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the black men had been replaced by the white men? On June 16th last the Colonial Secretary stated, in reply to a Question—
  "Lord Milner has furnished me with a statement showing that the number of white employed in the Witwatersrand Gold Mines on unskilled labour, which prior to the war was performed by Kaffirs, is 998."
  If, again, white men could not be got to do Kaffir work, how was it that there were 998 so employed in June last? They might say that it was uneconomical to employ white men, or that it was undesirable for social or political reasons. That was a question of argument. But as to the white men being unwilling to do work which black men do was a question of fact and not of argument, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman had been absolutely disproved. These labourers had been rapidly displaced since the Chinese went there. In the Village Main Reef Mine, of which Mr. Creswell had been manager, white men were employed, and after Mr. Creswell was removed they were even increased; but as soon as Chinese were introduced in the Simmer and Jack Mine the blacks were sent from there to the Main Reef Mine, and the white men were dismissed. He had here a letter in which Mr. Strickland, the secretary of the Witwatersrand Trades and Labour Council, said—
  "These 200 boys were engaged by the Village Main Reef, and the two contractors are now lashing and tramming certain drives of the V.M.R. on contract with their boys, and at least 140 white men have been discharged. I interviewed the men, some young fellows who had fought through the war. They had hoped to have saved sufficient to pay their passage home. Now all they saw before them was the same hopeless struggle for work, and destitution staring them in the face. It was a most depressing interview. Others were Dutchmen, mostly living at Vrededorp. One old man named Steyn had been successful in getting the job and he had taken a part on contract, the whole male portion of his family were working with him and making a living, and I feel safe in saying that at least 1,000 members of the community have been deprived of their only hope of sustenance by the shifting of contract natives
  496
  from one mine owing to the introduction of Chinese."
  Mr. Albu, one of the leaders of the mining industry, speaking at Johannesburg in December, at a meeting of the Rand Collieries Gold Mining Company, said—
  "After careful calculation, the general manager of the Van Ryn mine has reported to me that with 2,650 coolies, which allows 12 per cent. for idlers and contingencies, he will be able to operate the whole 160 stamps, crush 24,000 tons per month, sort 25 per cent., and do the whole of the mining, stoping, and developing with hand labour, discarding all machine drills,"
  But hand labour was the work of the coolies, the machine drills gave employment to the whites.
  Mr. Gillam, Chairman of the Van Ryn Company, speaking in London on 18th January last, said—
  "When the Chinese had become thoroughly proficient workmen it was the intention of the management to resort more and more to hand drilling."
  There had been two courses open to the Rand mining industry, either to become more and more dependent on high-grade labour and high-grade methods as in the United States and in Western Australia, or to depend on low-grade labour and low-grade and primitive methods. The mineowners had always been determined to rely on the latter, not, he believed, for economic reasons, but for political reasons. They feared the power of the white man through his trade union and through his vote. According to an answer given by the Colonial Secretary to a Question, the ratio of white men per 1,000 coloured labourers employed was in 1897, 137; in 1898, 130; in 1899, 119; in 1902 after the war, 250; and in 1903, 174. In the first half of 1904 the figure was fairly stationary. There was a scarcity of labour in the middle of the year. The ratio per thousand in January was 170; February, 164; March, 159; April, 161; May, 169; June, 177; July, 183; August, 183. Then the Chinese began to come in; September, 170; October, 158; November, 150; December, 143. So that there had been an exceedingly rapid decline. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had always proceeded on the theory that the amount of white labour I was proportioned to the amount of coloured labour—that the more coloured labour

  497
  there was employed the more white labour would be engaged, and that the scarcer the coloured labour the smaller would be the proportion of white labour employed. Now these facts proved precisely the contrary—that the more plentiful the coloured labour the smaller was the proportion of white labour employed. The outcome of all this was very obvious. There was in London an Emigrants' Information Bureau, which was under the Colonial office and the officials provided very reliable information to intending emigrants. In their last circular, issued in January, they said, m regard to the Transvaal—that was six months after the Chinese had been introduced there, and when there were 23,000 in the ecountry, which ought on the Colonial Secretary's theory to have had a considerable effect on white employment. They said—
  "There is a considerable amount of distress in the Transvaal, both in the towns and in the country districts, owing to the general want of employment, so that, persons are warned against going there at the present time in search of work. There is no demand for white miners, of whom there are large numbers on the spot without work.''
  That was the result of the Chinese Ordinance so far as the white miners were concerned. What was the result to the mineowners? He had been looking at the price of the shares some of the mining companies in the Transvaal. He had not taken all, for they were very numerous; but he had taken the twelve largest, all those with a subscribed capital of over £1,000,000. He had taken the price of the shares of these companies at the end of the last half year, December 31st, and at the end of the previous half year, June 30th. Of the twelve companies, the shares of eleven of them had risen as the result mainly, of course, of the introduction of Chinese. The increase in value of the shares of all twelve in six months was £14,699,000, and that was on a total subscribed capital of £22,000,000. Well, it was worth taking a great deal of trouble to make a profit of £14,699,000 in six months. It was worth while conducting a prolonged political agitation for that. It was worth while packing a good many meetings on the Rand, and taking trouble to arrange
  498
  petitions. It was worthwhile dismissing a good many mine managers and newspaper editors for a profit of £14,000,000.
  He wished to refer very briefly to one other point. They had said from the very beginning that it would be possible to get a largely increased supply of Kaffir labourers if they were properly treated and cared for. He thought that all credit should be given to the Transvaal mining industry for the fact that the death-rate had recently very largely decreased. It was a matter for gratification that while in the first eight months of 1903 the death rate was 72 per thousand, the death-rate in the first eight months of 1904 was 40 per thousand, or a redaction of 32 per thousand in one year. It was, indeed, still far too high. Lord Harris, Chairman of the Consolidated Gold Fields, had claimed that the death-rate was not now excessive, for that at Cape Town among the coloured people it was 50 per thousand; but he forgot that that included all the coloured people in the Cape—infants and aged, while the Transvaal figures only included able-bodied men in the prime of life engaged for six or twelve months at a time. This reduction had been achieved by better treatment, better feeding, and by not allowing the coloured people who arrived in a weakly state to work in the mines until they were fit. But why had not these measures been taken long before? It was not until the debates took place in this House, not until Lord Milner had found that the death-rate was the "weakest point in out armour." There had been a reduction of 30 per thousand amongst the 100,000 employed; that was, 3,000 lives had been saved. He thought that those of them who had taken a part in this matter ought to feel some satisfaction at the result. The reporter's gallery in the House of Commons was a wonderful sounding board; it enabled a whisper to be heard all over the world. The discussions in that House had had their effect in the compounds on the Rand. They who were interested in this matter had had to meet with many unfair attacks; they had been accused of false sentimentality, of exaggerating evils, of doing injustice to their own fellow-countrymen in the Transvaal. Yes; but they were right.

  499
  They said that the death-rate was unnecessarily high, and the event had proved it. In the consciousness that they had done some little to save 3,000 lives by their action last year they had their reward.
  Now, what was to be done with the Chinese now in the Transvaal? The Government started with the policy that the Transvaal should be treated as a self-governing colony and that the opinion of the colony should decide the matter. That policy—the Colonial Secretary would contradict him if he was wrong—had been frankly abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman said he had not abandoned it, but the Prime Minister had. The Prime Minister on Tuesday, said—
  "If it should be found that the immigration of these labourers from any point of view was on the whole producing a balance of ill, the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we without hesitation should prevent any augmentation of their numbers."
  That was, not the people of the Transvaal, but "we," the British Ministry. If a Liberal Government stopped the importation of the Chinese that would be a monstrous trifling with Imperial interests and making a colonial question a plaything of Party; but if a Conservative Government prevented the augmentation of their numbers that was a very proper proceeding. For his own part, he had always been content to leave the main issue to the people of the Transvaal themselves. England, indeed, had a right to a voice in the matter if she chose to exercise it. They had bought that right with £250,000,000, and, what was far more precious, with the lives of 20,000 of our soldiers. The other Colonies were also entitled to be heard for similar reasons. Nevertheless, they were willing to leave the ultimate decision of the question to a referendum of the people of the Transvaal. He trusted that when a Liberal Government came in they would stop the importation of the Chinese at once. If necessary that could be done by Executive Act. No Act of Parliament was requisite; no repeal of the Transvaal Ordinance was required. It could be done by the Lieutenant-Governor of the Transvaal
  500
  by a discontinuance of the licences to import. It might be necessary to appoint an Imperial Commission to investigate the practicability of employing white labour in the Transvaal, and to state fully the facts of the case. Then let the matter be referred to the free voice of the white people in the colony, not confusing it with other issues, such as the relations between Boers and British, and nor allowing the declaration of public opinion to be manipulated by financiers whose interest in South Africa was limited to the interest they drew out of it, but leaving it to the free, unfettered decision of the whole white population.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question to add the words 'But humbly represent to Your Majesty that the facts now made known in respect of the importation of indentured Chinese coolies into the Transvaal show that Your Majesty's Government gave, during the discussion of the Transvaal Labour Ordinance in this House, assurances which have not been fulfilled; and represent further that this House expresses its regret that nearly a year has elapsed since the promulgation of the Ordinance without securing the opinion of the people of the Transvaal on the question of the policy of the Ordinance, especially since the opinion of the British Colonies generally, so far as officially expressed, appears to be vigorously opposed to that
  policy.'"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he trusted that hon. Members on the other side of the House would not assume, because one might take a different view of this question from those hon. Members who had spoken, that one was necessarily swayed by what might be called the capitalist interest. He supposed that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and the hon. Member who seconded it would credit him with the same amount of honesty of conviction by which, he believed, they were possessed in moving the Amendment. He had lately been in the Transvaal and had travelled a good deal in the Transvaal and in South Africa. He did not pretend that his knowledge or information was complete, because none of them were infallible; but he had had the opportunity of seeing the working of Chinese labour in the mines; he had seen the

  501
  working generally of the mining industry, and he would dispute some of the statements made by hon. Members opposite. Some of them were, he thought, not in accordance with real facts. It was interesting to know, as the seconder of the Amendment had stated, that he and his friends affirmed that a Liberal Government, if they came into power, would stop the importation of Chinese into the Transvaal. He presumed that they might consider that to be the intention of the Liberal Party. Well, it was quite possible that if a sufficient number of Chinese had been brought into the Transvaal to give that command of labour necessary for the proper development of the mines, that that might be a reasonable proposition. He did not disagree with it. But he held that it was a mistake to say that they should arbitrarily perform that act in spite of the local conditions which obtained. He also suggested that some of the references to the death-rate were inequitable. He wanted to put this point, because it might appear to play into the hands of his friends opposite—that in accounting for the very considerable death-rate of the natives in the Transvaal there had to be considered the natives from British Central Africa and from the Lower Zambesi. For himself, he spoke quite candidly on that point. He thought it was a very grave error to import natives from these tropical parts and it ought not to have been done. He visited the compounds when these natives were brought into the Transvaal. Fifty per cent. of the natives from these districts were Suffering from cold and pneumonia. That accounted for the heavy death-rate among the natives. He did not pretend to be an authority on the question—a great many people who were unimportant professed to be authorities—but he maintained that the death-rate was due to an importation which ought never to have been carried out.
  As regarded the question of white labour in the Transvaal, hon. Gentlemen opposite, he knew, presented their case with all sincerity, but what were the facts. He himself was not an authority: but he would quote an authority. Mr. Drummond Chaplin, in this month's National Review, discussed the
  502
  question. He instanced the Simmer and Jack Mine, and showed that in May last the supply of unskilled labour was only 2,138 out of a total complement of 5,430. Now, 1,769 natives, 3,242 Chinamen and 575 Europeans were employed. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment stated that the increase in the employment of white skilled labour in the mines was due to the putting up of compounds and similar work. In May, 394 skilled Europeans were employed; now there were 575 employed. That was a difference of 181; yet the number employed in the special work of erecting compounds was only seventy-three. It was only fair that the case should be presented fully. Every hon. Member knew that the permanent staff of a mine was kept up, no matter what the proportion of unskilled labour might be. The same amount of skilled labour was kept in a mine even when the unskilled complement was reduced to a minimum. There could be no increase in skilled appointments until the balance had been struck between skilled and unskilled labour. But as soon as that had been arrived at there would be an increase in the number of skilled appointments. Mr. Chaplin stated that in November the proportion of Europeans to unskilled coloured labourers employed on the Rand was one to six, although the aggregate number of Europeans employed had increased by 1,663. In the same way at the Simmer and Jack Proprietary Mines the proportion in May was 1 to 5·5, and in November 1 to 8·7, though the number of Europeans employed had increased by 181. Further, he stated—
  "Every mining company, if it is working at all, has to maintain a regular staff of Europeans whose numbers do not appreciably vary in proportion to the number of unskilled labourers on the mine. Their services are equally necessary whether the complement of unskilled men be complete or 50 per cent. below its strength. In the latter case the proportion is simply abnormal. It gradually rights itself as the complement of natives or Chinese approaches towards completion."
  As to the statement that there was lack of employment and that the Emigration Office had advised emigrants not to proceed to the Transvaal, he accepted that. If he were asked to-morrow whether it was wise to go to

  503
  the Transvaal he would say "No." Why? Because every unemployed man who could pay his way went there from every other portion of South Africa. The Secretary of the Rand Aid Association informed him that they had there useless people—"wasters" they were called—from every other part of South Africa. That was common to every mining community. It attracted the worst and the best. There would be found the loafer as well as the man who went to make his fortune. If the latter failed, he resumed his legitimate trade or occupation. At present the Transvaal was in a transitory condition. It could not yet absorb all the skilled labour, it would absorb eventually. Hon. Gentlemen had presented one side of the case; not the other.
  It was said that with the introduction of the Chinese native labour would decrease. During the war the natives made a great deal of money; and were not inclined, in consequence, to return to the mines. They had wives and cattle, and were enjoying themselves. It was said that the Chinese would drive out native labour; but they had really increased it. In June, 1904, the number of natives in the mines was 68,174; in December, 1904, it was 76,611. That was a matter which ought to be taken into consideration. There had been a decrease in the death-rate, but he agreed with hon. Members opposite that the discussions in this House had brought that pressure to bear which was desired. He did not believe that any class of public men did their duty towards the public unless they were pressed. He did not impeach the mineowners for not having done their duty as regards the treatment of the natives, but he admitted that reasonable pressure brought to bear where the public might think that the natives were not being well-treated, was proper and right. Since the war the native administration had done a great deal to improve the condition of the natives. That was no argument against the present Administration of the Transvaal, but against the old conditions of things under the Boer Government. It was said that there had been riots among the Chinese and that they were
  504
  a source of danger because of quarrelsome dispositions. While he was in the Transvaal he had read telegrams which had been sent from this country dealing with the subject, and he was astounded to see the sensational statements made as to the riots. They were described in these telegrams as "a war,'" and one paper announced that a battle had take in place among the Chinese on the Rand. No doubt there had been a certain amount of disturbance, but it was not serious. There were faction fights among the Chinese, just as there had been similar fights among the natives and he could cut out from South-African papers reports of faction fights among the natives, which were more serious than those of which so much had been made in connection with the Chinese, of which nothing was known outside South Africa. Hon. Gentlemen did not trouble about them. They were more concerned with what advantaged them in their constituencies. Why, when these things occurred among the natives, did not hon. Members opposite raise the same question? [Cries of "We do."]
  Stress had been laid on the opinion of the Colonies on this subject; but Canada had expressed no opinion because it was not subject to emotional prejudices in the same way as some other portions of the Empire. It was more easy to understand the position of Australia. He had lived in Australia and he could explain the position there. In Australia the Chinaman was admitted as a citizen and permitted to compete in the skilled labour market, and therefore the prejudice in Australia against the Chinaman was well founded. Canada had imported Chinese labour as long as it needed it. British Columbia had been developed practically by Chinese labour; but the colonists put a limit to the importation, as he believed a limit would be placed upon the importation of Chinese labour in the Transvaal. [OPPOSITION cries of "When?"] Hon. Members had quoted Canada, but they must remember that the Canadians were a shrewd and sensible people who wore not going to throw themselves into any controversy which they had not made their own. The conditions of South Africa were totally different from those which obtained in every other colony,

