Sitting of 17 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the o'clock.
NEW WRIT
For the County of Cork (Mid-Cork Division), in the room of Daniel Daniel Sheehan, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Mr. William O'Brien.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ure Elder Fund Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
Ardrossan, Saltcoats and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Dunbartonshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Dumfermline and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read a second time; to be considered to-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Bexhill-on-Sea, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1906, Vol. XLI, Part I., Acreage and Live Stock Returns of Great Britain with Summaries for the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (MEDICAL DEPARTMENT).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Army Medical Department for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ARMY.
  Copy presented of Instructions issued by the War Office to the various Military

  977
  Commands with reference to giving Technical Instruction to Soldiers to fit them for Civil Life [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Ordered 3rd August, Mr. Cleland]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 385.]
  PRIVATE BILLS (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th October, Mr. Thornton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 386.]
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1904–5 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 387.]
  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented of abstract and detailed Tables showing Countries of Consignment of imports and Countries of Ultimate Destination of Exports (Supplement to Vols. I. and II.) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Naval and Marine Barracks.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total accommodation of the Naval and Marine Barracks respectively in the United Kingdom and abroad, exclusive of coastguards; and in how many cases disciplinary powers for punishment over more than 2,000 men are vested in the hands of one Naval or Marine officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The total accommodation in the United Kingdom is as follows:—Naval Barracks—539 commissioned officers, 16,588 warrant officers and petty officers and seamen. Marine Barracks—217 commissioned officers, 7,060 warrant
  978
  officers, non-commissioned officers and men. Abroad:—Marine Barracks—Thirteen commissioned officers, 543 warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men. As regards the second part of the Question, this condition only obtains in the Royal Naval Barracks at Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham.

  Wages and Conditions of duty of Mr. C Healy, Postman of Headford.
  MR. MURPHYTo ask the Postmaster General, if he will cause inquiries to be made into the wages, hours of duty, and service of Mr. Cornelius Healy, a rural postman at Headford, county Kerry, who is only in receipt of 5s. 4d. per week after seven years' service; and if he can see his way to give an advance to this man so that he can maintain himself.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The man referred to is not an established postman, but is employed for a few hours only on four days a week. There is no more continuous duty to which he can be transferred. There are a number of delivery duties of this kind which only occupy a comparatively small part of a working day, and the men employed upon them are therefore free to engage in other work during the remainder of the day. This point must be taken into account in considering the adequacy of the wages.

  School Attendance of Learners in Belfast Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will say under what circumstances female learners in the Belfast office are listed for school attendance during the period when they are required to do ordinary manipulative work; and whether the effect of this arrangement is that the records show so many hours school attendance per day when, as a matter of fact, no such attendance is given.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can hold out any prospect of permanent places being found at an early date for the female learners in the Belfast office who have so much as four years' service standing to their credit; if it is necessary to employ these learners

  979
  on manipulative work white they are officially in school; and can any reason be advanced why they should not be appointed and placed permanently at the work for which their services are now required.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am inquiring into these matters referred to in both the hon. Member's Questions, and will communicate the result to him.

  Postal Facilities in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the result of his inquiries into the applications made from county Longford for extended postal facilities between Barry and Ballymahon, and the application for a Sunday delivery of letters from Longford to Esker.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I sent the hon. Member an Answer yesterday as regards the desired Sunday delivery at Esker, but the inquiries respecting the postal facilities between Barry and Ballymahon are not yet complete.

  Fees of Certifying Surgeons.
  MR. JACKSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in view of the extension of the regulations regarding examinations for certificates of fitness to certain workshops, involving a probable increase in the number of these examinations made by the certifying surgeon at his residence or rooms, it is his intention to retain the sixpenny fee as a fair standard rate of payment for this class of skilled professional work, or will he be favouraly disposed to consider the advisability of making some revision in the scale at present in operation; and whether he will be prepared to institute an inquiry among certifying surgeons as to the extent to which children and young persons are sent for examination to the certifying surgeon's residence by large employers of adult labour, who thus take advantage of a concession that was originally intended to be given only to small employers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)As regards the first part of the Question I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave on the 5th instant in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for East Down.†As regards the second part of the Question I will make some inquiries of the nature suggested by my hon. friend.

  The Government's Irish Proposals.
  MR. DOLAN (Leitrim, N.): To ask the Prime Minister whether the Irish Self-government Bill, which is to be introduced next year, will be as comprehensive as the constitution granted to the Boers.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I must ask the hon. Member to restrain his curiosity. If at any time this would be a useful comparison this is hardly the time to make it.

  The Admiralty and Employees Unions.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, notwithstanding the promise of the Government that it would receive applications and complaints from the unions direct or the officials of the unions, he has declined to enter into correspondence with, or to confer with such an official who recently wrote to the Admiralty on behalf of the men, the reason given being that he was in the employ of the Admiralty; and, seeing that no such refusal has been made in any other State Department, whether he will take steps to enter into communication with this official, as desired.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) In the case to which I understand the hon. Members refers, the union is not a trades union as I understand the term, i.e., a union representing workers in the particular trade, but an association of the employees in a particular Government establishment. The secretary of this association wrote to me personally, and in reply I drew his attention to the dockyard regulations, in which it is laid down that all representations should be sent to the superintendent through the principal officers, and not to members of the Board direct. If any employee in

  981
  an Admiralty establishment has any personal grievance, or desires to put forward any general application on behalf of the men, it will be considered by the Admiralty if forwarded through the customary channels. The Admiralty are not prepared to modify the existing regulations on this point, and I do not see that they conflict in any way with the pledge which I gave to the House in the course of the debate on the 1st March. I may remind the hon. Member that men employed in the Navy yards have a recognised method of bringing their grievances direct to the Board in the annual petitions which they may make.

  Naval Courts Martial—Suggested Civil Members.
  MR. J. WARD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the nature of the decisions and sentences of courts martial, the Admiralty Board will consider the advisability of introducing a civil element in the personnel of such courts in the future, with a view to securing public confidence in the administration of martial law in disciplinary offences.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Board of Admiralty have no power to make the change referred to, which would require an alteration in the Naval Discipline Act.

  Court of Session Procedure
  MR. WATT: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole question of Court of Session procedure and expenses; and, if not, will he devise any means to lessen the fees which are felt burdensome by litigants from the West of Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) I am in consultation with my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland as to the expediency of appointing a Committee to inquire into the staffing, grading, and rights of various legal offices in Scotland. On the question of the diminution of judicial expenses, I think that a substantial step has been taken in that direction in the provisions of Clause 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act which has just passed this House. The
  982
  saving in costs to litigants which will be effected under that provision has been estimated at £10,000 sterling per annum. On the information before me this estimate appears to be sound. I refer further to my Answer to the hon. Member on 21st November last.†

  Disposal of Site of Old War Office.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has been come to with regard to the disposal of the site of the old War Office in Pall Mall; and, if so, whether he will make a statement on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) No decision has been come to, nor is one expected during the present financial year.