  505
  and hon. Members approaching this question from a colonial point of view did themselves a great injustice. They impeached their own knowledge Everybody who knew the Transvaal knew that the ratio of unskilled to skilled labour was seven to one, in spite of the ambitions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were as ambitious to put as many white people as possible into the Transvaal as those who sat on the Unionist Benches.
  He took the view, and still adhered to it, that white skilled labour did not work in the mines to any great extent. Mr. Creswell's experiment showed that the stay of white men in the mines was on an average seventeen days. Grievous pictures had been presented to the House about the conditions of Chinese slavery in the Transvaal. Hon. Members, however, must admit that their prophecies as to slavery had not come true. He had been in the Transvaal mines and had seen the Chinamen at work underground. They earned their wage of 2s. a day with comparative ease, for there had been established in the mines a rising scale of wages according to the amount of work performed. The House had been told that when these men, who had worked hard in the mine, had come out and enjoyed their luxurious bath, for they had as comfortable quarters as anyone in the House, they were apt to go abroad on an orgy of immorality and debauchery. He knew of no men who were less likely to do anything of the sort. Never in his life had he seen a more healthy-looking lot of men, and he did not see why the Chinamen should be suspected of greater immorality than British or any other workmen living under the same conditions of work. Would any Gentleman opposite say it was impossible for a race to avoid immorality, because, if that were so, he would be casting an imputation on a great many thousands of people who were not married, and others who were sent abroad for years on their country s business. Certainly his view was that hon. Members opposite were too apprehensive in the circumstances. He admitted that there were dangers, but they were not of that sensational character mentioned by hon.
  506
  Members. The conduct of the Chinese had been exceptionally good, and he did not himself think that faction fights were the worst things that could occur with regard to the mines themselves and these so-called compounds, so little did they look like compounds, and so large were they that it was difficult to see the fences at all, and the, Chinese went about them and were apparently as free as anyone. While there was discipline in the compounds there was also a relaxation of it, and he had met scores of Chinese outside their compounds interested in all that they saw. Indeed, there was as little an appearance of slavery as any one could imagine. The Kaffirs in the Kimberley compounds were under much more severe restrictions than the Chinese coolies, but no political agitation had been raised on their account. There the restrictions were so severe that he could hardly imagine even natives accepting them. The only thing was that there the natives stayed a less time. In the Transvaal compounds the restrictions did not keep the Chinese in any sort or terrorism or anxiety, and there had never been a protest from any of them since they entered the compounds. As to the attitude of the Boers in the two colonies, it would be impossible to get a dozen farmers to advocate the abolition of the Ordinance, because the Chinese labour set free Kaffirs for the farms. The Boor politicians were moved by the desire to put spokes in the wheel of the present Administration. Their action was political, and was not based upon the merits of the case. They were fighting for self-government, not with a view to co-operation with us, but to achieve that political domination which would in some degree compensate them for the loss of territorial domination. In conclusion, he did not believe the vote to be taken on this Amendment would be against the Government, but would support them in securing for a period the benefit of Chinese labour in the mines of the Transvaal.
  MR. LABOUCHEREthought that the mover and seconder of the Amendment had made out a good case against the Colonial Secretary, and had shown that the promises the right hon. Gentleman had made to the House

  507
  had been violated. He did not for one moment accuse the right hon. Gentleman of breaking faith. No doubt he made the promises in good faith, but anyone who had gone into the matter closely knew how impossible it was to trust to any assurance obtained from the authorities in the Transvaal. It was very weak on the part of anyone to suppose they would obey any order sent out from this country. Lord Milner had said he did not care sixpence for public opinion here, and no doubt he included in that the opinion of any Colonial Secretary who suggested anything of which he did not approve. The mover of the Amendment had suggested that the Colonial Secretary should resign. Well, they had been urging the Government to dissolve, which was much the same thing, but he did not think any hope could reasonably be entertained that any Minister would resign because the Opposition asked him to. But the right hon. Gentleman, having given these pledges to the House, ought to insist on their being carried out, and should make the authorities in the Transvaal understand that when a Minister in that House, with the full approval of the Chamber, promised that certain action should be taken it must be carried out, and not ignored by Lord Milner and his myrmidons in the Transvaal.
  The only speech in support of the Government that day had been the one delivered by the hon. Member for Gravesend, and he had listened to it with great interest, hoping to find something in it to which he could reply. But he had been disappointed. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have taken the Colonies generally under his wing. He had, in the past, had much to say about Canada, and no doubt he would now be often on his legs discussing South Africa. The hon. Member for Gravesend had made some extraordinary statements. Hs had said that the British would get on exceedingly well in the Transvaal, but he advised no Briton to go there, not because of the presence of the Chinese, but because of the number of loafers from all parts of Europe who went there and were unable to get work. The fact of the matter was, that the hon. Member perceived that it was useless for any
  508
  sensible British working man to go to South Africa with the expectation of getting work; he had to get some reason for it, and somebody had told him that cock-and-bull story. He had also stated that the best way to get the mines worked by natives was to fill them with Chinese, a proposition which on the face of it was absurd. There had also been repeated the old story of what an elysium the compound was. According to the directory, the hon. Member inhabited a fine house in Carlton House Terrace, and yet he declared that the miners in the compounds were lodged as well as he was! The hon. Member, together with the Colonial Secretary and others, did not really grasp what was the objection of the Opposition to this Ordinance. They did not care whether it was profitable or unprofitable. With the assent of the Chinese or without, the employment of these people under existing conditions was against their principles. Technically, and to a lawyer's mind, it was not slavery; but they considered that the status of these men was such that its existence in any country over which floated the British flag was derogatory to the name and honour of the nation. It was all very well to say that the Chinese desired to go. Everybody knew what China and her mandarins were; the House had been informed by a Blue-book of what happened in connection with similar contracts between Peru and the Chinese Government; and they knew that, through the intervention of the British Government in the name of morality and civilisation, those contracts were put an end to. Even though it were with the free assent of the Chinese, he should object to British colonies being made a dumping-ground for chattels of this description. No man could contract himself out of his inherent rights under the British flag.
  What was the position of the Chinese when they reached the Transvaal? He totally denied that they were free men. They were shut up in compounds, flogged if they would not work, liable to arrest if seen wandering about, given a small pittance, and not allowed to return to their own country until the expiration of the term of their contract unless they paid their expenses, and that to men earning

  509
  a shilling a day was practically an impossibility. He was a so-called "Little Englander;" he was a parochial Englishman. He looked to the worker of the United Kingdom and the leading Colonies, and did not trouble himself about what went on outside the British Empire. He had a certain sympathy for the suffering and oppressed of other lands, but considering the greatness of the Empire and the importance of this country, he thought a Member of the House of Commons had his hands full if he tried to look after the interests and the well-being of the people under the British flag. The presence of chattels of this description under the conditions existing in South Africa he regarded as harmful to the body politic, likely utterly to demoralise the public sense of right and wrong, and to attack the dignity of labour.
  He also denied the soundness of the policy on economical grounds. There were in South Africa the three races of the Boers, the Britons, and the blacks. Every day the blacks were increasing in numbers and becoming more civilised, and the great danger to South Africa as a British colony was the vast numbers of the subject races already there. It was perfect madness that we should go out of our way to introduce the yellow race also. In the time of Boer rule there was undoubtedly a racial oligarchy in the Transvaal. The Boers were determined to remain political masters of the country. We made war on them because the miners were said to be treated as helots and so forth—a story which was somewhat exploded now. He did not contend that the Boer's was a perfect Government, but if he had to choose between living under the oligarchy of the Dutch Boers and living under the present autocracy of the mineowners, he would certainly select the former. The idea of the mineowners seemed to be that they should form themselves into a cosmopolitan class of rulers simply because they were wealthy, and that all manual labour should be done by serfs.
  The falsity of the statement that the employment of Chinese would lead to greater employment of white men had been conclusively shown.
  510
  What was really wanted was to attract a British population to the colony, and that unquestionably would not be done by the present policy. The reason Englishmen would not work in the mines was that the owners would not pay proper rates of wages. The owners pleaded that it higher wages were given the mines would not pay. Then why work them? There were many coal seams in the mines of England that might be worked if Chinese labour were employed. ["You could employ them."] The working men of the country would have a very strong word to say on that matter. People did not sufficiently realise that, although there were some honest men connected with the South African mining industry, speaking generally the whole thing was more or less of a swindle. The present market value of the shares of the different companies totalled up to about £300,000,000; only £50,000,000 had been bona fide spent on plant and so forth, so that £250,000,000 had gone into somebody's pocket. According to the returns for last year, gold to the value of £l6,000,000 was extracted, and dividends to the amount, of £4,000,000 were paid. Considering the character of the investment, a person ought reasonably to have 10 per cent. on his money in the mines. To pay 10 per cent. on the capital drawn from the British public would require the extraction of gold to the value of £120,000,000. But the total produce of gold all over the world was only £78,000,000, and it was estimated that at their present rate of output the mines would be exhausted in from twenty-five to thirty years. Would any mineowner venture to say that £120,000,000 worth of gold could be drawn from the mines in the Transvaal in a year? Therefore he submitted that the whole thing was more or less of a swindle, in the sense that the money had been obtained by persuading the public that the mines would yield an absolutely impossible return. The mineowners had made their mines, not but of the mines, but out of the public, and when Parliament was asked to do this, that, or the other, it should be borne in mind that the so-called mining industry was really a doubtful

  511
  species of roulette table. Immediately the war was over the mineowners claimed the right to tax the natives in order to compel them to work in the mines. It would be just as reasonable to tax landowners to such an extent as to compel them to work in their own fields for a portion of the year. So sure were the mineowners that they were masters of the situation that they reduced the already paltry wage, and then complained that the natives would not work. That dodge having failed, they fell back on the Chinaman, thinking he would be more profitable than the native, in that he would be paid less and would work the whole instead of a portion of the year. The object was simply to get rid of the shares on their hands, to bring out more companies, and to draw more money out of the British public.
  But there was another objection to the presence of British working men. The miniowners feared the introduction of "the serpent of trade unionism" and the necessity of having to give British working men votes, the granting of which might result in the loss of their oligarchical hold of the country. It was not thus that our great Colonies had been built up; a community would not thrive if controlled by a comparatively small dominant class while the manual labour was supplied by subject races. What surprised him was the positive impudence of these millionaires. They forgot what we had spent to acquire the Transvaal. We got it and were not going to give it back; but it was not theirs. The millionaires wanted to rule there entirely and be the dominant factor in the State, while the British workmen, who had to pay largely through indirect taxation for the war, were to be kept out of the country because they would introduce trade unionism into the Transvaal and would require votes. He wondered why it was that such men had such influence with His Majesty's Government. Was there some dark secret connected with the Raid? He knew that when during the inquiry they were getting near to the question of the late Colonial Secretary being connected with the Raid he was stopped. With regard to the Government, to use a common expression, they knew enough
  512
  about them to hang them. He noticed that a great deal of money was being spent by the Tariff Reform League. He should like to see the subscription list of the Tariff Reform League, for it would be well worth—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is referring to matters which are not in order upon this Motion.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid they were being asked to bribe the Colonies and invite them to join in a conference with us to discuss public affairs, but when those same Colonies protested against the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa the Government would not listen to them. This policy was foolish from an economical point of view, because although by adopting it they might do a little business and obtain a spurious prosperity for a little time, when they considered the permanent interests of the Transvaal and the Empire as a whole, they would find that they could not possibly do a worse thing than introduce Chinese labour. He did not know exactly when the Liberals would come into office, but he knew it would be as soon as the electorate had a chance of turning the Government out. The members of the Government stuck like limpets to their places, and he believed that they would go on to the end of the septennial epoch, and probably at the end of that time they would bring in a Bill to continue in office. They had considerable difficulty in understanding whether the Prime Minister represented his own Party's views or not, but at any rate they knew he did not represent, and never would represent, the views or the intentions of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House. The Prime Minister had rightly said that if they asked for support for this Motion on the ground that they considered the introduction of Chinese labour a moral crime, and yet refused to reverse this policy, they would be hypocrites. The hon. Member, after quoting an extract from the Johannesburg Star, concluded by expressing the hope that the time would soon come when there would be a Ministry in power that would show these millionaires that they were not our

  513
  masters, as they seemed to be under the impression, but that the Government were the masters of the situation.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid he had had the opportunity of trying to inform his mind upon this question during a very recent stay of two mouths in the Transvaal. He approached the consideration of it without any preconceived ideas or bias of any kind, having no investments whatever in South Africa, and no connection with its finance, and by no means approving of the financing and the speculation with which a legitimate industry had unfortunately been overlaid. In answer to the contention that the introduction the Chinese was unnecessary in the interests of the mines themselves, he pointed to the shortage of labour, which seriously imperilled the white wages, and to the report of the Government mining engineer—which was absolutely conclusive to his mind—that a supply of labour could not be obtained from Africa. He laid emphasis on the fact of the heavy cost of procuring outside labour. When the mineowner had brought his Chinamen into the country, and housed them, and finally returned them, he would not have much left out of £20 a head. Applying that to 50,000 labourers—the number contemplated by next June—it was at once obvious that a very serious sum was being risked, because they did not know how the experiment would turn out. That was some proof that the mineowners felt there was good reason why they should seek for labour outside Africa. As to the point about employing white labour, nobody who knew the conditions had been honestly suggested it. It had been honestly tried. The mineowners had tried to get white labour at 5s., 10., and even 15s., and yet they could not get white men. Here, we could not appreciate the intensity of racial feeling out there. The Kaffirs lived under such conditions that when white men got out there, having gone out with the honest intention of accepting unskilled work, they would not work with the Kaffirs. When the white man realised the actual state of things he said, "I am not going to take on this Kaffir job," and he generally threw it up.
  514
  The result was that white men generally stayed at this king of unskilled work about seventeen days on the average, and they could not be induced to stay longer. White labour, therefore, had been tried and it had failed. Black and white labour could not be got to work together, and there was no other course available except the importation of labour from outside.
  A great deal had been heard about the treatment of the Chinese. He had used the opportunities which had presented themselves to him of examining into the treatment of the Chinese labourers. It was his experience, as it was the result of the experience of every Englishman whom he had consulted there, that from the day when the labourer landed in Durban to the day when he was set to work and thenceforward he was treated well and liberally in every respect. Every mine was thrown open to inspection, and all information and statistics were placed at the disposal of the inquirer. He could wish nothing better than that the mover and seconder of this Amendment should go out and inspect the mines for themselves, and he at any rate would be bound by their report. The compounds were not narrow prisons. They were wide and spacious open squares, with good buildings round them. The rooms were comfortable, warm, well-ventilated, with baths and good sanitary arrangements. One of the complaints of the mineowners, indeed, was that the sickness rate had increased among the Chinese because they could not induce the men to take advantage of all the opportunities given to them to change their wet for dry clothes. He had examined the various kinds of food eaten by the labourers and tasted several of them. In quantity it was ample, and of good qualify, so that no one could doubt that the men were well housed and well treated. The term "Helotism" had been applied to the Chinese because they were confined in compounds. They were not truly ''confined" in compounds. The men were allowed to wander at will over the property of the company, and in some cases the property extended to hundreds of acres. When they wanted to go into the town they applied

  515
  for a pass, and unless there were urgent reasons to the contrary the pass was granted as a matter of course. The treatment, indeed, was not practically different from that which had been meted out to thousands of Kaffirs as to whom no one had uttered a syllable of complaint.
  Then it was said that promises had been broken with regard to wages. The Chinese were better off in this respect than the Kaffirs. There was no minimum wage for the Kaffir; there was for the Chinese. Again, the Chinamen had the opportunity to bring their wives with them. He challenged any lion. Member to say that what was done for the Chinese labourer in this respect was done for any other imported labourer in any part of the world. Everyone sympathised with the men who had been obliged to have their wives and families, but this experience was not peculiar to the Chinese. There were thousands of our own fellow-countrymen in South Africa in precisely the same position. He travelled home with a professional man who had not seen his wife and children for two years, and there was an officer who had been kept away by duty from his family for five years because he could not afford to bring them out to South Africa. But it was not the Ordinance which restricted the Chinese from taking their wives with them. On the contrary the Ordinance did all it could in this respect, for it gave the Chinese the opportunity of bringing their wives with them if they so desired.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The coolies were never told that.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid the Chinese were pretty cute in their business transactions. He had watched them in the mines when their wages tickets were being marked, and if hon. Members could only see this for themselves, they would be very much surprised at their sharpness and intelligence; and if there happened to be the slightest error they noted it at once and went off to their interpreter. He ventured to think that if these Chinese felt that they had been brought to the Transvaal under
  516
  false pretences, and that the promises made to them had been broken, they would very soon have protested. Allusion had been made to the advertisements, but the hon. Member for North Camber-well did not give the date.
  DR. MACNAMARA: It was the 14th of March, 1904.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid if the hon. Member had inquired, he would find that that was explained by Mr. Perry, who was the principal agent in China of the Labourers Association for the importation of these labourers.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Why were they recruiting coolies before the Ordinance had been passed?
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid that provisional arrangements were being made before the Ordinance was passed because there was urgent necessity for this labour. Hundreds of thousands of copies of the full terms of the Ordinance had been circulated in the districts where these Chinese labourers were recruited as soon as the terms were settled. So much for the charge of bad faith on the part of the mineowner.
  In looking at the economic results of Chinese labour, he thought that no one would dispute the plain fact that it caused a great and decided increase in the output from the mines. The total output at the end of last year overtopped any previous record. At the end of December last there were 1,250 more stamps running than in the same month of the previous year. That was an increase of 25 per cent. But the most serious charge against the importation of Chinese was that it had been injurious to the employment of white labour. The white wages bill in the year before the importation was £4,500,000. Salaries and wages paid to white men amounted altogether to £4,500,000. There was not the shadow of doubt that the importation of Chinese labour assured that. Without that it would have been decreased. He ventured to say that if the importation of Chinese had done nothing more than that, it might be regarded as having done something considerable. But

  517
  since that time it had also increased the number of white men employed by about 2,000, which meant another £500,000 of white wages. By June next it was in contemplation to have 50,000 Chinese at work, involving, according to the best estimates, the employment of another 5,000 white men. But even putting the figure at 4,000 it represented another £1,000,000 in white men's wages. He was putting it at a much lower figure than those on the spot. He had got a calculation from Mr. Evans, the manager of one of the large mines, putting the total additional expenditure at £7,000,000, and of that he calculated that the white men's wages would be £2,000,000. That was no inconsiderable addition to the income of white men now there, or who intended to go out there. But the matter did not stop there. It had been proved by experience, both before and since the war, that for every white man employed on the mines there were ten other white persons living on the Rand in some capacity. So that this importation of Chinese labour would increase the white population of the Transvaal by 40,000 or 50,000. He ventured to say that those who desired to see an increase, in the voting power of the white men would have their desire fulfilled, and it would be fulfilled owing largely, mainly, in fact, to the importation of Chinese labour. Last year, largely moved by the prospect of imported labour, orders to the extent of £3,250,000 were given for new machinery, of which the greater part was for extensions. That would increase in future; and why should not the manufacturers and workmen of this country get their share of these orders?
  But the mere direct addition to the number of whites employed in the Transvaal was the smaller part of the advantage which had been derived from this importation of Chinese. The Rand was the heart of South Africa, and if it were beating strongly it would send the life-blood coursing right to the extremities. Agriculture, the railways, the ports, and all the interests in South Africa were looking to the prosperity of the Rand, and were now convinced that that prosperity was assured. There might be difficulties, no doubt; and he approved of the Colonial
  518
  Secretary keeping a watchful eye on future developments which might arise, and reserving power to deal with those developments. He understood his attitude to be that of satisfaction with the experiment so far as it had gone, and of watchfulness for the future. He entirely endorsed that attitude. The experiment had already proved itself a success, and if allowed to continue to a reasonable extent it would prove itself a still greater success.
  The only other matter he desired to bring before the House had reference to public opinion—he meant instructed public opinion—the opinion of those on the spot who knew. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment referred to Mr. Albu, and he thought he might also quote the same Gentleman as showing the opinion of the mine-owners.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did not quote him as an impartial authority, but only as an authority as to the intention of the mineowners.
  MR. WORSLEY-TAYLORsaid the opinion of the mineowners was worth listening to. Addressing a meeting of the shareholders of the Rand Collieries, Mr. Albu said—
  "The employment of Chinamen on the Van Ryn and Aurora West has necessitated the engagement of a large number of additional white men on these properties, and I point this out advisedly, because it has been stated or hinted by the newspapers in England that the China men would be used to replace or oust the white labourer, a statement which we need hardly refute here. It has been amply proved that as fast as we have been able to obtain Chinese labour we have employed more white men … Furthermore, an additional influx of Chinamen—and I do not limit myself to any particular number—will enable us to start developing a good many mines which have lain dormant for years and years owing to the want of labour. Of course, for the first three or four years these properties will be in a state of development, and I need not point out to those conversant with working conditions on the Rand, that the proportion of skilled labour on developing properties is much greater than on working mines. It is quite possible that, for every hundred Chinamen we are able to import, we shall be able to employ at least ten additional white men. Moreover, I wish to point out to you, and to the public in general, that whereas before the war we had something like 95,000 natives with whom to carry on work, the industry in a short time will require over 200,000 unskilled

  519
  labourers. This means, if we are allowed to import the additional labour needed, we shall within a year two be able to employ another ten or fifteen thousand white labourers on the Rand as a result of the introduction of the Chinaman."
  That was the opinion of the authority to whom his hon. friend on the other side had referred. In dealing with the matter of public opinion, he would refer hon. Members to one of the most outspoken and persistent opponents of Chinese labour before the facts were known. After he had had experience of it, Mr. Quinn said—
  "With regard to the Chinese question (continued Mr. Quinn), which your esteemed president alluded to in words that seemed to indicate something about it—gentlemen, let me ask you to believe me at once when I say that as far as I am concerned, and I speak not only for myself, but also for others who agree with me—I make no apology. I cannot make any apology for my past action with regard to the introduction of Chinese into this country. If you expect an apology from me you are bound to be disappointed; I cannot. Whatever my faults may be, and unfortunately I know they are many, I have always endeavoured to say what I believed to be true at the time, and if tomorrow or the next day I have occasion from new information or knowledge to change the views I held last week, I trust I shall be man enough to come forward and say so. [Hear, hear.] As far as I am concerned—please understand I speak for myself—the Chinese are here, the Ordinance is passed, the people appear to be contented, there is no objection raised, and as far as I am concerned, in any politics I may take part in in the future the question is finished, and I ask most strongly, and every fair-minded man will sympathise with me, not to have this honest objection raised and dragged out, for the purpose of making an objection to my taking my part as a citizen, a part that I am entitled to take, in the politics of this country."
  That was the statement of a man who fought tooth and nail against the introduction of Chinese before he knew facts. One could not have stronger testimony in favour of Chinese labour than that. Then again, Sir H. Goold-Adams, governor of the Orange River Colony, said that 90 per cent of the thinking men in that colony were in favour of Chinese labour, as tending to release Kaffir labour for the farms. Sir Alfred Hime, ex-Premier of Natal, said—
  "I have had every reason to believe that there will be a great trade revival in the near future. It largely depends upon the Transvaal mining industry. As your readers know, the lack of labour on the Rand, combined with the overstocking by merchants, was chiefly responsible for the recent depression, but the work of
  520
  Chinese will remedy that. Once the mines are in full swing, all South Africa will feel the benefit, for money will circulate much more freely."
  Therefore they had testimony from the Rand, from the Orange River Colony, and from Natal. His own experience was that practically every man he talked to, no matter from what part of South Africa he came, agreed that, though he might have had objections to the Ordinance before he knew what the facts were, now the experiment had been tried there was no reason, up to the present at all events, for retaining those objections. Everyone was satisfied that the experiment had worked well and was promoting the prosperity of the mines and consequently the prosperity of the whole of South Africa. There was no point on which there was a stronger feeling in the Transvaal than the attacks made in the House of Commons and elsewhere on the policy of this Ordinance and the action of the mine owners under it. They felt that it was a matter which in its essence did not concern the interests or the honour of this country, but that it was a matter mainly for the Transvaal. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not allow the referendum?] He thought that in the interest of harmonious relations between the mother country and the colony it was right that these attack should cease, and that what had been a success in the past should be allowed to continue.
  MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)said the hon. and learned Member in his most lucid speech had shown that several things had taken place which he anticipated would take place—that, there being a shortage of labour, the easiest thing to do was introduce Chinese, and that the Chinese were in point of fact well treated on the Rand, as, indeed, was only likely in the circumstances of the case. But that was not the ground on which he and his friends opposed the Ordinance. They did so because they believed it to intrinsically wrong. They believed it to be wrong to break the solemnly pledged word of the country, and if there were any doubt whether that word had been broken, he would point out that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham solemnly pledged the honour of the Country that the importation of Asiatic

  521
  labour should be conditional on its being clearly shown that the great majority of the white inhabitants of both colonies were in favour of it. Had it ever been clearly shown that this was so? There was not an hon. Member opposite who would stand up in his place and say that it had been clearly shown. They all knew that the trade unionists of the Rand had practically declared against the importation of Chinese labour, and that on May 23rd the Dutch unanimously and emphatically declared against it. All would admit that the great majority had not been clearly shown to be in favour of it. If, in spite of there being no clear expression of the will of the majority of the inhabitants in favour of such importation, the Ordinance had received sanction, then they had deliberately cheated the people of the Transvaal, and no amount of wealth derived from the importation could possibly excuse so gross a crime. He had frequently ventured to put this before great audiences of his countrymen daring the recess and he had never found a dissenting voice, and he would beg hon. members to believe that he regarded this matter in no Party spirit. As one who had bore a humble share in the war he must know something of the feelings and aspirations of the country. He thought hon. Members would admit that one who spent very many months in the company of his fellow-country men m the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies must got to know something of the reasons for waging the war. It was not for any Party reason that he spoke, but because he believed the thing was in itself wrong and challenged any hon. Member to contradict him.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I certainly do.
  MAJOR SEELYsubmitted that it had not been proved that a great majority of the white inhabitants were in favour of Chinese labour. On the other hand, the people of this country and the people of the Transvaal bitterly resented it. It was wrong in itself, because it was against the law of this country, and of every civilised country, to confine men under these conditions, and he said that on the authority of the standing counsel of the
  522
  Government of India. Would the Colonial Secretary tell them why the Government of India were opposed to allowing our Indian fellow-subjects to go to South Africa under these conditions? The fact was that that Government regarded these conditions as degrading. Hon. Members on his side of the House asserted that what was not good enough for the British-Indian subjects of the King was not good enough for any man under the British flag. It was argued that Chinese labour led to an increase in the production of gold. [Laughter.] It was easy for hon. Members to laugh, but if the thing was morally wrong no material wealth would make it right. He had nothing more to say except to point out that the damage done to our Imperial interests in this matter had been very great. He thought it would be admitted that the Colonies felt deeply on this matter, and all who knew the facts would admit that the feeling was not dying down. He asked the House to remember that, so recently as last month, the principal newspaper in New Zealand, speaking of the proposed Colonial conference, said that the memory of the hideous outrage that had been brought about in South Africa in this matter was too fresh in their minds for them to dance to any new Imperial tune at this moment. Therefore he would ask the House to reflect long and carefully before rejecting an Amendment which would tend perhaps to heal the sores created by this disastrous policy.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I agree with one sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Northampton. He said that we were a very long way from the Transvaal. It is obvious to me that a great many statements which have been made in the course of these debates would not have been made if we were not a long way from South Africa. I would ask hon. Members opposite to exercise their imagination as far as they can and try to place themselves in the situation of an English Government face to face with a demand—I will make this good afterwards—which is practically unanimous on the part of the white inhabitants of the Transvaal for an Ordinance of this kind. Suppose for a

  523
  moment that I am discussing this matter with a Transvaal citizen who says, "We are ourselves substantially unanimous upon the question; we require this unskilled labour in order to restore the fortunes of our country, which for a time have been desolated by war; we require it in order to enable us to discharge the burden of debt, which, I believe, is greater upon the Transvaal, and in contingent liabilities is certainly greater, than that upon any British colony; we require it for the purpose of recovering the country." I do not think any hon. Gentleman opposite will deny that that is a strong plea. He will have to admit that in cases of Crown colonies which we absolutely dominate we have permitted indentured labour in all essential points upon similar conditions. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I know that that is disputed, and that the hon. Member for Poplar said that there is a cardinal distinction, inasmuch as in Trinidad and British Guiana no opposition is made to settlement at the end of five years, whereas the Transvaal Ordinance provides for repatriation at the employer's expense at the end of three years. I ventured to say at the time that that argument was shallow and unsubstantial, and I put it to hon. Gentlemen that the fact that the Member for Wolverhampton expressly declined shortly afterwards even to argue the point corroborated my view. I will take back the House to the dialogue I am imagining. If I said there were certain provisions in the Ordinance which I myself, were I an employer of labour, might dislike, what would be the force of such an argument? I might be told that it was not my affair—that I and my predecessor had promised to treat the Transvaal in all matters in which there were not vital Imperial interests concerned, as a self-governing colony. With what face therefore, our record being what it is in regard to these other Crown colonies, could I refuse a demand which is almost unanimous, and for which it cannot be contended that there is not grave and substantial reason? That is the standpoint from which I beg the House to approach this subject. I do not claim any elevation in opinion or character above any other human being. Personally, as a matter of taste, I would prefer that anybody who was serving me
  524
  should be absolutely free from restrictions. But that is not the question. The question is whether I am entitled to advise His Majesty's Government to advise the King to veto this legislation, which has been prepared with the most scrupulous care, and which is being administered with a jealous desire for fulfilment of its provisions.
  I come to the questions that were put by the mover and seconder of the Amendment, for the House will forgive me for saying that since these two hon. Gentlemen spoke no real contribution has been made to the discussion [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] on that side of the House, but on this side very important contributions have been made to the argument on that subject by the hon. Member for Gravesend and the hon. and learned Gentleman behind me. Both these gentlemen were eye-witnesses of that of which they spoke. The first criticism of the hon. Member for Camber-well was that the Government had broken its pledges with regard to the introduction of women. The history of that is this. Early last session the seconder of this Amendment asked me a couple of questions as to whether there was any objection to giving facilities to the labourers to bring their wives with them. Later on I went into the matter, and on 16th February I said that it would be manifestly wrong that the coolies should go without their women if they desired to have them, and I undertook that, if they wished to bring their wives and families with them, they should be allowed to do so. Again, I undertook, on behalf of the Government, that if more was desired, to consider fully and give effect to any reasonable demand in regard to the matter. But I do not suppose the mover of the Amendment would go so far as to say that I should impose any compulsion on coolies to bring their wives with them. The House has a sufficient sense of humour not to credit me with saying what, of course, would be entirely absurd, that I would compel Chinese labourers to bring their wives if they did not desire it. It was said that the coolies did not know of this provision. This was a most extraordinary statement, in view of the fact that no fewer than 4,000 coolies have