  Local Taxation (Ireland) Accounts
  MR. COGAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the provisions of Section 59, Sub-section 2, of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, requiring that an annual audited Return of the accounts showing the receipts and payments of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account for each year, should be laid before Parliament, had been complied with; and, if not, will he state the reason why the statutory obligation has not been complied with; and will he now undertake that the accounts, as required by the statute, will be presented without further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I find that the annual accounts have not been laid before Parliament as directed by the Act. The omission appears to be due to a misunderstanding as to the department on which the responsibility rests. I agree that the accounts should be laid without further delay, and the Treasury are communicating with the Irish Government in the matter.

  House of Commons Dining-Rooms—Tipping System.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: To ask the hon. Member for Mid. Derbyshire, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he will consider the advisability of raising the price of the 1s. dinners to 1s. 3d. or 1s. 6d., in order to abolish the system of tipping, and to

  983
  provide for the payment of waiters during the recess.
  (Answered by Sir James Jacoby.) I am unable to entertain an increase in the price of the 1s. dinner now an established institution and the most popular meal served in the House of Commons dining rooms. If the hon. Member's proposals were practical I should prefer charging more for the higher priced meals supplied to Members and their friends. The permanent staff are paid full wages during the Easter and Whitsuntide holidays. As regards the policy of the Kitchen Committee on the practice of "tipping," I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire's Question in this House on 26th April last.†

  Lunatics deported from England and Scotland to Ireland.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of insane persons deported from England and Scotland to Ireland during the last ten years; and the total cost of all such persons during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The inspectors of lunatic asylums inform me that, so far as they can ascertain, the total number of insane persons deported from England and Scotland to lunatic asylums in Ireland during the past ten years was 256, and the total cost of maintenance of such persons during that period was £15,907. The cost of maintenance was defrayed persons, partly out of Imperial funds, and partly out of local rates. As regards the number of insane persons deported to workhouses, the Local Government Board have no information. A Return might possibly be obtained from clerks of unions, but this would occupy considerable time and throw a great deal of additional work upon the union officials.

  British Government Pensioners in Receipt of Poor Law Relief.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of British Government pensioners in
  984
  receipt of Poor Law relief in Ireland, and the cost of relief to this class, discriminating, if possible, between Civil Service, Army, Navy, and police pensioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board are not in a position to furnish the particulars asked for in the Question. The hon. Member will find some information on the subject in the Report of the Viceregal Commission of Poor Law Reform, paragraphs 222 to 225, recently presented to Parliament; but, as is explained in the Report, it is not possible to obtain complete information on the subject, because inmates of workhouses in Ireland are not always willing to state that they have been soldiers.

  Persons in Receipt of Poor Law Relief deported from England and Scotland to Ireland.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state separately the number of persons in receipt of poor relief deported from England and Scotland to Ireland during the last ten years; also, the total cost which the Irish ratepayers contributed to the support of all such deported persons in the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board have no records which contain the information asked for in the Question, and are of opinion that it would not be possible for clerks of unions to furnish these particulars.

  Government Pensioners in Irish Lunatic Asylums.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of Government pensioners in Irish insane institutions at the date of the last available Returns, and the total annual cost of such persons.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The inspectors of lunatic asylums inform me that, as nearly as can be ascertained, the total number of Government pensioners in public lunatic asylums in Ireland is 126, and the total annual cost of the maintenance of such persons is £3,329. It may be pointed out that the cost of maintenance

  985
  in these cases is defrayed partly out of the pensions or private resources of the lunatics, partly out of Imperial funds, and partly out of local rates.

  Returns of Evicted Tenants—Rent owing.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in future Returns of Evicted Tenants in Ireland he will include the number of years'rent owed by such tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I presume the Question refers to the Quarterly Returns of Evictions from Agricultural Holdings in Ireland, which are presented to Parliament. These Returns are prepared by the police, who have no knowledge of the number of years' rent which may be owing by the persons evicted nor any means of obtaining accurate information on the subject. The reply to the Question must, therefore, be in the negative.

  Payment of Increments to Irish School Teachers.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether teachers entitled to increment from 1st April have received payment of the same; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that more than three-fourths of the teachers have received their increments, and the remainder are in active process of being paid. The work, they inform me, has been exceptionally heavy this year, owing to the fact that this is the concluding year of the triennial period.

  Relief of Distress in Western Ireland.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state in detail the nature of the general scheme which has been prepared by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland with the object of preventing the recurrence of scarcity in the western districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The hon. Member appears to refer to the provisional
  986
  scheme, mentioned in my Answer of 5th December,†which has been prepared by the Department of Agriculture with the object of preventing the recurrence of scarcity in the western districts of Ireland. It would not be possible within the limits of an Answer to enter into the details of that scheme. The scheme, however, will be fully explained when officers of the Department give evidence before the Royal Commission on Congestion, and I am considering whether it, or parts of it, can with advantage be published in a separate form.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Daniel Murphy.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken to arrange with Mr. Thomas Wharton, of Dromin, Killorglin, Kerry, who at present occupies the farm formerly held by Mr. Murphy; and, if so, with what result.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inspector has yet visited the farm at present occupied by Mr. Thomas Wharton, of Dromin, Killorglin, Kerry, and formerly owned by Mr. Murphy, now of Tralee; and, if so, whether any arrangement has been come to with the grabber for the surrender of this farm and the reinstatement of the evicted tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce). The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received from Daniel Murphy an application for reinstatement in his fomerr which holding, is understood to be at present occupied by Thomas Wharton. The application has been referred to an inspector for inquiry, and, until his Report has been received the Commissioners will not be in a position to say what steps it may be possible to take in the matter.

  Grant for the Repair of Fenit Pier.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Works have inquired into the claims made by the Tralee Harbour Board for a grant for the repair of the Fenit Per, and for the reduction of the rate of interest

  987
  paid on the original loan; whether he is aware that the ratepayers have to pay nearly £5,000 per annum for this pier, and that interest at the rate of 4 per cent. is charged on the loan; and whether, seeing that the Treasury borrow money at less than 3 per cent., steps will be taken to reconstruct the loan and reduce the interest on the amount at present outstanding.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Board of Works inform me that the actual annual charge in repayment of this loan is £4,797 10s., but that the ratepayers receive some relief in respect of this charge from the surplus harbour receipts, which during the last three years have averaged £666. Under Section 58, sub-section 4 of The Local Government Act, 1898, the ratepayers in the guaranteeing area also receive relief from the Local Taxation Fund when the annual payment in respect of certain loans, of which this is one, exceeds 6d. in the £. I have considered the application from the Tralee Harbour Board, but, on the grounds stated to the hon. Member in my Answer of the 22nd March last, I cannot undertake to alter the terms of the loan.†

  Level Crossings on the Rosslare Line.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the public are in danger owing to carelessness or mismanagement on the part of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company at the level crossings on the Rosslare line; whether he is aware that sometimes the gates are shut against the train and sometimes against the public, and that the gates on the Mayglass crossing were shut on a recent Sunday which prevented the people going to mass; and if he will order the police to see that the public are allowed a right of way over the roads.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that complaints to the effect stated in the Question have been made to the local police. The police have reported the matter to the railway company, but they have no power to take the steps suggested in the Question. The matter
  988
  appears to be one which falls within the province of the Board of Trade. My right hon. friend informs me that no complaint upon the subject has reached him, but that if any complaint should be made to the Board of Trade it would receive due attention.