  525
  registered themselves as married men and have registered their wives under the Ordinance, in order to have an opportunity, if they wish, of sending for them afterwards. I think I may ask on what ground the Member for Camberwell alleged that this matter was not brought to the notice of the Chinese. I think it was because of an article by the Rev. Arnold-Forster.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he went further and showed the right hon. Gentleman a facsimile of an advertisement for coolies by a recruiting agent in which he understood, for, of course, he could not read Chinese, there was no hint whatever of facilities being given to the coolies for bringing their wives.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I thought it was so. The hon. Gentleman was misled by the mistake of the Rev. Arnold-Forster. I will explain exactly what happened. The Rev. Arnold-Forster, a missionary who lived 600 miles from Tientsin, saw in a newspaper in March, 1904, an advertisement which no doubt was an incomplete copy of the final form of the contract, and did not contain the provision in question. I will explain how that advertisement happened to be put in that paper. Before the final terms of the contract were settled a rough draft was circulated to certain firms; and one of these firms thereupon took steps to negative some of the preposterous falsehoods which were being circulated on the subject. That was in March, but before June, I am informed, thousands of copies of the full contract were sent into the districts concerned.
  DR. MACNAMARA: The first arrival of coolies in the Transvaal was on June 21st.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Precisely. June was the month I mentioned. In June there was recruiting. This précis was drawn up for circulation in January and was forwarded to Tientsin in March. It was published in March. Recruiting did not take place until it had been superseded by documents containing the full contract and published by
  526
  thousands in Tientsin itself. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us of any authority as to the fact that these men were not properly informed? Who would desire to mislead the coolies by placing an advertisement in an English newspaper costing ten cents, to which the coolies have no access at all and which they could not read? That shows the mare's nest which the hon. Gentleman has got hold of; and that is in keeping with what he says in regard to the substantial condition of the Chinamen who are now in the Transvaal. It is not easy to speak on the matter with plainness, and yet to speak with plainness is the only course. Innuendo and insinuation are only the more suggestive. I am asked to conjecture, because the coolies are unaccompanied by their wives, and though they are working ten hours a day on a vegetable diet, that they must be guilty of practices of the vilest kind. Not one single word even of gossip has been produced in this debate in support of this suggestion, although the compounds are open to everybody who likes to inspect them. The compounds are open to all ministers of religion in Johannesburg, and nobody can deny the inquisitional zeal of hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter, and yet with all the resources at their disposition they have not been able to produce a statement or the suggestion of a statement of that kind. I feel that I am entitled to say that the case is not only not made out, but not attempted to be made out. I would refer hon. Members to the Report of an inquiry made by a Royal Commission on Chinese Labour in British Columbia, a Report made by Commissioners who were intensely hostile to Chinese immigration there. The Report dealt with a society of something like 3,000 adult Chinamen, among whom were only twenty-eight women—practically a celibate community of the same kind. This is what they say, and it is better than conjecture. They say that Chinamen have many noble virtues and characteristics, and though there are customs which, from a moral point of view, are to be condemned, generally speaking Chinamen compare favourably with others in their observance of law and order, and that there is very little doubt that to the

  527
  frugality of their habits can be attributed the absence of sensuality among them Only three cases of indecency were established against these men in fourteen years. If I may refer to the gentleman who has been quoted, the Rev. Arnold Foster, he stated in that particular article that every missionary of experience would agree as to the Chinaman's industry and carefulness, and as to the utter injustice of many of the charges brought against his moral character. In 1885 a Report was made by a Commission on the Settlement of Chinese in California, and it was there stated that the bad moral effects were grossly exaggerated. Hon. Gentlemen have had the whole world to gather evidence from as to the nameless vices which they have insinuated against the Chinese. I do not pretend to range over the whole world, but I think I have quoted enough to show there is no ground for these conjectures. The British Government cannot be asked to do more than they have done. They have done more, I believe, than any other Government have ever done—namely, to provide that this experiment should be made under conditions which enable a Chinaman, not only to take his wife at the expense of his employer, but actually, if he wishes to do so, to go out first himself and ascertain the nature of the place and the nature of the employment he is to have; and after that the employers will provide at their own expense for sending out the wives. I contend that it is premature to judge whether or not the Chinamen will send for their wives. I have argued the case on the footing that they might not, and I say that there is no evidence in the past or in the present on which it can be said that this experiment has been made on conditions any different, from the moral aspect, than those of any other.
  The hon. Gentleman was solicitous on behalf of the Kaffir, and said
  528
  that Kaffirs were the aboriginal inhabitants of the country.
  DR. MACNAMARA: British subjects.
  MR. LYTTELTON: And British subjects have a right not to be unfairly competed with by aliens. What are the facts? The facts are that since the Chinese came last June the native Kaffir workers in the mines have increased by almost 10,000, and are obtaining a higher wage now than they obtained in 1899, before the war. I appeal to the candour of the hon. Gentleman: is it not sheer nonsense to say that the Kaffirs have been undercut in their labour and unfairly competed with by Chinamen when the effect of that unfair competition is to increase their numbers in the mines and not to diminish their wages? No one would wish that even a mine-owner should pay unnecessary wages to a man who is malingering. There are a certain number of malingerers even among the Chinese, and if there is a high minimum wage it may encourage the malingerer; but if the minimum wage is put at 1s., and piecework is allowed at which some of the men may be able to earn, and have earned, as much as 2s. 9d., hard work would be encouraged and malingering discouraged. No one is hardy enough to say that the wages the Chinamen are obtaining at present are not six or seven times as much as the wages they can obtain in their own country. No one can pretend for a moment to say that in this House, whatever they may say out of it. Neither will any one contend for a moment that their situation, compared with that in their own country, is not one of affluence and comfort. I am supposed to have misled the House by saying that the Chinaman is not to be a skilled labourer. Hon. Members who are so jealous for the Chinaman's freedom and liberty are not content with the scheduling

  529
  of fifty-four employments as employments in which he may not be engaged. He was to do unskilled work only. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment was not content with the restriction. He wished to knock off the ability of the Chinaman to become a boss boy. Boss boys among the Kaffirs are those who are employed to convey communications to those with whom they are working, and it is provided that the Chinaman should be able to take the place of these boss boys. The hon. Gentleman said that was purely overseer's work.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I said nothing on that point at all.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Look at the nature of the case. If it were not for the imperative demands of the white population of the Transvaal the mineowners need not have had this Ordinance. The only purpose of it is to impose certain limitations upon the introduction of Chinese. How does it work out? There is, if I remember right, a penalty of £500 on any evasion of the Ordinance prohibiting unskilled work. Should any Chinaman do skilled work, his employers are liable to a fine of £500. Who enforces that provision? The white men, the skilled men who work in the mines. The white men are there on the spot, and they have the greatest interest in the enforcement of the law. In them there is the most efficient police for carrying out this Ordinance that could possibly be found.
  Then the Government are stated to have misled the House because they asserted that the importation of Chinese would bring a large accession of white skilled labour on to the Rand. I need not say
  530
  a single word more on that subject than has been stated by my hon. and learned friend behind me. I would only point out that the increase of white labour in and about the mines has been 1,600 or more. It is perfectly true that a certain proportion of that increase is due to those who built and repaired the compounds, which is not an occupation for miners. It is perfectly true also that the ratio of the white men employed to the black men employed will somewhat diminish. That must obviously be the case. There must be a certain number of foremen in a mine who must be there whether 1,000 or 2,000 men are working in the mine. When a mine is opened up there will be a full establishment of white foremen, and the ratio of white men to black will be larger at first than it will be at a later stage when more black men are employed. But taking the broad fact, in 1899, before the war, the proportion of white men to black men in the mines was 119 to 1,000. It is to-day l43. Therefore, under the condition of things which now exists, in which Chinese labour has supplemented but not supplanted Kaffir labour, we have a higher amount of service and a higher proportion of wages for whites than before the war.
  I think that exhausts all the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to give credit to hon. Members opposite for having taken their part in reducing the mortality among the blacks, which reduction every one must rejoice at. I am glad also to give credit to those on the Rand who have worked hard and spent money generously to this end. They have succeeded in reducing the mortality from seventy to under forty—nearly half. In my own opinion the introduction of Chinese has also been one

  531
  of the means contributing to this admirable result. In the mines there was in a time of great shortage of labour a temptation to recruit from the blacks of tropical climates men who were unfitted to stand the rigorous conditions of the mines. Looking to the humanity of the thing, it was far better that the Chinaman should be doing the work at a far less cost of life than that the mineowners should be put to the temptation of enlisting men who, by reason of their health, physique, and the climate they had been brought up in, were not fit for the hard tasks of the mine. The Chinese mortality is very much lower even than the improved result obtained among the Kaffirs. The hon. and gallant Member asserted that the British Government had broken their pledges to the inhabitants of the Transvaal by not withholding their assent to the Ordinance. I do not deny that at other times and under other conditions and in a different state of opinion my predecessor might have said what my hon. and gallant friend has quoted, but I have a precise I statement subsequent to that read by the hon. and gallant Member which I have always regarded as my predecessor's undertaking. It was dated July 27th, 1903.
  MAJOR SEELY: What I read out was written by the late Colonial Secretary in April, 1904.
  MR. LYTTELTON: My right hon. friend was not Colonial Secretary in 1904, and could not give a pledge on behalf of the Government. Moreover, unless I am mistaken, the Ordinance was sanctioned before that date. What my predecessor did say, in 1903, was that he believed that at that time the opinion of
  532
  the Transvaal was hostile to the introduction of Asiatic labour, and that was why he would not assent to it if it were proposed; but he added that he thought it very likely that the opinion then hostile might not always be hostile, and he had received information that among the Boer farmers the pressure for labour was becoming very acute and a great change of opinion had taken place. The present Government believes that the opinion of the Transvaal is enormously in favour of this change, and the conditions, therefore, are changed from those under which that pledge was given. It seems to me an astonishing thing that any Member of the House should bring an accusation of this kind against the Government on these grounds.
  MAJOR SEELY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that subsequent to the passing of the Ordinance, a census showed that the Dutch were opposed to it.
  MR. LYTTELTON: There is no evidence or pretence of evidence to that effect. Six or seven leaders signed a document in which they stated they were against it; but with reference to the representation from 200 Dutchmen, what weight did they themselves attach to it? They had passed, on the occasion referred to, some twelve or fourteen resolutions. They were invited by Sir Arthur Lawley to come and discuss them at Pretoria. They had there a full and long discussion, and this resolution on Chinese labour was thought so unimportant by the Boers themselves that they never even mentioned it. If the hon. Member thinks this important, the Boers did not.

  533
  I am now in a position to sum up the results. It has been alleged that a disastrous blow has been struck at white labour. The answer is that the figures show conclusively an increase in white labour. Whether the absolute facts or the relative facts are taken, both are in favour of the introduction of Chinese. It has been suggested that we have misled the House by not preserving the Kaffirs from undue and unfair competition. Chinese labour has not starved or undercut Kaffir labour, for there are between 9,000 and 10,000 more Kaffirs employed at this moment than were employed before the introduction of the Chinese, and their wages have not been diminished, they have been increased as between now and 1899, and they have not diminished since the introduction of the Chinese. As regards the supposed moral danger, previous official records from which I have quoted have shown that the conjectures which have been made have no foundation so far as the evidence as to the past went, and it is not pretended that there is a single rag of evidence so far as the present is concerned. It has been alleged that recruiting had been unfairly conducted, and this on the evidence of the Rev. Arnold Forster, who was proved to have been mistaken in supposing that a document was used which had not been used. Again, it has been said that this was done against the will of the people. With regard to that, I ask the House, to note the position of Mr. Quinn. Mr. Quinn, a worthy and zealous opponent, who was the protagonist in the fight against Chinese labour in the Legislative Council, and who is now living in the Transvaal, and is not a candidate for Parliament, states that people are content
  534
  with the Chinese Ordinance, and that, so far as he is concerned, it is finished. Within a few months a representative Constitution will be granted to the Transvaal. If the Government are wrong—I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite really believe they are—there will be an opportunity of correcting their mistakes; but hon. Gentlemen opposite know that there will not be a voice raised in any representative assembly against an introduction of Chinese, regulated as it is with scrupulous care, and which would never reach anything like the proportions which has been represented. The Government has a right to complain that, though the arguments in this House have been temperate and in good faith, it is not so and has not been so in the country. When my hon. friends on the Ministerial side described, from what they had seen, the health and comfort and sanitary conditions under which the Chinese were living in the Transvaal, there, were loud cries of "Agreed, agreed'' from the Opposition Benches. Did they cry "Agreed, agreed" to that in the country? Why, they talked of "slavery," and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition talked of "quasi slavery." I hope none of them were responsible for one of the most infamous documents that exists in the world—a document that has been extensively circulated in the constituencies and has probably misled thousands of voters—a picture representing Chinamen in chains with ghosts of dead British soldiers protesting. If a tithe of what has been said about the Chinese in the Transvaal were true, then, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton stated at the beginning of this controversy, the only right and just and sincere

  535
  attitude to take up is to say, if this is slavery, it ought to be swept away from the Statute-book, even if it had been passed by a self-governing colony. The Leader of the Opposition, when asked the question what he would do, replied across the floor of the House, "Put us in and we will tell you." Later he gave a considered answer and said—
  "With regard to this topic, if and when the time comes for them to take over the responsibility of Government, he would only say in this confused matter that they would approach the question from the point of view of the permanent interests of the country and not merely from the point of view of the temporary exigencies of those who finance the gold mines."
  That is a model statement for the apostle of the unambiguous.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:: What is there ambiguous about that?
  MR. LYTTELTON: The House will judge of that. If, however, a tithe of the language used throughout the country were true, then it would be obvious that hon. Gentlemen opposite must sweep away the unclean thing. But there was no truth or sincerity in the language, and the declaration of their intentions showed that the leaders of the Opposition fully recognised the hollowness of the agitation.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 275. (Division List No. 4.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crombie, John William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Allen,' Charles P.

  Cullinan, J.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Asher, Alexander

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Delany, William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-shire)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dillon, John

  Johnson, John

  Beamont, Wentworth C. B.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Bell, Richard

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Benn, John Williams

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Black, Alexander William

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Blake, Edward

  Edwards, Frank

  Kilbride, Denis

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Ellice,CaptEC(S.Andrw"s"B"ghs

  Kitson, Sir James

  Brigg, John

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lambert, George

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Langley, Batty

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Burns, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Caldwell, James

  Field, William

  Lloyd-George David

  Cameron, Robert

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lough, Thomas

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Crae, George

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kean, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harrington, Timothy

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Harwood, George

  Mooney, John J.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Moss, Samuel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, JA(Glamorgan,Gower

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Reid,Sir R.Threshie (Dumfries)

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

  Murnaghan, George

  Richards, T. (W. Monmouth)

  Tomkinson, James

  Murphy, John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Toulmin, George

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Newnes, Sir George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Ure, Alexander

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Roche, John

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wallace, Robert

  Norman, Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Russell. T. W.