  Irish Education—Appointments of Junior Inspectors
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an advertisement, dated 23rd November, in which the Commissioners of National Education give notice that they will shortly appoint four junior inspectors; is he aware that under Rule 75 (b) teachers of exceptional ability and qualifications are eligible for appointment as sub-inspectors of national schools, and that under Rule 78 (b) teachers who have been continuously employed under educational authorities from the age of thirty-five years or under may be admitted up to forty-five years of age; can he explain why a new age limit of thirty-five years has now been inserted in this advertisement; and whether, in view of the impression created that the sub-inspectors would be recruited largely, if not entirely, from the ranks of the teachers, he will represent to the Commissioners that an age limit of forty-five should be inserted in place of thirty-five.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have seen the advertisement referred to in the Question. The Commissioners of National Education inform me that Rules 75 (b) and 78 (b) are correctly quoted in the Question, but the latter rule refers to the appointment of persons as teachers and not as inspectors. Junior inspectorships are open to national school teachers under Rule 75 (b); but the Commissioner desire to secure the services of young and active men, as the work is very laborious and involves much travelling and exposure to the weather. The maximum age limit, thirty-five years, has been fixed by the Commissioners after careful consideration of all the circumstances, and in view of the requirements of the public service, and they inform me that they are not prepared to alter it.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. E Rourke.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet made the inquiry, promised in May last, into the application of Mrs. Elizabeth Rourke to be restored to the evicted farm situate at Kilmacart, Hacketstown; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have referred the application in question to their inspector for inquiry, but his Report has not yet been received.

  Police Hut at Glanquin.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any reason for retaining the police hut at Glanquin, county Clare, and if he can state the length of service of Sergeant John Miller of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether he is about to retire on pension; whether, recently in the neighbourhood of Glanquin, a complaint was made that the police kept a man who had been arrested on the road all night; and whether inquiries will be made into these matters.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that he considers it to be still necessary to retain the hut at Glanquin, for the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 30th April.†Sergeant Miller, who is in charge of the hut, has had twenty-one years' service, and is about to retire on pension upon the ground of ill-health. I am informed that there is no foundation for the suggestion in the latter part of the Question, and that no complaint whatever has been made to that effect.

  Clerks of Irish Poor Law Unions.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board in Ireland has any control over the clerks of unions appointed by Poor Law guardians; and whether under the rules and practices it is com-
  990
  petent to a board of guardians to appoint an uncertificated bankrupt.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Under Article IV. of the Statutory Rules and Orders, 1901 (No. 621), clerks of unions are appointed by boards of guardians, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. There is no statutory provision against the appointment of an uncertificated bankrupt, but before the Local Government Board give their approval to any appointment they fully consider all the facts and circumstances of the case.

  Uneconomic Holdings on the Malone Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, on his own suggestion, followed by the request of the Estates Commissioners, a statement on behalf of twenty-nine occupants of holdings under £5 valuation on the Malone estate, twenty-one occupants of holdings larger but still uneconomic, and twenty men with no holdings, has been lodged with the Commissioners, praying them to verify by inspection these and other facts in the statement, and, in conformity with the Blake-Foster case, to refuse to sanction the sale unless the non-residential grass farms were sold for distribution; and if he will take steps to prevent the Act of 1903 being used to create a monopoly of land in the hands of two graziers to the detriment of these sixty poor families.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain why the Estates Commissioners propose to declare the congested portion of Colonel Malone's Baronstown property an estate, while excluding from it two grass farms which the grazier is not entitled to purchase under the Land Act of 1903, which are required for the relief of the congestion, and which would be surrendered for that purpose if the Commissioners refused to sanction the sale without them.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

  991
  Ireland, having regard to the fact that Colonel Malone's Baronstown estate was inspected before the present instructions for inspectors were drawn up, that consequently the inspection and report were not such as those instructions require, and did not include congestion or the material for relief of it, though both exist on the estate, that the Commissioners have been obliged to modify their original proposals based upon that Report, and that all the tenants, except two graziers, desire a fresh inspection to be made with special regard to congestion and the relief of it, will he ask the Commissioners to accede to this request.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that all the grass farms on Colonel Malone's estate, which the tenants want distributed, are non-residential and wholly untilled; that the graziers have never used them otherwise than as grass farms, and hold several similar grass farms besides large residential farms, and would probably surrender the farms in question for distribution among their poor neighbours if asked by the Commissioners; and will the Commissioners communicate with them with that object.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received, through the hon. Member, the statement referred to in the first Question, and have informed him in reply that, as regards the two holdings which are described in the Question as non-residential grass farms, one is excluded from the estate which is being sold, and an advance of £3,000 only is being sanctioned for the other holding, which is subject to a judicial tenancy. The Commissioners proceeded to say that they were of opinion that they should not refuse to declare the remaining holdings to be an estate because the excluded holdings are not surrendered for division, and they have no power to compel such surrender. I have fully dealt with the matters referred to in the three remaining Questions in my Answers to the numerous Questions on the subject which the hon. Member has already put. I have stated, on the Commissioners' authority, that the grass
  992
  farms on the estate do not consist of untenanted land. They are held on yearly tenancies or under lease, and the Commissioners hold that they have no power to compel such farms to be sold to them as untenanted land. The Commissioners have already had an inspection made of the estate, and do not consider any further inspection to be necessary. The declaration of particular lands as an estate is a matter solely for the judicial discretion of the Estates Commissioners, and it does not fall within the province of the Government to direct or advise the Commissioners as to the manner in which such judicial discretion is exercised.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Application of Thomas Prior.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if an application for reinstatement has been received from Thomas Prior, Liscroty, Garradice, county Leitrim, who was evicted from his holding in the townland of Stroke, in the vicinity of Ballinamore, county Leitrim; and, if so, what action will be taken in the matter, considering that the inspector who visited that district recently had the name of Mrs. Prior, who is sister-in-law to Thomas Prior, on his books, whereas Thomas Prior was tenant formerly, and his brother, now deceased, being only sub tenant to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received a joint application for reinstatement from Thomas and Sarah Prior, but cannot trace the receipt of a separate application from Thomas Prior. The case has been referred to an inspector for inquiry, and until his Report has been received and considered the Commissioners are unable to say what action they may take in the matter.

  Application of Mr. M Buckley of Faha.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have fully inquired into the application for reinstatement of Mr. Morty Buckley, of Faha, county Kerry, on the Morrogh Bernard estate; whether

  993
  they are aware that pressure is being used to force him to give up a portion of his claim; and whether they will refuse their sanction to the sale of the estate until his claim and that of the other evicted tenants is dealt with satisfactorily.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received their inspector's Report upon the application in question, but no agreement has yet been arrived at as to the price of the evicted holding, and the negotiations are still pending. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the alleged pressure brought to bear on Mr. Buckley. They are unable at present to say what action they may take as to sanctioning the sale of the estate. The matter is still under their consideration.