  WarnerThomeas Courtenay T.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, Eugene,(Clackmannan)

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

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Dowd, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wills, Arthur W. (N. Dorset)

  O'Malley, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Parrott, William

  Spencer,Rt. Hn.C.R.(Northants

  Wood, James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Woodhouse,Sir JT(Huddersf'ld

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Young, Samuel

  Perks, Robert William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Price, Robert John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  William M'Arthur.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

  Aird, Sir John

  Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ. (Maner.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hon. H. O.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Finca, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chamberlain,Rt. Hn.JA (Wore.

  Finlay,SirR.B.(Invern'ss B'ghs

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chapman, Edward

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manch'r)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Balfour,RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Garfit, William

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin & Nairn

  Beach,Rt.Hn.Sir Michael Hicks

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gordon,MajEvans-(T'r H'mlets

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Bigwood, James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Denny, Colonel

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Greene,SirEW (B'ryS.Edm'nds

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Brown, Sir A. H. (Shropshire)

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Gretton, John

  Bull, William James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  538

  539

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Hamilton,Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col.Thos. Myles

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh, W

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Shaw-Stewart, SirH (Renfrew)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Heath,SirJames (Staffords.NW

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

  Helder, Augustus

  Maxwell,Rt HnSirH.E (Wigt'n

  Smith,RtHnJ.Parker (Lanarks

  Henderson,SirA. (Stafford, W.)

  Maxwell,W. J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Spear, John Ward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Hobhouse,RtHnH. (Somers'tE

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants).

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Horner, Frederick William

  Moore, William

  Stock, James Henry

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stroyan, John

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Howard,J.(Midd., Tottenham)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hunt, Rowland

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tuff, Charles

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Kerr, John

  Percy, Earl

  Valentia, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Vincent,Col.Sir CEH (Sheffield)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.SirWilliam H.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Pym, C. Guy

  Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E. (Taunt'n

  Lawrence,SirJoseph(Monmouth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Welby,SirCharles G.E. (Notts.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Lawson, Hn.H.L.W. (Mile End)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N.R.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wilson, A.Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Renwick, George

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wortley,Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Long,Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Alexander Acland - Hood

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. John Redmond)—put, and agreed to.

  Main Question again proposed.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  PREFERENTIAL AND RETALIATORY DUTIES.
  Order [2nd February, 1904] that the Return relative to Preferential and Retaliatory Duties do lie upon the Table, read, and discharged. Paper withdrawn.—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
  Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Abertillery Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company Bill [H.L.]; Alexandra Park and Palace Bill [H.L.]; Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Blackpool Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Blind Asylum Bill [H.L.]; Clacton Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Clacton-on-Sea Commissioners Bill [H.L.]; East London and Lower Thames Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Formby Township Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]; Hythe Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Littlehampton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]; Mansfield Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Nine Mile Point Railway Bill [H.L.]; Nottingham Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [H.L.]; Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [H.L.]; Sandgate Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield University Bill [H.L.]; Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; Tees Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Torpoint Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Tralee Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; University College, London (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]; Weaver Navigation Bill [H.L.]; Whitby Urban District Council [H.L.]; Read 1a.
Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Blackpool, St. Anne's, and Lytham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Bridgewater Canals Bills [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.]; City of London Electric Lighting Company Bill [H.L.]; Commercial Union Assurance Bill [H.L.]; Cordoba and Rosario Railway Bill [H.L.]; East Cowes Gas Bill [H.L.]; Entre Rios Railways Bill [H.L]; Gosport and Fareham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]; Hastings
430
Harbour District Railway (Abandonment) Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Hessle Gas Bill [H.L.]; Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [H.L.]; Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Mortgage Insurance Corporation Bill [H.L.]; North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]; Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.]; South-Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; Southend and Colchester Light Railways Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Truro Water Bill [H.L.]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]; West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [H.L.]. Read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

NEW BILL.
  McCONNELL'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Sir Robert John McConnell, Baronet, of Windsor Avenue, in the county of the city of Belfast, with Elsie George McConnell, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes. Presented (on petition), and a copy of the proceedings in, and of the decree of divorce of the King's Bench Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland. Delivered (on oath); Bill read la; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, 28th March. The usual orders made.
RETURNS REPORTS, ETC.

  ROLL OF THE LORDS.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table.

  431
  The same was ordered to be printed. (No. 9.)

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854 to 1894.
  Sixteenth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission; with Appendix.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3324. Denmark (Supplementary Report for 1903).
  No. 3325. Belgium (Finances for 1904–1905).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Draft Order in Council continuing certain provisions contained in the Order in Council of 6th March, 1902.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Order made by the County Council of the County of Lancaster, re-dividing the Chorley Parliamentary Division into two convenient polling districts.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  Tenth Annual Report by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies of the proceedings of the Registrars under the Building Societies Acts; with an abstract of the annual accounts and statements of the societies, for the year 1904.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SCHEMES, INDUS- TRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES, AND TRADE UNIONS.
  Reports of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, for the year ended 31st December, 1904.
  CERTIFIED INEBRIATE REFORMA- TORIES (REGULATIONS FOR MAN- AGEMENT).
  Regulations made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the management and discipline of the Lancashire Certified Inebriate Reformatory.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Account of the receipts and disbursements of the Duchy of Lancaster in the year ended 21st December, 1904; also, a
  432
  separate account of the capital of the said Duchy to the same date.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896, AND MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
  Orders by the Secretary for Scotland prohibiting motor car traffic—
  On special roads in the county of Perth. (20th August, 1904.)
  On a road in the county of Perth. (3rd February, 1905.)
  On certain roads in the county of Midlothian. (3rd February, 1905.)
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SIR ANTONY MACDONNELL AND IRISH DEVOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN*THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN rose to call attention to certain references to Ireland contained in a speech of the Solicitor-General as reported in The Times of the 8th inst. He said: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships' indulgence while I make, as briefly as I can, a statement which will be of the nature of a personal explanation; but I am afraid I shall have to tax your Lordships' patience by entering into many details which your Lordships will think small and trivial, and which are, in fact, small and trivial in themselves, but upon which a significance has been placed by very determined efforts on the part of some persons to attach a most sinister meaning to many entirely innocent actions and events.
  On the 8th inst. The Times published a sort of postscript to a report of a speech delivered by the Solicitor-General on the 4th inst., and accompanied it by a note saying that the references of the Solicitor-General to Ireland had been unfortunately omitted in their first report. That, in itself, is a rather unusual thing for a newspaper to do, and indicated, I suppose, that in the opinion of the Solicitor-General or in the opinion of The Times, or in both their opinions, the references made by the Solicitor-General to Ireland in that speech were of very peculiar importance. In those references Sir E. Carson alluded to the scheme of devolution which I and some

  433
  colleagues of mine have lately put forward in Ireland as
  "A fatuous, ridiculous, unworkable, and impracticable scheme, lately set going in Ireland by certain gentlemen whose names had been attached to it."
  Now, my Lords, it was impossible for the stupidest man in Sir E. Carson's audience to have mistaken the significance of that expression; it could only mean, and could only have been intended to mean, that certain gentlemen had acted as mere dummies in the matter and had attached their names to a policy and principles for which they were in reality not in the least responsible. I must acknowledge the gracious, though veiled, compliment paid by the Solicitor-General to myself and my colleagues, a few country gentlemen in Ireland, when he suggested that it was impossible that our brains could have orginated so fatuous and unworkable a scheme; but I cannot accept the compliment, because, as a matter of fact, we alone are responsible for that scheme. Sir E. Carson went on to say that
  "The grievance of Irish Unionists was, rightly or wrongly, that the scheme had originated with a permanent official retained under a Unionist Government at Dublin Castle."
  Sir E. Carson made no charge, because to make a charge would be very unbecoming on his part; he contented himself with repeating that
  "The charge of the Irish Unionists, that a permanent civil servant retained under a Unionist Government at Dublin Castle had himself evolved a policy which had been disavowed by the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland."
  I need not say that the civil servant referred to was Sir Antony MacDonnell. For months past there have been circulated in Ireland the most preposterous and ridiculous yarns and stories on this subject; clandestine meetings between myself and Sir Antony MacDonnell in remote inns in the wilds of Kerry have been mentioned, and all kinds of preposterous stories have been circulated—stories so ridiculous that I should have thought their very absurdity would have rendered them innocuous. These stories were all too silly to be taken notice of. But Sir E. Carson's speech, to my mind, puts an entirely different complexion on the case. The charge against us was there
  434
  accurately formulated. It was that Sir Antony MacDonnell evolved a policy disavowed by his chief, and that he persuaded us, the Irish Reform Association, to publish it as if it had emanated from us; being afraid or ashamed to acknowledge himself the author he got us to assume the authorship. If such a charge were true Sir Antony MacDonnell must have pressed forward a policy disavowed by his superior officer; he must have used us to deceive his chief and we must have lent ourselves to that deception. After reading the charges so formulated I considered myself justified in making an explanation in your Lordships' House, and I need scarcely say that I have asked and received Sir Antony MacDonnell's permission to do so.
  I am not at all concerned at this moment to defend our policy, nor am I concerned with Sir E. Carson's opinion regarding it. I will only say this, that the policy of devolution was put forward by us in all seriousness and honesty, believing, as we do, that it is essential for the better government of Ireland, and for the greater contentment of the country. It is also essential to put the legislative union between the two countries on a surer and firmer foundation than any upon which it can stand so long as legitimate and remediable grievances and causes of discontent in Ireland remain unremedied. As I say, I am not now concerned to defend our policy; what I am concerned to show is that we alone are responsible for that policy, and that we were parties to no deception whatever for the best of all possible reasons, that there was no sort of deception to be parties to.
  Now, my Lords, what is the genesis of devolution? That is a question that has been bellowed at me through the megaphones of some of my fellow-countrymen persistently for the last few months. I cannot pretend to trace the origin of the policy down to its absolute roots; I daresay the idea may have been in men's minds for many years. But for all practical purposes our policy originated in a circular which was sent out on March 3rd, 1903, and signed by, I think, five members of the Land Conference Committee. 1 have that circular in my hand.

  435
  I need not trouble your Lordships with much of it, but I will read the most pertinent passage—
  "It is, however, now becoming evident that only in a reasonable system of gradual devolution of legislative powers is to be found the solution of the problem that demands such urgent consideration. In no other way can Parliament be relieved from the ever-increasing strain of public business, or the legitimate aspirations of Ireland for some definite form of self-government be met."
  I think, my Lords, that indicates pretty clearly where the origin of devolution lies. That circular concluded by suggesting that a meeting should be held in Dublin, and asking for an expression of opinion I as to the advisability of holding it.
  I received a copy of that circular and gave it as my opinion that the time was not opportune for taking any definite action in the matter. I thought the time was not opportune for reasons which I am sure will appeal to your Lordships as practical and common-sense men. It is perfectly true that very different reasons were attributed to me by the Attorney-General for Ireland. He attributed to us the most sordid and unworthy motives, both in putting forward this policy of devolution, and in not bringing it practically forward at the date of the circular of 1903. Writing to The Times on October 27th, the Attorney-General asked—
  "Whether, in short, the devolution scheme is not the price secretly arranged to be paid for Nationalist acquiescence in a settlement of the land question on generous terms."
  My Lords, that is a very serious charge to make against us. It is that we privately bargained with the Nationalists to get generous terms from the Land Conference, in consideration for which we were to bring in a scheme of devolution, but to postpone bringing in that scheme until we were practically certain that we were going to get good terms, and had sold our estates in a manner satisfactory to us. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with a denial of that. We disposed of that question at the time, and I need not allude to it further now. I did not advocate proceeding with this matter in March, 1903, because the Land Conference Committee had been appointed for a definite purpose which had not then been fulfilled; because all men's minds were then taken up
  436
  with land purchase; because, if I may use a vulgar expression, we—the Land Conference Committees—had, I thought, "bitten off quite as much as we could chew." I therefore came to, I think, the very natural conclusion that it was not the time for us to embark on any new enterprise. So I wrote to my friends, and the matter was temporarily allowed to drop.
  It was revived last August. I thought at that time that the Land Conference, had done all the work it could possibly find to do, that it had fulfilled its purpose and had better be dissolved. I thought, too, for many reasons—local reasons with which I need not trouble your Lordships—that the time was then opportune for starting our policy of devolution sketched out in the circular from which I have quoted. I wrote on June 7th to the secre- of the Land Conference Committee, and suggested calling the committee together on August 25th. Colonel Poi happened to write to me on the very same day suggesting the same thing, and in reply to his letter I said I was quite agreed that the time was opportune for action, and I suggested a meeting on August 25th. I also sketched out what I thought our objectives should be, and among them was larger control for Ireland over her local affairs. We had, I think, one or two informal meetings and a committee meeting on August 25th, when we passed two resolutions—one dissolving the committee, and another forming the Irish Reform Association. At a meeting of the association on August 26th or 27th the report that we brought up was considered, amended, and adopted, and it was published on August 31st. That is the whole history of the genesis of the policy of devolution.
  I am sorry to have to trouble your Lordships with all these small details, but after the charge which was formulated against us by the Solicitor-General it became absolutely necessary, for the sake of my colleagues and myself, to show that the whole principles of the policy of devolution originated with the Land Conference Committee, and not with Sir Antony MacDonnell, and that we decided to move that committee to take action in August without reference to Sir Antony MacDonnell or anybody else. On the

  437
  details of the scheme and in getting it into shape I received much valuable help and assistance from Sir Antony MacDonnell, for which 1 am very grateful to him. As is very natural. I had many long conversations with Mr. George Wyndham and with Sir Antony MacDonnell on all kinds of subjects and topics connected with Ireland—not conversations with the Chief Secretary or Under-Secretary, but perfectly informal conversations and talks with Mr. Wyndham and Sir Antony MacDonnell. Among other subjects, we have often discussed the condition of what I may call moderate opinion in Ireland, the possibility of in any way making that opinion articulate, and the possibility, in fact, of creating anything like a Moderate Central Party.
  I have always expressed my views freely on the matter. I thought that there did exist in Ireland a large body of moderate opinion, lethargic like moderate opinion generally is. Moderate opinion, so far as Unionists are concerned, disinclined, I thought, to any great organic changes, but profoundly dissatisfied with the existing system of Departmental Government in Ireland. I thought it dangerous that these legitimate causes of dissatisfaction felt by them should not be remedied. I thought it perfectly useless to start, or to help to create, a Moderate Party on a purely academic basis. I thought it absolutely essential to have a positive, constructive, democratic policy—the policy which has been wrought out in our proposals for devolution. On those ideas, broadly speaking, I have talked over and over again both with Mr. Wyndham and with Sir Antony MacDonnell. My impression always was—perhaps I may have been entirely wrong—that Sir Antony MacDonnell's views did not coincide with mine, but rather leaned to action on totally different lines. My impression also was that Mr. Wyndham saw no particular objection to a general scheme of administrative reform proposed by perfectly independent and private individuals being put forward for public criticism and discussion.
  I remember very well having conversations with Mr. Wyndham and Sir Antony MacDonnell, not on any particular scheme or idea, but on the subject of a Moderate Party generally; and it was
  438
  suggested—I do not remember by whom—that Sir Antony MacDonnell should invite some gentlemen to meet me who might be useful to me in forming the nucleus of such a Party. That idea was abandoned. I have a letter from Sir Antony MacDonnell, dated October, 1903, in which he says—
  "I have been thinking over our conversation the other day."
  He was referring to the conversation I have mentioned; he could not have been referring to anything else. He abandoned the idea of asking the gentlemen to meet me, because, as he writes—
  "The business would speedily become known, and it would be said that Lord Dunraven was forming a new Irish Party."
  To that Sir Antony MacDonnell did not see any particular objection, but he went on to say—
  "If the first meeting were held in my house, or at my invitation, everyone would say that Mr. Wyndham was a prime mover in the business."
  And he added—
  "Any help I can give I shall be happy to give by supplying you with facts and information, but I think, and in this Mr. Wyndham, to whom I have spoken, agrees with me, it is better I should not appear prominently, or even to the extent of inviting men to meet you."
  By that letter, my Lords, I have been guided ever since, and so, I believe, has Sir Antony MacDonnell. I had other talks with Mr. Wyndham last summer on this subject—if I remember rightly they were relative to certain propositions that were made to me, but which did not at all commend themselves to me—and the matter dropped until, as I have already told your Lordships, it was revived last August.
  I think it was on the day before the meeting of the Land Conference Committee, when it was dissolved, that I first spoke on this subject to Sir Antony MacDonnell. I then asked him for information and advice on the subject, and I cannot imagine anything more natural for me to do. We had determined to create an association; we had decided that the principal plank in our policy was an extension of self-government to Ireland; we had decided upon the lines on which we were going—the lines indicated in the circular—namely, devolution, delegation of authority. I cannot

  439
  imagine anything more natural in the circumstances for me to do than to ask for information and advice from the man who probably was better able to give me information and advice than any other human being in the country.
  The publication of our first report on August 31st led to a great clamour, in Ireland, at any rate, for fuller particulars. Personally, I was averse to giving fuller particulars at that time. I did not think that the end of August was a very good period of the year for doing business. So far as I myself was concerned, I was on a yachting cruise, but, as a matter of fact, I was out of action, being in very dubious enjoyment of complete repose, owing to a very violent attack of gout in both my feet. All my colleagues were scattered about Ireland and were difficult to get at. In these circumstances I wrote to Sir Antony MacDonnell and asked him to draft out the heads of a more elaborate scheme on the lines of our first report, and he very kindly did so and sent them down to me in Kerry. Shortly afterwards he paid me a visit on his way to stay with my noble friend the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and spent two days with me. We had plenty of time for going very thoroughly into the matter and we pretty well mapped out a report.
  I was in a certain difficulty. Our first report had somehow or other been published in the London Press the day before we gave it out for publication in Ireland, which indicated a rather serious leakage somewhere in our machinery. I did not want that to occur again. I did want, however, to get a number of copies of the draft made as soon as I had perfected it to the best of my ability, and not knowing where to get them made I mentioned my difficulty to Sir Antony MacDonnell. I suggested to him, or he suggested to me—I do not know which, but I think he suggested to me—that if 1 would send him the draft when I had perfected it he would get sufficient copies typewritten for me to circulate among my colleagues on the organising committee, and this was done.
  This draft was considered by the organising committee and amended considerably. It was then brought up at a meeting of the association, considered,
  440
  amended, and adopted, and published on September 26th. Shortly after that came the Chief Secretary's letter in The Times, and shortly after that I received a letter from Sir Antony MacDonnell to say that in the circumstances I must understand that he did not feel himself to be at liberty any longer to give me any assistance of any kind. That, my Lords, is, I think, the whole history of the case, and I submit to your Lordships that the charges formulated by the Solicitor-General as charges made by Irish Unionists are absolutely disproved. I deny these charges which have been made, not by "the" Irish Unionists, as Sir Edward Carson says, but by some Irish Unionists. For this policy the Irish Reform Association is alone responsible; it was initiated two years ago by certain members of the Land Conference Committee, out of which the Irish Reform Association was formed; and we determined to bring it into active existence last August without consultation with, or the knowledge of, Sir Antony MacDonnell or any other human being. The whole thing was done within the action of the Land Conference Committee. Sir Antony MacDonnell, the very moment that policy was disavowed by his chief, informed me that he could no longer afford us any assistance of any kind. It is untrue to say that he pursued a policy which had been disproved of by his chief. I regret that the disavowal of our policy by the Chief Secretary did not take place a little sooner. Our first report, which was published on August 26th, set out our policy very plainly, and, goodness knows! enough fuss was made about it to attract the attention of a much less active and intelligent mind than that of the Chief Secretary even at ordinary holiday time. But no notice was taken of it. I am curious to know whether any communication passed between the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell on the subject of the first report. I can only say that I received a letter from Sir Antony MacDonnell on September 25th. I think I must have written to him about the dead-set that was being made against him in Ireland, because he writes to the effect that a friend had told him that a strenuous and most persistent effort was

  441
  being made to force the Government to get him to resign his place, and he added—
  "I am bound to say that my relations with Mr. Wyndham are such that I attach very little importance or credence to these rumours."
  I should gather from that letter, without any information to the contrary, that no remonstrance of any kind had been addressed by Mr. Wyndham to Sir Antony MacDonnell between the publication of our first report and our second report. But I am sure of this, that I heard nothing at all from Mr. Wyndham on the subject, and yet our first report sets out our policy pretty plainly, so plainly that I must ask your Lordships to allow me to read one passage from it. We say that—
  "We believe that the maintenance of the Parliamentary Union is compatible with the devolution to Ireland of a larger measure of local government than she now possesses. We consider that this devolution, while avoiding matters of Imperial concern and subjects of common interest to the Kingdom as a whole, would be beneficial to Ireland and would relieve the Imperial Parliament of a mass of business with which it cannot now deal satisfactorily, and which occupies its time to the detriment of much more important concerns. In particular we consider the present system of financial administration to be wasteful. … We think it possible to devise a system of Irish finance whereby expenditure could be conducted in a more efficient and economic manner and whereby the sources of revenue could be expanded. We believe that a remedy for the present unsatisfactory system can be found in such a decentralisation or localisation of Irish finance as will secure to its administration the application of local knowledge, influence, and ability without in any way sacrificing the ultimate control at present possessed by the Imperial Parliament."
  That shows just as plainly as our more detailed second report our objects and intentions, yet I received no intimation of any kind from Mr. Wyndham on the subject after the publication of our first report.
  I do not mean to say for a moment that if I had received an intimation from Mr. Wyndham I should have refrained from pushing this policy to the best of my ability, because I believe it to be absolutely essential both for the benefit of Ireland and the maintenance of the Union. But if I had heard from Mr. Wyndham it would at least have cleared, up the position between myself and Sir Antony MacDonnell, and would have prevented the necessity that I am now under of entering into this long explanation.
  442
  Sir Antony MacDonnell gave me his assistance as to the facts and information which he had promised to give in the letter of October 15th, 1903, which I have quoted to your Lordships. I was glad to have that assistance. I went to him naturally. If I had been proceeding on different lines, say on the lines of the provincial legislatures in Canada, I should have asked for information from somebody who was conversant with, that system; but as we had determined to go on the lines of devolution—something in the nature of a Financial Council—I went to a man who, from his past experience in India of a system analogous to that, was best capable of giving us information.
  I never had any idea of concealment, and certainly the idea could never have entered the head of Sir Antony MacDonnell. Sir Antony MacDonnell knew perfectly well that I would talk this matter over with both Mr. Wyndham and Lord Dudley when I met them. Is it conceivable, in these circumstances, that any man in his senses would have given me all that information, knowing that he was bound to maintain secrecy, without asking me to connive with him in thus deceiving his superior officer? I do not know whether, under ordinary circumstances, there is anything in the least improper in a civil servant giving this kind of information. If that is so, I would respectfully suggest that it would be a good thing to have a schedule of the topics which may be discussed between a private individual and an official in his private capacity.
  When Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed it was currently stated that his appointment was of a very exceptional character. Whether that is so or not, and, if so, to what extent it was exceptional, perhaps my noble friend the noble Marquess when he replies will be able to tell us; but, whether that be so or not, of this I am certain, that it never entered into Sir Antony MacDonnell's head that in giving me the assistance he did he was in any way going behind the back of his superior officer. I must apologise for taking up your Lordships' time at this length, but I think noble Lords will agree with me that the charge made against me individually and against

  443
  my friends in the Irish Reform Association is of so serious a nature that I was bound to justify myself before your Lordships from my place in this House. I have, of course, been obliged incidentally to frequently mention Sir Antony MacDonnell by name. It is not my business in any way to defend him; my object is to defend myself and my colleagues. But I will say this of Sir Antony MacDonnell. I have not had the honour of his acquaintance very long, but I have become intimately acquainted with him during the last two or three years, and I will say that a more impartial-minded man, a man more absolutely and fearlessly honest, a man more incapable of acting in any way disloyally behind the back of his chief, it has never been my privilege to meet.
  THE EARL OF WESTMEATH: My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to trouble the House at any length this afternoon, but I do not wish to let this occasion pass without expressing the relief which I, in common with all my colleagues and associates among the Unionists of Ireland, feel that His Majesty's Government, and particularly the Chief Secretary, have at length, almost at the point of the bayonet, consented to give us some explanation of this matter which has been troubling us so long. I do not think, my Lords, that it is possible for me to exaggerate the extreme sense of uneasiness which loyalists all over Ireland have been feeling at the vagaries of an official who, apparently without the sanction of his official chief, has taken upon himself to inaugurate a policy in Ireland which we Unionists emphatically and entirely disapprove of, and from which we wish in every way to dissociate ourselves.
  All over Ireland the feeling has been one of great unrest, because we never know in Ireland whom we ought to attack. The Chief Secretary is nominally responsible to Parliament for Irish administration, but, rightly or wrongly, an impression has gained ground that the present Chief Secretary, Mr. Wyndham, has practically abdicated the position he ought to occupy, and the power has gradually passed from his hands into those of his official junior. There are even rumours that no less a person than
  444
  the Lord-Lieutenant is not entirely without a policy of his own, and occasionally even my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is referred to in this connection, though I feel confident that in his case his instincts, when he is allowed to give proper expression to them, are on the right side. We feel that we have been badly treated by being kept so long in the dark in regard to this matter, and we demand to know what official, if any, is responsible for these absurd schemes.
  I am one of those who do not like making a scapegoat of any one particular person unless I feel perfectly confident that that is the person who deserves the blame. For that reason I have, in common with many others, felt the greatest reluctance in joining in the campaign, as it has been called, which has been conducted against Sir Antony MacDonnell all over Ireland and in this country; but when we find so important an official as the Attorney-General for Ireland breaking what I believe was the silence of years and going up to his constituents and urging them to insist upon the origin of this scheme being announced publicly, and when we find no less a person in England than the Solicitor-General also insisting on this point, then it is perfectly plain that some such pronouncement as was made yesterday by the Chief Secretary becomes absolutely necessary. I think the statement which the Chief Secretary made yesterday has abundantly justified the attitude which we Unionists in Ireland have been forced to take. I certainly think this matter is one which should have been set at rest before.
  The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, who has occupied so large a share of public attention lately, has been appealed to over and over again to set this matter at rest. He has chosen not to do so. He has preferred to allow the unrest to go on. I do think this is a serious want of thought on the part of one who has lately been hailed by the somewhat exclusive title of the most thoughtful man in Ireland by one of that small but enthusiastic group of admirers who follow the noble Earl about from place to place, and who appear to play very much the same part as the Chorus in the Greek plays.

  445
  I think His Majesty's Government, knowing the unrest which has existed all over Ireland, might have taken an earlier opportunity of disavowing any connection on the part of the Government with this scheme. I think they have shown a self-denial and a meekness worthy of earlier days when we consider that not so very long ago Sir Antony MaeDonnell went down to the West of Ireland and there permitted himself to receive an address from the Nationalist body congratulating him on his superior breadth of mind, and his general superiority over the, rest of his colleagues. I believe that was so. I have never seen any contradiction of it, and I think a more improper action for a civil servant to take it would be impossible to imagine.
  Let us hope, my Lords, that this showup, if I may call it so, this fiasco will bring about the end of the policy of which we so bitterly complain—the policy of truckling to disloyalty and trying to conciliate those who will not be conciliated. The ignorance of people in this country with regard to Irish affairs never seems to grow less. As a small matter, I may mention that a few days ago I was travelling over from Ireland with an Englishman who had been spending a week in that country. He said, in the course of conversation, "Oh, you have no more real grievances in Ireland. You only bring them forward pour rire." When I recollected that the whole of his time had been spent in official circles in Dublin I was not so much astonished at that remark as I otherwise would have been. I would appeal to my noble friend Lord Dunraven to leave Ireland alone in future. He has taken up the land question, the University question, and Home Rule in disguise. Now, I earnestly suggest to him that he should remain in this country and take up some question here which will give vent to his great energy. What we want in Ireland is to be let alone. We want to manage our own affairs. We want to be free from agitators and faddists with, no doubt, excellent intentions.
  With regard to the question of Private Bill legislation, there is a general feeling that if something in the nature of devolution could be brought about it would be
  446
  a good thing. At the same time, I have never heard that any body has been suggested which would command the confidence of Unionists and Nationalists alike. I am very much afraid that if any tribunal of this kind could be constituted it would fall under the sinister influences which have made the position in Ireland what it is to-day. I wish, however, to say that if at any future time anything of this kind should be proposed I do not think Unionists should be considered bigoted if they scrutinise such proposals with great care and caution. The time may possibly come when Unionists and Nationalists may be able to work together, but that time has not come yet; and any attempt to force a union on lines which are not generally accepted by the country will only lead to trouble and annoyance and a repetition of the painful incident we are discussing to-day.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am sure the House will agree with me that Lord Dunraven has, to say the least, cleared the air in regard to this question of devolution. We now know that the scheme originated with the noble Earl and his colleagues, and that he consulted with the Under-Secretary upon it. Let me leave that for one moment and allude to the speech which has just been made by my noble friend Lord Westmeath. The noble Lord has attacked everyone all round; he has attacked the Government; he has attacked the Chief Secretary; he has attacked Lord Dunraven; and he has attacked the Under-Secretary. Living in Ireland as I do, and taking a great interest in affairs there, I feel quite certain that the Chief Secretary can well take care of himself, especially after his pronouncement in denial of the devolution policy which appeared in The Times. I quite understand the attitude which Lord Westmeath has taken up, because he was one of those noble Lords who, at the time we were trying to arrive at a little peace in Ireland, set his face entirely against it. He was one of those with whom we had the greatest difficulty in dealing, and therefore your Lordships must not take quite seriously all the very hard words he has just uttered.
  As I was a member of the Land Conference I should like to take this public opportunity of denying that there was