  Construction of Pier at Clifden, Connemara.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the promises given by successive Chief Secretaries since the passing of the Marine Works Act of 1902, that a sum of £3,000 was to be expended on a pier at Clifden, Connemara, and, in view of the rates already weighing heavily on the poor people of the Clifden union, now actually threatened with distress, consequent on the failure of the potato crop, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing the condition made for the construction of this pier by the Irish Government, viz., that a sum of £2,000 be subscribed out of the rates to supplement the proposed grant.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 5th December,†the Irish Government are desirous of making a grant from the Marine Works Fund for the construction of a pier at Clifden; but, under the Act, such a grant is conditional on the Treasury being satisfied that reasonable assistance in the provision of ancillary works is given by the local authorities. Upon this point the Government are awaiting the reply of the county council to the communication addressed to them on 31st October.

  Distribution of School Fees in Model Schools.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the school fees earned by the teachers in model schools are distributed to teachers who earn no such fees; and whether it is the National Board or the Treasury who are responsible for the present mode of distribution.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The school fees received from the pupils of model schools are distributed among the head teachers and assistants of all model schools according to a scheme of distribution, which I find was fully explained by my predecessor in answer to a Question on 3rd July, 1905.†The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in the case of one model school the teachers partake in the general distribution though no fees are received in that particular school. The scheme of distribution was arranged by the Commissioners with the approval of the Treasury.

  Police and Evicted Tenants at Abbeyfeale.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two policemen, stationed at Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, have taken two houses in the town from which the former tenants were evicted, and that this action on the part of the police in interfering in a dispute between the landlord and his tenants will create disturbance in the district; and whether, in the circumstances, he will take such steps as will cause the police to surrender these houses.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that a police sergeant, who was recently transferred to Abbeyfeale, has taken a house in the village from which, more than two years ago, a tenant, since deceased, was ejected for non-payment of rent. The house has since remained vacant. Three other policemen occupy houses belonging to the same landlord; but in none of these cases had the previous tenant been evicted. I am informed

  995
  that no dispute between the landlord and his tenants has arisen in connection with the particular ejectment referred to; but in any case the matter would not appear to be one for any interference on the part of the Government.

  Erection of Barracks at Windsor.
  MR. J. F. MASON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to proceed with the erection of barracks on the site lately acquired by the War Office adjoining the Victoria Barracks at Windsor.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Answer is in the affirmative, but the details are not yet definitely settled.

  Offer of Cavalry Training Ground in Scotland.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrew's Burghs): To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what answer was given to the offer of a park and twenty miles of country for cavalry to drill and manœuvre over in Scotland, free of cost or charge, this year; and also whether any other offers of a like nature were made.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether any offers of training ground for cavalry in Scotland for the ensuing year have been made; and whether he will give the names of the offerers.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what offers have been made by the Duke of Atholl and other landowners with regard to the temporary provision of a training ground for cavalry in Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I will answer these Questions together. It has been brought to my notice in connection with the Questions put by the hon. and gallant Member that an offer on behalf of the Duke of Atholl has been made verbally to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. The offer, I understand, is of facilities for training cavalry over an extent of the Duke's property, and I hope that if
  996
  the offer be renewed it may be accepted for next training season. Lord Lovat has also made a similar offer, and Lords Home and Wemyss have offered facilities for Militia and Volunteers respectively, It is perhaps needless for me to emphasise the sense of gratitude with which the Army Council have received those patriotic offers of much needed assistance.

  Home Government and Australian Legislation.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: To ask the Under-Secretary o f State for the Colonies whether the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia communicated with the Home Government prior to declaring his assent to The Australian Industries Preservation Act, 1906; and whether, in view of the effect of the provisions of this Act upon the interests of traders, manufacturers, shipowners, and others in the United Kingdom carrying on, or seeking to carry on, business with persons in the Commonwealth, he can undertake that, in the future, the provisions of proposed laws passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, which appear likely materially to affect the trade interests of the United Kingdom, shall not receive the assent of the Governor-General until an opportunity has been taken by the Home Government to elicit the opinions of the commercial community in this country upon the probable effect on their interests of such proposed legislation.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Governor-General did not consult the Secretary of State before assenting to The Australian Industries Preservation Act, 1900, and he was not required under his instructions to do so. The Secretary of State cannot possibly give the undertaking suggested by the hon. Member, as any such instruction to the Governor-General would be incompatible with the principles of responsible government under the constitution of the Commonwealth.

  Position of Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that clerks to surveyors of taxes are not in the

  997
  service of the Board of Inland Revenue he can say why the inspectors of such Board give these clerks orders when of inspection; and whether he will state if these clerks are supposed to take orders from servants of the Board, in view of the fact that they are personal clerks of the surveyors.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) There may be cases in which an inspector finds that the work in a surveyor's office is not being properly done, and it is then his duty to draw attention thereto. The fact that a clerk in the office is not directly in the service of the Board does not preclude the inspector from giving instructions as to the proper methods of conducting business.

  Treatment of Temporary Clerks in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has been fully informed as to the treatment of three of the temporary clerks appointed as abstractors in Ireland since November 1902; whether he is aware that the deduction of 10 per cent. in the case, at least, of two of the clerks whose salaries were reduced was specifically enforced for pension purposes; will he explain why it is now sought to imply that the reductions were due to considerations of merit; if he will state what provision, if any, was made for superannuation of the four temporary clerks whose salaries were not reduced on appointment; if he is aware that these four clerks were appointed abstractors subsequent to the date of the appointment of the three whose salaries were reduced; if he is aware that the salaries of those who suffered a reduction were already less than the salaries of those who suffered no reduction; and if, considering the small number affected, he will adjust their salaries and refund a deduction which is unprecedented and has not since been enforced.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I do not think I can with advantage add anything to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Connemara Division of Galway of the 23rd ultimo.†

  Women Clerks and Typists on Royal Commission Work.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the number of women clerks or typists employed, in connection with Royal Commissions, and paid out of public funds, during the present year; what rate or rates of wages have been or are paid them per day, per week, and for overtime; whether they are engaged and paid directly or through the agency of typewriting offices; and, in the latter case, will he state the names of the contractors.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The usual practice is to place an allowance for clerical assistance at the disposal of the secretary to a Royal Commission, the amount of the allowance depending on the nature and amount of the work required for the Commission. The persons employed under this allowance are engaged by the secretary and their rates of remuneration are fixed by him. According to the latest accounts rendered by the Commissions, the number of women clerks and typists employed appears to be ten, at rates of pay ranging from £1 1s. to £2 a week. I may add that claims for overtime on the part of the staff of temporary Commissions are not recognised, except under very exceptional circumstances.

  Position of Senior Assistant Clerks at Board of Education, South Kensington.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that among the senior assistant clerks in the Education Department at South Kensington, there are certain of them of long service who have reached the maximum salary if their class, £150 per annum; that they have appealed for an improvement in their positions and have been informed that the only means open is by promotion to the second division is opportunity offers; whether the Treasury have recently refused to sanction a recommendation from the Department to promote certain senior assistant clerks to the second division and what prospect is before these men; and whether any encouragement can be offered them by conceding personal

  999
  allowances of the same nature as already sanctioned by the Treasury in the Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The various statements in the Question give, I think, a somewhat misleading impression of what has happened. It appears that the number of assistant clerks who have in recent years been promoted, in the South Kensington branch of the Board's offices, into the second division is very high in proportion to the men taken into the second division by open competition, and certain proposals made by the Board of Education this year for promotions of this kind were on this ground not accepted by the Treasury. In reply to the last paragraph of the Question, the few additions of salary, to which, I presume, the hon. Member's Question refers, were granted by special Treasury sanction, in recognition of special duties performed by certain assistant clerks. There are not at the present time any other duties of such a special nature as would justify the payment of further additional sums of the like kind to any of the assistant clerks in question.