  447
  any bargain whatever made with the Nationalists in the Land Conference, These sort of rumours have been flying about all over the country, and now at last we have got to the bottom of things and know where we are. There was not even any chaff about there being Home Rule, or about our having any arrangement with them whatever. I am not one of those who joined Lord Dunraven in his devolution scheme, but there are parts of it with which I agree, notably the part referring to Private Bill procedure. I deny that there are not some means by which Private Bills could be dealt with in Ireland instead of being sent over at enormous cost to be dealt with at Westminster. If Irishmen are clever enough to come to an arrangement with regard to the land question, I think we can come to an arrangement with regard to Private Bill procedure, having before us the example of Scotland. I have to thank Lord Dunraven for clearing the air. I think, however, there are portions of his speech which, with all due deference to him, were somewhat mischievous, but we do not mind a little mischief in Ireland. We can get over it. We now, at any rate, know where we are, and can go ahead with that part of the scheme which does not tend to what Lord Westmeath described as absolute Home Rule.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of interfering in the interesting domestic quarrels of the Irish Unionist Party. I leave them very readily to settle those I matters among themselves. But I feel bound to rise for the purpose of saying something in respect to my right hon. friend Sir Antony MacDonnell. Sir Antony MacDonnell served under me when I was Viceroy of India. I have known him for a long time. I entertain the very highest opinion of the services which he rendered in India, and I am glad to see that my noble friend the noble Marquess opposite concurs in that opinion. For those services when he left India he received the highest distinction, except a Peerage, which can be given to any person in the Civil Service of this country. He was selected by Her Majesty's Government to be made an English Privy Councillor. He is a man of long and
  448
  very varied experience. It was not, I believe, at any solicitation of his that His Majesty's Government selected him for the post of Under-Secretary in Ireland. I believe they picked him out because they thought him a man of great experience in administration, and of great ability, who would ably oecupy the position of Under-Secretary in Ireland. That being so, and looking to his past career, I cannot help thinking that it is probable that they did not expect him altogether to confine either his activity or his influence within any narrow sphere of official duty.
  There was a very famous Irish Under-Secretary towards the middle of last century, a man whose name is still cherished in Ireland—I mean Mr. Thomas Drummond. Mr. Thomas Drummond was subjected, at the time he held the office of Under-Secretary, to very much the same attacks from precisely the same quarters as those that are now being directed against Sir Antony MacDonnell. Mr. Drummond was gallantly defended in the House of Commons by Lord Morpeth, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. Mr. Drummond held office for something like five years, and he has left a memory in Ireland which I believe, to be still green. But is it to be supposed, or does anybody who knows the history of those times imagine, that Mr. Thomas Drummond was only employed by the Government upon the ordinary routine duties of the office of Under-Secretary? I trow not, and I cannot help thinking that it is highly probable that when Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed his position was very similar in reality to that which Mr. Thomas Drummond filled.
  I was very much struck by the statement in the speech made by my noble friend Lord Dunraven that certainly on one, if not on more than one, occasion he had an interview with Mr. Wyndham and Sir Antony MacDonnell together, and that at that interview or interviews Irish affairs were freely discussed. That in itself, I think, shows that the Chief Secretary employed Sir Antony MacDonnell in a different manner from that in which possibly persons of less experience might have been employed. Therefore, I think I may fairly conclude— my noble friend opposite will correct me

  449
  if I am wrong—that the position which Sir Antony MacDonnell held was considered to be one of more extent and scope than that which other persons might have been allowed to occupy. It is, I think, remarkable, as the noble Earl said, that when the first report was published by the body which he got together, a document which certainly attracted considerable amount of public attention at the time, no communication was received by him from the Chief Secretary.
  Surely we may conclude that in acting as he did—I am speaking of his action generally in communicating with outside persons with a degree of freedom perhaps unusual—Sir Antony MacDonnell was consistently keeping within the terms and conditions of his appointment. I have always understood that at the time of the preparation of the Land Bill Sir Antony MacDonnell was in communication with all sorts and conditions of men, including some who would be most obnoxious to noble Lords opposite, and that he had a considerable hand in the preparation of that successful measure. Then, again, there is the question of Irish University education. How was Sir Antony MacDonnell engaged in that matter? I should like to know whether I am right in thinking that he did hold, and was known by the Irish Government to hold, a position somewhat superior and wider than that of a mere ordinary subordinate officer. I am sure my noble friend opposite, when he addresses the House, will agree with me when I say that from our knowledge of the character of Sir Antony MacDonnell it is perfectly impossible that he could have been guilty of any improper or unworthy conduct. Any man may make a mistake, but it is the one thing which cannot be possible of a man of Sir Antony MacDonnell's high character that he should have done anything which deserves serious censure of a moral kind.
  But there is one matter upon which we have no further information. The noble Earl, it has been said, has made a clean breast of it, and the noble Lord who just sat down rejoiced that we had now got to the bottom of this matter. But there is one person of whom nothing has been said—I refer to the Viceroy. Sir Antony
  450
  MacDonnell was appointed by, and was in constant communication with, the Viceroy. The Viceroy is not here tonight, but, if it is possible, I think it ought to be stated, in justice to Sir Antony MacDonnell, to what extent he was in communication with Lord Dudley upon the details of this question. Whatever may be the result of this discussion, I cannot but hope that your Lordships, whatever may be your opinions or feelings with regard to questions of Irish administration or Irish government, will not allow yourselves to be carried away by misrepresentations. Great misrepresentations have been made, but I trust your Lordships will not allow yourselves to be carried away by the strange forgetfulness of the Solicitor-General of the honourable understanding which exists between political and non-political servants of the Crown, and that whatever may be your views of my noble friend's scheme, you will not be ready to commit an injustice to one of the most distinguished servants that India has ever had.
  LORD RATHMORE: My Lords, I have no quarrel with Lord Dunraven's aspirations for the appeasement of unfortunate controversies in Ireland, and for the formation of what he calls a Party of moderate views on all Irish subjects. But setting rolling again the ball of Home Rule, which the noble Earl has undoubtedly done, is not the way to assuage the bitter controversies in Ireland which formerly raged over that subject, and which I, at any rate, had hoped were settling down. The noble Earl referred to the speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland. I had no idea he was going to refer to it or I would have refreshed my memory with regard to it. I cannot very accurately recall the particular part of the speech to which the noble Earl referred, and, therefore, I will not attempt to answer him; but I do remember that the speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland was a very powerful and, as I thought, complete destructive criticism of the plan with which the name of the noble Earl has been associated, and I also remember that he again and again called upon the noble Earl to let us know whether he had received any assistance from other quarters. The noble Earl,

  451
  however, gave no answer to those appeals or to the other appeals made to him until the disclosure we have now before us was made.
  I do not propose to occupy your Lordships' time on the present occasion by arguing with the noble Earl upon the general scheme which he has propounded. I would only incidentally refer to those clauses of the devolution scheme which were intended, I suppose, to create, and which certainly would have had the effect of creating, a subordinate Legislative Assembly in Ireland, composed mainly of Irish Members of Parliament and Irish Peers, with vaguely adumbrated functions and powers, which, from the nature of the scheme, were capable of indefinite extension. The noble Earl has told us that his scheme contains safeguards which he evidently considers would have had the effect of preventing the undue expansion of the powers he proposes to confer on this subordinate Legislature in Ireland, and would have maintained the absolute supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. But we were familiar with the same protestations from the lips of Mr. Gladstone when he introduced and endeavoured to carry his Home Rule Bills in 1886 and in 1893. That question was thoroughly gone into at that time. The judgment of the nation was challenged upon it. The greatest political controversy of a hundred years was fought over it, and we had thought that that controversy had been set at rest for ever.
  I will not attempt to deal with the argument of the noble Earl on this subject. I have no doubt that he is sincere in his belief that his scheme is of a harmless and milk-and-water character, and that it is unjust to give it the nickname of Home Rule. I am content to say that if the noble Lord holds that opinion, he and his immediate followers are the only people in the three kingdoms who do. No sooner was his scheme published than the Chief Secretary thought it necessary to declare to the public that the Government had nothing whatever to do with it, that they could not tolerate or support it, and that they would never consent to the establishment of a subordinate Legislature in Ireland. Not only did the Chief Secretary repudiate it, but all the organs of Conservative
  452
  opinion denounced it as Home Rule in disguise, while the organs of the Liberal Unionist Party in Ireland denounced it as worse than the Home Rule of Mr. Gladstone. Not only the Unionist Party in Ireland, but also the Nationalist Party understood perfectly well what it was. No doubt they nobly proclaimed that it bore no affinity to the grander scheme which they would prefer, but I may say that any language used by my right hon. friend the Solicitor-General for England was mild in comparison to the language of contempt which a great many of the Irish patriots showered upon the proposals of the noble Earl. The Nationalists gladly accepted his destructive criticism of the existing state of affairs in Ireland. They adopted all the premises of his argument, and then contemptuously told him that the principles he had adopted would carry him much further than his halfway house, and that he was sowing seed which must have fruit of a much more important description. I do not know whether the noble Earl will find any supporters of his view as to the innocency of his scheme, but if he believes that the scheme is anything other than Home Rule in disguise or in embryo, then in that opinion he stands alone.
  But, my Lords, what I thought we were going to discuss to-day was the speech of my right hon. friend the Solicitor-General, Sir E. Carson. It is not necessary for me to make any eulogy of Sir E. Carson. He won for himself in Ireland the first position at the Irish Bar. He transferred his professional labours to England, and, with extraordinary rapidity, obtained a place second to none at the English Bar. That great profession, with the generosity for which it is famous, accepted him and gave him all the honours which he had fairly won. Sir E. Carson is not only distinguished in his own profession, he has been identified with Unionism not only in these easier times, but in the dark days of the Land League and in the later struggles in the House of Commons. My right hon. friend was attending a quasi-political dinner, and, in the course of his speech, made some observations to which I think the noble Earl has very wisely made but a cursory reference. At that meeting

  453
  Sir E. Carson, speaking on behalf of the Irish Unionists, deplored the fact that many of them intimated that they could no longer support His Majesty's Government—
  "It is," he continued, "the duty of the Government, of which I am a member, and which exists in power for the purpose of maintaining the Union, to sift to the bottom, and, if possible satisfy, the grievances of our fellow-Unionists in Ireland."
  I suppose the noble Earl would not object to that part of the speech. Then Sir E. Carson proceeded to describe the devolution scheme. I will not quote the language he used—it might not be agreeable to the noble Earl—but he said that he himself would much prefer Imperial Union to any such tampering with constitutional government. He added that the scheme had not attracted many Unionists from their ranks. That is perfectly true, my Lords. I do not believe the noble Earl can name a score of men in the whole of Ireland, in the Unionist Party at all events, whose names are known or who have any influence whatever in the country, who have followed him in this crazy scheme of devolution.
  The plain meaning of the whole speech of my right hon. friend was that it was the immediate duty of the Government to set at rest the suspicions of an important section of their followers, and that those suspicions, even if unfounded, should not be allowed to go uncontradicted. He did not make any accusation against Sir Antony MacDonnell or express his belief in the suspicions that had been aroused. Sir E. Carson did not, as a matter of fact, know at the I time that these suspicions were well founded, but he saw that they were creating distrust and almost mutiny among the most loyal supporters of the Government. He said that if they were true, such conduct on the part of a permanent official was a scandal to the Civil Service. These were strong words, no doubt, but are they stronger words than have been used by the Cabinet themselves in the message they sent to Sir Antony MacDonnell telling him that his conduct was indefensible. We have now arrived at the truth of the matter, partly, I think, in consequence of the action taken my right hon. friend; and I
  454
  say that, so far from being blameworthy from any point of view for what he said on that occasion, Sir E. Carson has done his duty not only to the Civil Service and to the Unionist Party but to the country at large.
  I can assure your Lordships that I have no sort of personal feeling or animus of any kind against Sir Antony MacDonnell. I have not the pleasure of being acquainted with him, but from what has been told me by friends of mine who were with him in India, I should be inclined to agree that every word we have heard in his praise from the noble Marquess opposite is true. There is no doubt that Sir Antony MacDonnell was a very powerful and successful administrator in India, and in that way did good service to the Government under which he served. But, my Lords, I have also heard from my friends who were in India at that time that he was known to hold most advanced opinions on Irish matters, and that he earned for himself the sobriquet of "The Fenian"—of course not in any felonious sense. I feel not only no antagonism to Sir Antony MacDonnell, but considerable pride, as his fellow-countryman, that he has added another Irish name to the long list of famous men who have been identified with the expansion and safeguarding of our great Indian Empire; but all that can be said in favour of Sir Antony MacDonnell as a useful servant of the Crown in connection with India strengthens my amazement at his being transferred to Ireland. I cannot understand under what unhappy influence he was removed from his place on the Indian Council, where no doubt his experience and ability enabled him to be of great service, and sent to Ireland.
  All Sir Antony MacDonnell's experience of government has been of the autocratic kind which prevails in India, and he was well known to be a man of domineering temperament and the most advanced views on Irish politics—yet this powerful influence was let loose in Ireland upon a community which is only too easily excited by influences of this kind. The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, has taken exception to the suggestion that Sir Antony MacDonnell "evolved" this scheme of devolution, but according to the Chief Secretary himself, who has denounced this scheme, Sir Antony

  455
  MacDonnell assisted in "discussing and formulating" its proposals. The position is worthy of a comic opera. The Undersecretary to the Lord-Lieutenant sits in Dublin Castle formulating a scheme for establishing some form of Home Rule in Ireland which is immediately denounced by his own Chief Secretary whose subordinate he was supposed to be and also by the Prime Minister as inadmissible and not to be entertained for one moment. I do not wish to speak of Sir Antony MacDonnell in any hostile spirit, but his retention in the office of Undersecretary under a Unionist Government is grotesque. Personally, I should be only too glad if some sphere of honourable and useful employment under the Crown could be found for him out of Ireland—some sphere in which his great abilities could he utilised; but in the circumstances which have arisen his retention in the position of Under-Secretary is really impossible, and I trust that the noble Lord who will speak for the Government will give us some more definite information on that subject than we heard from the Chief Secretary in the other House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I cannot help thinking that I shall best consult the convenience of the House by avoiding any attempt at a discussion of the merits of the proposals embodied in Lord Dunraven's scheme, which has been analysed rather mercilessly by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. The merits of the scheme are not now before roar Lordships' House and whether it deserves the more moderately worded condemnation which it has received at the hands of His Majesty's Government or the more trenchant vituperation it has encountered in other quarters does not, so far as we are concerned this evening, matter very much. In the same way, I doubt whether we can very profitably enter this evening into an examination of those other charges which have been brought against Sir Antony MacDonnell, and which were referred to by the noble Lord on the Back Benches. What I should like to say with regard to them is that, if any noble Lord chooses to bring them up in this House, we shall be prepared
  456
  to meet them. They have been met in another place by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, and, although I cannot pretend to have entered minutely into them, I know that to some, at all events, of the counts of the indictment a triumphant answer is forthcoming.
  I may, however, notice now one particular incident to which the noble Lord behind me referred, that of the address of welcome presented to Sir Antony MacDonnell on his return to his native country. It was not very unnatural that an address should be tendered to him on his return to his home after many long years of brilliant service in India, but so strongly did he feel that any manifestations of this kind were dangerous that he actually refused to receive a public address, and the address which he did receive was, I believe, presented to him informally in the drawing-room of a private house, and under circumstances which made it, in his opinion, unnecessary that he should greatly concern himself as to the language in which it was worded. He had no idea it was to be made public, and no one was more surprised than Sir Antony MacDonnell when it appeared in the newspapers.
  But the subject before the House this evening is the speech delivered by the Solicitor-General. As to that, let me say at once that I accept unreservedly the interpretation put upon it by the noble and learned Lord. I understood that speech as implying, in the first place, a strong expression of opinion that, as a matter of principle, it is wrong for the members of the Civil Service to concern themselves in political movements, and, in the next place, I understood the Solicitor-General to say that, if it was indeed true that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been the originator of this scheme, the matter was one which required further discussion—I think the expression he used was that it should be sifted and set at rest. The statement of the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, threw an important light upon that particular point, for we learned from him that it cannot be said that Sir Antony MacDonnell was in the proper sense of the word the originator of the Dunraven scheme. That is stated categorically. We accept that statement of the noble Earl; but we must also accept from him