  Allowances for School Repairs—Cloak Booms and Out Offices.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether cloak rooms and out offices are excluded in the calculation of allowances for repairs under any circumstances; and, if so, can he provide any arrangement for their inclusion seeing that they are a necessary portion of the school premises.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In matters such as those referred to in the Question, which are likely to come before the Board of Education for judicial determination in particular cases on appeals under Section 7 (3) of The Education Act, 1902, it is highly undesirable to make any general pronouncement. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I have no power to provide any arrangement which would be contrary to law.

  Consular Reports.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what new arrangements are being made, or are to be made, for editing, issuing, and circulating Consular Reports on the condition of trade abroad.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It has been arranged that the Board of Trade shall co-operate with the Foreign Office from the beginning of next year in the editing of the Annual Consular Reports. Every effort will be made to expedite their issue as far as possible. I may add that Consular Officers have been instructed by the Foreign Office to report at once (using the telegraph where necessary) any matters of immediate commercial importance which may come to their knowledge, and information received in pursuance of this instruction will either be communicated direct to those whose interests are concerned or utilised in the weekly Board of Trade Journal.

  Kensal Rise Station—Dangerous Platform.
  MR. GIBB: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the danger to passengers at the Kensal Rise station arising from the difference of level between the platforms and the floor of the railway carriages; and whether he can do anything to have the danger removed.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade have been in correspondence with the London and North Western Railway Company on this subject for sometime past, and they were informed by the company on the 29th ultimo that materials for the raising of the platforms had been ordered, and that the work would be commenced as soon as these were received.

  Allowance to Abstainers in the Navy in lieu of Rum Rations.
  MR. MICKLEM: To ask the Secretary to the

  1001
  Admiralty whether it is the practice to pay to abstainers in the Navy a sum of 1s. 6d. per month in lieu of the ordinary rum rations; and whether, with a view to promoting temperance in the Navy, he will consider the desirability of increasing such payment to 2d. a day or 5s. a month.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is the practice to pay men on the temperance list in His Majesty's ships and establishments a commuted money allowance of 1s. 5d. a month in lieu of spirit. The question whether any change in the existing arrangements is desirable with the view of promoting temperance is at present under the consideration of the Committee which is dealing with canteen and victualling arrangements generally. It may be added that the particular change advocated by the hon. Member would involve an extra expense of over £30,000 a year, with a proportionate increase for every additional man placed on the temperance list by means of these incentives.

  Closing of the Minch to Trawlers.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the law officers of the land are now of opinion that the Minch can be closed against trawlers without the consent of of the signatories to the North Sea Convention; and, if not, will he consider the expediency of urging the Foreign Office to communicate with the signatories to the Convention.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. With regard to the second part I am unable to give any such undertaking as is desired.

  Loans to Small Holders in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that the vast majority of the 20,839 agricultural holdings in the Highland crofting counties with rentals not in excess of £30 were brought into cultivation and the buildings erected by the tenants or their forefathers without any expense whatever to the landlords, will he consider the expediency of arranging for tenants of this class to have a first claim for loans under the
  1002
  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, for the purpose of improving or rebuilding the houses on their holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The subject of loans will, no doubt, require consideration; and I can, at present give no further indication of policy in regard to it.

  Increase of Salary for Poplar Out-door Medical Officers.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the recommendation of the Poplar Guardians, dated October last, as to the increase of the salaries of their out-door medical officers; whether this recommendation has been replied to; and, seeing that in one instance at least the work of the medical officer has been trebled during the last seven years, and that this officer is receiving, at present, less salary than was then paid, does he propose to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Local Government Board have before them the proposal referred to, and a communication on the subject will be sent to the guardians in the course of a few days.

  Duties of Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes in Ireland.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the work of copying the assessments under Schedules D and E for income-tax purposes in Ireland, and making out the notices of assessment to be sent to the income-taxpayers, is done by the clerks of the surveyors of taxes who are not civil servants; do they also file and record the income-tax returns rendered by the public; is he aware that such clerks deal with and report on applications in Form 48; and, when they are employed in so doing, will he say whether steps are taken to keep from them the details of the income of the persons making application on Form 48.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Answer to the first two Questions is in

  1003
  the affirmative. Form 48 is a form used for communication between one surveyor and another. The duties of the clerks in connection with, this form are of a purely routine character. On the general question of the extent to which the clerks have access to documents of a confidential character and the policy of the Board of Inland Revenue in the matter, I cannot add anything to the reply given by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury to a Question by the hon. Member on the 14th November last.†

  Distribution of State Patronage in India.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the repeated allegations regarding the unequal distribution of State patronage between the different communities of India, he will call for a comparative return of officers in the service of the State in the gazetted and non-gazetted appointments above the menial grades in the two provinces of Bengal, in the Punjaub, Sind, and the Madras Presidency.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The statistics required up to 1904 were published in the Gazette of India in May of that year. A copy of the Gazette will be found in the Library of the House.

  Dismissal of Trimbak Paranjpi.
  SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the sudden dismissal, after twenty-nine years of approved service, of Trimbak Ganesh Paranjpi, extra assistant commissioner and magistrate of the first class in the Central Provinces of India; whether Paranjpi, was suspended by telegraphic orders, and publicly disgraced for several months, on the statement of a man who subsequently denied ever having made it, and which was eventually found to be untrue; whether he is aware that Paranjpi was refused copies of important documents used against him and even the names of his accusers; whether, considering that Paranjpi was a gazetted officer in the Provincial Indian Service, and as such, before being dismissed, was entitled, under Section 2 of Act XXXVII. of 1850 of the Indian Legislature to a
  1004
  formal and public inquiry, he will satisfy himself whether such an inquiry was held before Paranjpi was deprived of his livelihood and sent adrift in his old age; and whether, if satisfied that no such public inquiry was made, he will direct that such an inquiry be instituted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) This case has been carefully investigated only a month or two ago in connection with a memorial addressed to the Secretary of State by Mr. Paranjpi. That officer was suspended by the Chief Commissioner in September, 1902, in consequence of an investigation into his conduct with reference to the acquisition of certain lands in Berar. On the matter being reported to them, the Government of India did not consider that the case called for an inquiry under Act XXXVII. of 1850, but they ordered a statement of charges to be framed and a formal investigation to be made into them under the procedure laid down in 1879. This was done, and, after careful consideration of the evidence in the case, the Chief Commissioner was of opinion that the charges were substantiated, and he recommended that Mr. Paranjpi should be dismissed from the service of the Government. In his opinion and recommendation the Government of India concurred. Mr. Paranjpi has had every opportunity of meeting the charges made against him and has failed to do so. I have therefore, informed the Government of India that I see no reason for interfering with their orders in the matter.

  The Vizamgam-Malia Railway.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a memorial from the Cutchi public of Bombay, urging that the proposed Vizamgam-Malia railway line should pass through the territory of the Rao of Cutch; has the Report on the reconnaissance of the two alternative routes yet been received; and, if so, will he state when a decision as to the route to be adopted is likely to be arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The memorial referred to has not yet been received through the Government of India, not have I yet received the

  1005
  Report on the reconnaissance of the alternative routes.

  Loan to Portrush Harbour Company.
  MR. GLENDINNING: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Portrush Harbour Company have made application to the Irish Government for a loan of £5,000 to enable them to carry out the necessary works at the harbour for the accommodation of the passenger traffic from Ardrossan to Portrush; that the harbour has been kept open for many years for the public convenience by the directors of the company personally guaranteeing loans for dredging purposes; that the Glasgow and Londonderry Steamship Company are prepared to put on a fast passenger steamer, capable of doing the double trip in one day, if the harbour accommodation is made suitable; and having regard to the advantage to Portrush and the North of Ireland of the passenger traffic from Scotland, if the Government will facilitate the company in obtaining the loan.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Portrush Harbour Company have applied to the Irish Government for assistance in obtaining a loan of £6,000 to pay off existing liabilities and effect improvements upon the harbour. I believe there is good reason to expect that a much better steamboat service with a Scotch port will be provided if an adequate improvement of the pier is made. The Irish Government are at present in communication with the Public Works Loan Board with the object, if possible, of aiding the harbour company in their efforts to obtain a loan, the object being one which they deem desirable in the interests of Portrush and the neighbourhood.

  Labourers Cottages in the Tarbert Division.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say how many labourers' cottages are proposed to be built and how many contracted for in the Tarbert electoral division (North Kerry) under the last
  1006
  scheme proposed by the Listowel Rural District Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The erection of seven labourers' cottages in the Tarbert electoral division was authorised by Order of the Local Government Board issued in 1905. The Board understand from the clerk of the rural district council that no contract has yet been made in respect of these seven cottages. The reason as regards six of the sites is that the land is being sold under the Land Purchase Acts, but has not yet been vested in the purchaser. The owner's title, therefore, is not legally established. The seventh case is to be included in the next contract.

  Sale of the Garvagh Estate, East Cavan.
  (Mr. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can say if the sale of the Garvagh estate in East Cavan is yet completed; if not, what is the cause of the delay; what steps are being taken in connection with the reinstatement of evicted tenants; and can more than one year's rent be added to the purchase money.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the originating application for the sale of this estate was lodged with them in January last, and the case has not yet reached its turn to be dealt with. The applications of the evicted tenants have been referred to an inspector for inquiry. It has recently been judicially decided that one year's arrears of rent, and no more, may be added to the purchase money; but the Commissioners understand that an appeal from that decision is to be taken.

  Sale of Holdings on the Crosbie Estate, North Kerry.
  MR, FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether representations to the Estates Commissioners have been made by Mr. James Murphy, solicitor, Tralee, in letters dated 9th December, 1904, and 24th January, 1905, on behalf of Messrs. John Egan, Michael Fitzgerald, Garnett Fitzgerald, and John O'Donnell, tenants

  1007
  on the estate of Lindsay Talbot Crosbie, of Ardfert, North Kerry, asking that the sale of their holdings to them should not be sanctioned until an inspector visits their land in connection with the flooding thereof; if so, whether the inspector has visited the farms; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they received communications from Mr. Murphy to the effect stated in the Question, and caused their inspector to visit the holding and report to them upon the matter. The Commissioners have since been in communication with the vendor upon the subject, but have not yet arrived at a final decision.

  Relations at Corry No. 2 National School, Belfast.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Commissioners of National Education can state the number of years that the Rev. James Dewar has been manager of Corry No. 2 National School, Belfast, of which his sister is teacher, in violation of the rules of the Commissioners; whether Mr. E. P. Dewar is still senior inspector of the circuit in which the school is; and what steps the Commissioners propose to take to secure the observance of their rules.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the Rev. J. Dewar has been manager of the school mentioned for the past twenty-five years. Mr. E. P. Dewar is still senior inspector of the circuit in which the school is situated. The Commissioners have written to the Rev. Mr. Dewar informing him that the arrangement by which he is the manager of the national school of which his sister is the teacher must cease forthwith.

  Qualifications for Irish Schools Junior Inspectors.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what qualifications the Commissioners of National Education require of candidates outside the ranks of national teachers in the contemplated
  1008
  appointment of four junior inspectors; and what steps do they intend taking to insure that such candidates will have practical experience of the work which they will be called upon to superintend and administer.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they consider a sound general education and scholastic experience to be desirable in candidates for junior inspectorships. When the Commissioners have the full list of candidates before them the will select for appointment those whom they consider most suitable, and, if necessary, will submit them to such tests as may be required to prove their efficiency.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Disturbances at Portsmouth-Admiralty Minute.
  MR. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty a Question of which he had given private notice—whether there was any justification or precedent for the disciplinary order "On the knee" given to Stoker Moody.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Edmund Robertson, Dundee): I will read the substance of the Admiralty minute on the subject. To prevent misapprehension I must premise that Stoker Moody was not charged with refusing to obey the "On the knee" order, but with having on two occasions incited others to take part in disturbances.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Did not the disturbances occur after the order "On the knee" was given?
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Minute will show. The minute says:—
  "My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have reviewed the circumstances and considered the evidence adduced by the Courts-martial in connection with the disturbances at the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, on 4th and 5th November, 1906, and have come to the following conclusions and decisions:—I. It is established by the evidence that the first disturbance (on 4th November) partook of the nature of an unpremeditated outbreak, to which the following causes appear to have

  1009
  contributed—(1) a feeling of resentment on the part of the stokers caused by the misuse of the drill order "On the knee"; (2) the retention of the stokers on parade on the Sunday afternoon during rain, and the subsequent want of judgment shown in dealing with them; (3) the want of proper supervision and control in the canteen. II. The second disturbance (on Monday, 5th November) was of a more serious nature, inasmuch as a contemporaneous riot on the part of civilians and other persons took place immediately outside the barracks. This disturbance would not have occurred had those in authority taken precautionary measures to prevent a recurrence of the disorder of the previous day. No such measures were taken. III. Their Lordships are compelled with extreme regret to express their conviction that Commodore the Hon. Walter G. Stopford failed to deal with the disturbances with firmness and resource; they have, therefore, decided to relieve him in his appointment. Commander Sidney R. Drury-Lowe, as second-in-command of the barracks, has failed in the performance of his duties as executive officer, and will be superseded. Commander Francis H. Mitchell (commander for gunnery duties failed) to exercise proper supervision by allowing a drill order to be used for other than drill purposes, and he will be relieved in his appointment. Lieutenant B. St. G. Collard has been tried by Court-martial and convicted of an act to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline, and the sentence of reprimand has been noted. IV. In reviewing the proceedings and sentences of the Courts-martial held on the eleven stokers, their Lordships are legally advised that the charges were in order, and with the one exception of Stoker James Day the proceedings regular, and the sentences within the powers of the Court. In consideration of all the circumstances, and also of the evidence given at the subsequent Courts-martial, they have, however, decided in the case of First-class Stoker Moody to modify the sentence by reducing it from five years to three years' penal servitude. They have also decided, having regard to the fact that one of the three charges against Stoker Day was not clearly proved, to remit six months of the imprisonment awarded. V. Directions have been given for general guidance that the drill order 'On the knee' is not to be used for other than drill purposes."
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsubsequently asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the widespread feeling on the subject, steps would be taken to have the undue sentence imposed on Stoker Moody reduced.
  THE PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Sir H. Campbell Bannerman, Stirling Burghs)said he understood a sentence of three years imprisonment was regarded as much lighter than one of two years imprisonment with hard labour, or oven than one of simple imprisonment for two
  1010
  years. But at any rate sentences of this kind were subject to revision by the authorities after a certain time, and that opened up the possibility, at any rate, of a more lenient term.