  457
  that there is no doubt that Sir Antony MacDonnell was called in and did take part in putting the scheme into shape.
  I will notice at this moment, lest I should forget it afterwards, the question which was asked by, I think, the noble Lord on the Back Benches. He asked why it was that the Chief Secretary did not at once put his foot down when the first notice of the scheme of the Irish Reform Association appeared in the newspapers. I think the answer is a two-fold one. In the first place, the first statement was much shorter, and was couched in much more general and indefinite terms than the second statement. I am speaking from memory, but I am almost confident that your Lordships would not find in the first statement the two particular proposals to which the Chief Secretary afterwards took special exception—I mean the proposal for the creation of a Financial Council, partly elected, and the proposal for the establishment of a statutory body to which legislation of a particular kind, and under specified restriction, was to be entrusted. But whether or not, I am bound to add this, that the first scheme appeared in The Times at a moment when, after a particularly arduous session, the Chief Secretary, who is, after all, a mortal man, was taking a well-deserved holiday—I believe he was on the Continent at the time—and when lie could hardly be expected to rush into print The moment he saw an announcement of this land in the newspapers, without any particular knowledge of the circumstances under which it was made.
  There has been so much controversy as to the facts of the case that I think it almost worth while to recapitulate very briefly those facts which have been ascertained, and which are not controverted, because there are a good many statements which are open to a good deal of controversy. In the autumn of 1904 the noble Earl and his friends were working out proposals for an improved scheme of local government for Ireland. We know that they called in Sir Antony MacDonnell, with whom they had on many previous occasions been in the habit of conferring, and with whom they had been in the habit of conferring with the full knowledge and approval of the Chief Secretary. We know also that
  458
  Sir Antony MacDonnell's assistance was readily given; and we know that in the result the scheme of the noble Earl made its appearance, not, of course, as in any sense a scheme officially inspired, but as a scheme put forward by him and his friends as a basis for the discussion they desired to initiate upon the subject of Irish local government. When the noble Earl's scheme was made public, the Chief Secretary at once thought it his duty to make it known that, in his opinion, it was opposed to Unionist principles and that it was one from which His Majesty's Government desired entirely to dissociate themselves, and he dwelt particularly upon the two proposals which I described a moment ago. Upon that Sir Antony MacDonnell at once placed himself in communication with the noble Earl, and intimated to him that his connection with the noble Earl's association must from that moment cease and come to an end.
  My Lords, these are the events as they happened, and upon these events His Majesty's Government took the following action. They intimated to Sir Antony MacDonnell that in thus connecting himself with the preparation and publication of these proposals he had been led into an error which they were unable to defend. But they added at the same time that they did not regard his conduct as open to the imputation of disloyalty, and that they did not in any way call in question his candour and integrity.
  That is a bare historical statement of the facts which I thought it might be convenient that I should lay before your Lordships' House. But such a statement is perhaps not quite sufficient, in view of the speeches to which we have listened this evening; and I have to ask your Lordships to consider with me for a moment the circumstances in which this mistake of Sir Antony MacDonnell's was made. I think it necessary to take that course. I think it is clue to him; I think it is due to us. I think it is due to him, because it is right that the circumstances under which he took this action should be understood. It is due to us because, if half the charges which have been made against Sir Antony MacDonnell

  459
  were true, we should deserve to be assailed for not having treated him with infinitely greater severity.
  Now, my Lords, Sir Antony MacDonnell came home from India in 1902, having served in that country for nearly forty years. During his career, after a long and laborious apprenticeship in a number of minor appointments, he held successively a series of the highest and most responsible posts in the Indian service. He was at different times at the head of the Government of Burma, at the head of the Government of the Central Provinces, with a population of 12,000,000 committed to his charge, and he was Chief Commissioner of the North-West Provinces, with a population of no fewer than 47,000,000 under his government. Subsequently he became a member of the Viceroy's Council, and on his return home, as the noble Marquess reminded us, he had the high honour of a place in the Privy Council conferred upon him. Now, my Lords, during that long and arduous service in India Sir Antony MacDonnell had to deal with the most difficult of the many difficult problems with which Indian statesmen are confronted. He dealt with great famines, and, thanks to his administration, waves of distress, the volume of which we can scarcely conceive in this country, passed over the districts committed to his charge and left the population scathless behind them. He dealt with religious difficulties in a country where there are cleavages of religion and race as bitter even as those which are to be found on the other side of the Irish Channel. He dealt with the great and intricate problems of Indian land tenure—problems as complicated as any with which we are familiar in these islands. And may I say that during the five years which I spent in India, years during which I was constantly in contact with Sir Antony MacDonnell, and had ample opportunity of watching his work, I came to the conclusion that amongst the many able, distinguished, and upright men with whom I had to deal no one was more distinguished, more able, or more upright.
  I was sorry to hear my noble and learned friend trump up an old story that he was nick-named "The Fenian."
  460
  I never heard the story during my stay in India, nor did I ever hear that while he was in India he ever proclaimed himself a partisan in regard to Irish politics, or asserted any strong views of his own in regard to them. My impression is that most of our Indian administrators have plenty to do in attending to Indian affairs, and that while they are absorbed in the duties of their posts they are apt to forget for the moment the, by comparison, almost microscopic affairs of these little islands. May I add as a personal reminiscence that, when I arrived in India, Lord Dufferin, another eminent Irishman, mentioned to me the name of Sir Antony MacDonnell as a man without reproach with whom I could safely confer upon the most delicate questions, and who was what likely to render me the most invaluable service?
  Well, my Lords, Sir Antony MacDonnell came back to this country with this great reputation and experience, and I am bound to say that it seemed to me that if ever there was an Irishman from whom it might be hoped that he would be able on his return to his own country to render good service in Ireland, that man was Sir Antony MacDonnell; and it was in the belief that he was such a man that I introduced him to the Chief Secretary. He produced on the Chief Secretary the same favourable impression that he had produced on me. At that moment there was no vacancy in the Under-Secretary-ship; but not long afterwards the post became vacant, and the Chief Secretary offered it to Sir Antony MacDonnell. I think it is right that your Lordships should remember that when he accepted that onerous and almost thankless office he sacrificed for the sake of it a place on the Secretary of State's Council, a place full of interesting but not excessive work, most honourable to a man who has retired from the Indian service and which naturally must have had great temptations for him. And I do not think I am committing an indiscretion when I say that not long afterwards Sir Antony MacDonnell forwent another appointment in India, the appointment of Governor of the Province of Bombay, one of the most honourable in the whole of India, which was within his reach if he had chosen to be a candidate for it.

  461
  Now I suggest to your Lordships that it follows almost as a matter of course that a man of that kind, a man of those antecedents, could scarcely he expected to be bound by the narrow rules of routine which are applicable to an ordinary member of the Civil Service; and I answer the noble Marquess's question by telling him that when Sir Anthony MacDonnell took up this appointment it was understood both by himself and the Chief Secretary that he was to have greater freedom of action, greater opportunities of initiative, than he would have expected if he had been a candidate promoted in the ordinary course. And it was also understood between Sir Antony MacDonnell and the Chief Secretary that there were certain subjects to which their efforts were to be addressed and which they had reasonable hope and expectation of being able to deal with should they remain in office; amongst those subjects one was the coordination of the many detached and semi-detached boards into which the government of Ireland is at present subdivided. Anybody who has studied that question is aware that there is room for considerable improvement in that old-fashioned and complicated organisation. I think I ought to explain that I say this to your Lordships with the knowledge and Concurrence of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  In these circumstances does it not follow that Sir Antony MacDonnell was justified in assuming that he had more than usual freedom of action? He certainly acted upon that assumption, and acted upon it with the knowledge and approval of the Chief Secretary, and it was with the Chief Secretary's approval that Sir Antony MacDonnell made himself accessible to persons of many kinds and descriptions whose ideas upon important subjects were worth collecting. I maintain that, in endeavouring to arrive at that result, and to break down the barrier which has too long and too often divided Dublin Castle from the rest of the country, my right hon. colleague was taking a step in the right direction, and one for which he deserves the greatest possible credit. It may. I think, fairly be claimed that it was in some measure the result of this happier
  462
  rêgime that that most difficult and intricate measure, the Irish Land Bill, was safely piloted through Parliament. We all knew that Sir Antony MacDonnell took an active part in the preliminary discussions, and in the course of the debates on the Land Bill the noble Earl more than once received congratulations from both sides of the House upon the success that had attended the efforts of himself and his friends to bring about an understanding on difficult technical points.
  Well, that was the situation in the summer of last year. The noble Earl was taking a holiday in the not particularly favourable circumstances he has described to the House, but, although he was taking a holiday, he and his friends were engaged in the elaboration of the scheme they had so much at heart, and Sir Antony MacDonnell was called to their councils. Now, shall I be told that he ought to have refused that invitation? I have no doubt Sir Antony called to mind the understanding upon which he had taken office in 1902. I have no doubt he called to mind conversations and consultations with the noble Earl and his chief, recollecting that the subject of local government was one they had agreed to discuss and examine together. I say, therefore, that it appears to me Sir Antony MacDonnell might well feel himself able to take part in the symposium of the noble Earl with a perfectly clear conscience and without any idea that he was by so doing running counter to the wishes of his chief.
  But while I have no difficulty in arriving at this point, I am bound to say that when as the result of these discussions the question arose of putting forward proposals for the creation of a partly elective financial board and of a statutory body with delegated legislative powers. Sir Antony MacDonnell might well have asked himself whether any instructions or authority that he had ever received covered proposals of that kind. I am sure he honestly believed he was not departing from Unionist principles or running counter to the wishes of his chief, but the fact remains that he did find himself involved in proposals which His Majesty's Government were obliged to repudiate. He interpreted his discretion in one way,

  463
  His Majesty's Government in another. I do not know that the mistake was a very astounding one. It is curious that Sir Antony MacDonnell had a kind of premonition that trouble of this kind might arise, and I will read a passage in a letter he wrote, to a friend at the time he took office—
  "My best friends tell me that I am deluding myself, that I shall be abused by Orangemen as a Roman Catholic and Home Rider, and denounced by Home Rulers as a renegade, that I shall do no good, and that I shall retire disgusted in a year. But I am willing to try."
  I think it did him credit that he tried, and I believe the efforts he made have not been without many excellent results. If at this particular point he overstepped the line which we consider he might have drawn or which might have been drawn for his guidance, we, nevertheless, hold strongly that his conduct has not in any way tarnished the high reputation for loyalty which he brought home with him from that Indian Empire which he served so well to the country of his birth, for which he desired to do something before he died.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I feel that I must say a few words on the very interesting discussion that has taken place to-night. As your Lordships know, I have had considerable experience in Ireland, and particularly understand the relations between the Under-Secretary, the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. I am not going to follow the noble Earl who raised this discussion, nor the noble Lord opposite, Lord Rathmore, into the topics on which they enlarged. I do not think it necessary to discuss the principles of the proposals which the noble Earl and others in Ireland have put forward. All I would say in that connection is that I naturally look with sympathetic interest on those proposals, and shall watch their course with care. But I feel that it is necessary that I should say something with regard to the position of the Under-Secretary and the attacks which, I venture to think, have been unjustly made upon him. The noble Marquess rather put a gloss on the speech of the Solicitor-General. For myself, I certainly think that the language used by the Solicitor-General, though it was put in hypothetical form,
  464
  was hardly such as one member of a Government should employ in reference to another.
  The noble and learned Lord opposite very properly eulogised the many Irishmen who have distinguished thsemselves in India, but he attacked the Government for having appointed Sir Antony MacDonnell to the position he holds in Ireland. On that subject I feel that it is not necessary for me to add to the generous and eloquent defence of Sir Antony MacDonnell which we have heard from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I leave the defence of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment and conduct entirely in the hands of the noble Marquess. Though some criticism was mingled with the, praise, a great deal turns upon the exceptional conditions upon which Sir Antony MacDonnell received his appointment. An ordinary Under-Secretary would not have been allowed such conditions, but, settled as they were by the Chief Secretary, an entirely different complexion is put upon the action of the Under-Secretary. The conditions to which the noble Marquess referred enumerated some of the questions in connection with which the noble Earl wished to introduce reform. What can be more closely identified with the proposals for reform in Ireland which Lord Dunraven proposes than the coordination of the boards and semi-boards that are so well known to exist in the government of Ireland. These conditions, it seems to me, justify action which an ordinary Under-Secretary would not have taken with regard to all these matters.
  We know that directly Sir Antony MacDonnell noticed the view taken by the Chief Secretary on the detailed proposals which came out later in the newspapers, he at once ceased to give any help of any kind, showing, as I think, his loyalty to the Government. I would go further, and inquire whether he did not lay the effect of his communications with Lord Dunraven before the Lord-Lieutenant himself, and also before the Chief Secretary. It seems to me very improbable that, even under the conditions under which he held the office, he would go so far as he did without keeping

  465
  the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary acquainted with all he was doing in the matter. I have said these few words in justice to a very distinguished public servant, against whom I think a most unfair attack has been made. I confess I heard with great satisfaction the statement of the noble Marquess, but I think that even the noble Marquess's criticisms, though they were exceedingly mild, were hardly deserved, considering the remarkable conditions under which Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed to this office.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of): My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Dunraven will not think I am guilty of any discourtesy when I say that he devoted far more time in his speech to an account of the career of the Irish Reform Association, of which he is president, than to the Notice on the Paper. I do not complain of that in the least. He made what I think was a very interesting speech, and I should not have spoken had it not been for the remarks of the noble Earl opposite. I am glad, however, that this discussion has been raised, for it has given His Majesty's Government the opportunity of repudiating entirely any idea of support of any sort or kind to the proposals put forward by the noble Earl and his association. This requires the more emphasis in view of the possibility that at a future time the Liberal Party—personally I think that the time when they will be in office is very far distant—recognising how impossible it would be for them to carry Home Rule, may adopt some such insidious scheme, but they can never taunt the present Government with anything but repudiation of such a scheme.
  I pass on to the attack which has bee n made on the Solicitor-General by the noble Earl opposite. I think the noble Earl entirely misunderstood the speech of my right hon. friend. Had he carefully read that speech he would have recognised that its point turned on the word "if." The Solicitor-General said simply that, if the statements made about
  466
  the actions of Sir Antony MacDonnell, which had created such alarm amongst Irish Unionists, were true, then the conduct of Sir Antony MacDonnell was scandalous. Sir Edward Carson did not assume that the Irish Permanent Undersecretary would have a policy, not only of his own, but one directly opposed to the Government of which he was an official. Therefore, the Solicitor-General considered it his duty to endeavour to allay the alarm which prevailed in Ireland, and, that being so, he was absolutely justified in making the speech. The principal author of the scheme in question, Lord Dunraven, has a quick brain and a very active body, and he always requires some occupation in the recess. At one time it is yacht-racing in America, at another he is evolving some scheme. During the last recess he formulated this scheme. I wonder what his scheme will be next autumn. At any rate, I can say this with regard to the present scheme, that hardly twenty Unionists in Ireland view it with approval.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if I am in order I should like to supply one omission. The noble Marquess opposite challenged me particularly as to the extent to which the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was aware of Sir Antony MacDonnell's action. Lord Dudley anticipated that that question might be asked, and he has authorised me to say that he was aware that Sir Antony MacDonnell was helping Lord Dunraven, and that he discussed the reforms suggested in the noble Earl's scheme on several occasions with the Under-Secretary. He adds that he did not think that Sir Antony MacDonnell was exceeding his functions, because, in the first place, he knew that under the terms of his appointment his position differed from that of an ordinary Undersecretary; and, secondly, that on two previous occasions—the Land Conference and the University question—Sir Antony MacDonnell had been in close communication with Lord Dunraven.
  House adjourned at ten minute before Seven o'clock to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.