  Dockyard Reports.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received the Report of the Committee which recently visited the mechanicians' training establishment at Devonport, the cadets' training establishments at Dartmouth and Osborne, and the boy artificers' establishments at Portsmouth and Chatham; and, if so, if he will state the nature of such Reports, and lay them upon the Table of the House for the information of Members.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Four hon. Members who are specially interested in questions of mechanical training and general education in the Navy, at the invitation of the Admiralty, visited the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth and the training establishments at Devonport and Portsmouth. They did not form a Committee and had no reference, and it is not proposed to publish the private notes and suggestions which they subsequently sent to me.

  The Artillery Volunteers.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can name a definite day when the armed impotence of the Artillery Volunteers of Great Britain, referred to by the last Liberal Prime Minister, shall cease.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane, Haddington): I am afraid that I cannot fix a date for this desirable consummation, but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that I will do all in my power to accelerate it as much as possible.

  Distinctive Marks for Officers.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the official circular of Field-Marshal Earl Roberts when commanding-in-chief in South Africa, dated 5th February 1900, urging that the extended formation of modern war made it highly desirable that officers should wear some distinguishing mark on the

  1011
  back of the collar so as to be recognisable by their own generals and men, and to the fact that this view is supported by distinguished officers from active experience, the War Office direction of 30th November, 1906, that the flash allowed to the officers, warrant officers, and staff sergeants of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers on their service dress for distinguished services should be cut off, may be reconsidered, bearing in mind that the public is put to no expense in the matter, and in view of the interest of the Welsh people in this distinction.
  MR. HALDANE: The "flash" peculiar to the Royal Welsh Fusiliers has never been allowed on the service dress. It is authorised for wear with the tunic only. As soon as this addition to the service dress of the officers, warrant officers, and staff sergeants was brought to notice, instructions were issued for its discontinuance. It is not proposed to reconsider these instructions, the main principle underlying the use of service dress being that it should be universal, and as plain and inconspicuous as possible. No distinctive mark on the back of the collar was adopted either during the Boer war, or when the present dress was approved while Lord Roberts was Commander-in-Chief. In no foreign army is such a distinctive mark worn on the back.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1834 it was officially directed that this badge be worn, and in view of the feeling which prevails on this subject in the principality of Wales will he reconsider the matter.
  MR. HALDANE: In the days of King William IV. there was no smokeless powder. War is carried on under very different conditions in modern days.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: But the badge is to be worn behind the collar not in front.
  MR. HALDANE: That is quite true. But it is extremely undesirable to establish any distinctions. We now seek to secure simplicity.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Do you intend then to take away the kilts from the Scottish regiments?
  MR. HALDANE: I have heard nothing as to that.

  Tidworth Barracks.
  *MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the Tidworth barracks are at present occupied, as to the five blocks already utilised, by about 3,000 officers and men together with their wives and families, numbering between 600 and 700 women and children; whether these numbers will soon be increased by the occupation of the three remaining blocks; and whether, in view of the fact that there is no hospital, no school, and no church or chapel available for this large population, and that these requirements were provided for in the original scheme of the late Government, he will, in view of the remote and lonely position of this new permanent military establishment state what steps the Government propose to take to supply these deficiences in the interest of the material and moral welfare of the Army.
  MR. HALDANE: The numbers of the occupants of these barracks are approximately those stated. Five blocks are occupied, and two more blocks when occupied will increase the garrison roughly to 6,500. As regards the hospital accommodation both temporary and permanent, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for the Andover Division of Hampshire on the 6th ultimo and the 5th instant†to the effect that a scheme for hospital accommodation has been approved and the plans are being pressed forward to enable the work to be commenced early next year. The general officer commanding is utilising spare barrack rooms for schools pending the provision of suitable buildings. No funds are at present available for erecting a church there.
  *MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in his opinion the provision of rooms in a barrack not constructed for the purpose is tantamount to providing a satisfactory

  1013
  hospital; secondly, whether similar accommodation for a large number of children constitutes a satisfactory school; and thirdly, whether he has quite come to the determination that no place of worship of any kind shall be provided for this large population in a permanent military establishment? Also whether this state of things is consistent with the policy indicated by the right hon. Gentleman's recent appointment of a large committee to look after the spiritual and moral welfare of the Army?
  MR. HALDANE: Everything is quite consistent. We are building a special hospital, the schools can be easily provided in the spare barracks, while as to the church the troops are now worshipping in a hall, which I admit has not had much decoration.
  *MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Are not these parade services, and are women and children allowed to attend them?
  MR. HALDANE: There is sufficient accommodation for the purpose, although I do not say it is very gorgeous. In order of urgency, however, the hospital stands first, the schools second, and the military church third, and they will be dealt with accordingly.

  The Scots Greys.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many men of the Scots Greys are recruited from Scotland; and if the presence of English and Irish recruits is due to the linked-regiment system, under which recruits are taken in England and Ireland for the corps of Dragoons, some of whom go to the Scots Greys, where they remain until drafts are called for for the 1st Royal Dragoons.
  MR. HALDANE: Out of an establishment of 687 non-commissioned officers and men there are now 504 non-commissioned officers and men serving in this regiment who were enlisted in Scotland. Recruits for the Royal Dragoons are in the first instance posted to the Scots Greys and remain with them until sent out as drafts. Recruits for the Scots Greys, are only taken from other commands than the Scottish when the supply from the latter source is inadequate.

  Piershill Barracks.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the removal of the Scots Greys from Scotland is to be attributed to the insanitary condition of Piershill Barracks, or to consideration of Army efficiency.
  MR. HALDANE: As I informed my hon. friend. the Member for the Kirkcaldy Boroughs, on the 6th instant,†the withdrawal of this regiment from Piershill is due to the unsuitable character, for such a unit, of those barracks. Apart from the defects in sanitation shown in the Reports lately laid on the Table of the House (Cd. 2996), they are too small to accommodate a cavalry regiment.
  MR. WALTER LONGasked whether, having regard to the statements which appeared in the newspapers on Saturday as to the insanitary condition of those barracks, the right hon. Gentleman had satisfied himself that there was no risk to the health of either officers or men from the regiment's being retained there until he was able to make other arrangements.
  MR. HALDANE: We will move them from insanitary quarters as quickly as possible. We think there is no substantial risk. We do not like retaining any regiment in barracks in the condition in which Piershill barracks are.

  The Coldstream Guards—Deaths at Caterham.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Frederick Henry Geall, of Eastbourne, a new recruit, joined the Coldstream Guards at Caterham, Surrey; that a few clays after joining the Army he died on 13th November, 1906; and that the death certificate gave the causes of death as septicæmia (three days), heart failure and septic tonsilitis; will he say if this recruit had been examined and found healthy and fit for service, and if upon joining he was vaccinated; if so, will he say who performed the operation and from where the vaccine matter was obtained; if any cause for the septicæmia has been ascertained, other than vaccination; and if the vaccine used in this

  1015
  case was matter derived from a diseased calf, and such as often contains flesh-destroying cocci.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the death of Private Alfred Percy Morriss, at Caterham, on the 23rd November, who was a fine healthy man only just enlisted in the Guards, who was vaccinated and died shortly afterwards, with symptoms similar to those of Private Geall, who was certified to have died of blood poisoning; and will he investigate this case, and ascertain the source of the matter used for vaccination.
  MR. HALDANE: I would refer my hon. friend to the Answers I gave to the hon. Member for West St. Pancras on Monday and Tuesday last,†which embodied full medical reports on the deaths of these two recruits. All men on enlistment undergo a most searching medical examination, and are not accepted unless they pass it. The vaccination was performed by an officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps at Caterham; and the vaccine was obtained from the Army Vaccine Institute, Aldershot. The lymph at this institute is always preserved in glycerine, and is not issued until the calf has been found healthy on post mortem examination, and the lymph shown to be clean by plate culture. The other vaccinations made from lymph taken from the two calves used for vaccinating privates Geall and Morriss have proved quite satisfactory.
  MR. LUPTON: Where is this lymph obtained? Is there any systematic examination of it? Mr. HALDANE: At Aldershot we have an Army Vaccine Institute, which makes a scientific investigation of the lymph before it is used. The lymph is kept in glycerine.
  MR. LUPTON: Where is it obtained?
  MR. HALDANE: From the calf.
  MR. LUPTON: Have they calves at Aldershot or some other place?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, we have proper and sufficient calves.
  MR. LUPTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman discover any other cause for blood poisoning in these cases than vaccination?
  MR. HALDANE: Judging from the fact that many other soldiers have been successfully vaccinated, we gather that the deaths were due to something else than the vaccine.
  MR. LUPTON: What was it produced the blood poisoning?
  MR. SPEAKER: How can the right hon. Gentleman answer that?

  Ballater Military Church Parade.
  LORD R. CECILI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, on several occasions between the 26th August and the 14th October last, a number of soldiers stationed at Ballater, who were entered as belonging to the Church of England, were invited by their superiors to attend the Presbyterian church instead of their own; and, if so, what was the reason for this proceeding.
  MR. HALDANE: The officer commanding the King's guard of honour at Ballater in August last informed his men that, while he had no desire to influence them one way or the other, he would raise no objection to their attending the parade service in the parish church, should they wish to do so. As the men attended the Presbyterian service of their own free will, there seems to be no objection to the course taken by the officer commanding.

  The Disbanded Battalions.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the nine battalions to be disbanded by order of the Army Council, though nominally 20,000, have only a total strength of 6,107 men of all ranks, and that 4,184 men have been transferred to other battalions or other regiments or to the staff; and, if so, whether he will state the approximate amount of reduction in cost as a result of this reduction in actual numbers.
  MR. HALDANE: As I informed the hon. Baronet the Member for West Marylebone, on the 3rd instant,†the strength of the nine battations on 1st September last was 6,167, the total establishment being 7,390, and not 20,000. The 20,000 comprises other details. Though for the present the officers and men are mainly being transferred to other battalions or regiments, so that the immediate loss of actual strength is but small, the ultimate reduction in the cost of the Army will be the full cost of the nine battalions, viz.:—about £500,000 per annum. It is impracticable to give any figure for the saving by diminution in actual strength of the Army, owing to these disbandments, because that diminution is progressive, varying from day to day.

  Mauritius Garrison.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why the garrison of Mauritius increased from 886 men in 1894–5 to 3,605 men in 1904–5; and whether he can further explain why nine-tenths of the total cost, £278,841, of maintaining this local force is borne by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom.
  MR. HALDANE: The garrison was increased as stated in accordance with the views obtaining at that time regarding the defence of the island. As regards the contribution paid by the Colony, the amount depends on the financial ability of its inhabitants to meet the cost of its government and defence. I should naturally be glad if circumstances made it possible to bring the cost of the garrison and the amount of the contribution more into accord.

  Maryhill Barracks, Glasgow.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the cavalry now stationed at Glasgow will be removed when the Scots Greys leave Edinburgh, and, if so, when other troops will be quartered at Maryhill Barracks.
  MR. HALDANE: In the ordinary course the squadron of Scots Greys, now on detachment at Maryhill from Edinburgh, would leave Glasgow when the
  1018
  regiment left Scotland. An infantry battalion is already stationed at Maryhill Barracks, although only the advanced details have arrived there as yet, the headquarters being due to arrive from Aden on the 29th instant.

  British Indian Emigrants to East Africa.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House what terms the Protector of Emigrants in British East Africa has boon instructed to offer to agricultural emigrants from British India; whether such emigrants are exempted from the operation of the Indian Emigration Acts; and whether British Central Africa should also be included in the list of countries to which emigration from India is allowed.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill, Manchester, N.W): The Indians who are being invited to emigrate to the East Africa Protectorate are being offered land grants and other assistance to enable them to settle as free cultivators; consequently the Indian Emigration Acts, which relate only to emigrants leaving India under an agreement or indenture, do not apply to them. As regards the British Central Africa Protectorate, there is nothing to prevent the voluntary immigration of natives of British India.

  Hong Kong—Poll-Tax on British Passengers.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that British vessels leaving Hong Kong for the Philippine Islands, or any other possession of the United States, are boarded in Hong Kong before sailing by a representative of the United States consul general, who exacts from every British passenger what is locally known as a poll-tax, and assumes to order out of the ship any person, whether a passenger or a member of the crew, whom he may consider undesirable; whether this taxation of British subjects in a British port by the servants of a foreign power has any and, if so, what legal sanction or authority; and whether he will take immediate steps to put an end to this practice.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am aware that vessels leaving Hong Kong for American ports are examined by medical officers, attached to the United States Consulate, who are responsible to their Government for the proper disinfection of luggage and passengers. The functions performed by those officers are not enjoined by British law, but in the interests of international public health and convenience their usefulness is recognised by His Majesty's Government. I am not aware that any other officers attached to the United States Consulate exercise similar functions, or that any poll-tax is levied; but if the hon. Member will supply me with any information which is in his possession, inquiries will be made.

  Johannesburg Mines—Recruitment of Labour in Portuguese Africa.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why, as an inquiry is now pending into the whole question of the recruitment of Kaffir labour for the Johannesburg mines in the Portuguese territory, it was thought expedient to put pressure on the Portuguese Government to make effective the licence for recruiting natives granted to the group of mines controlled by Mr. Joseph Benjamin Robinson; and whether under the circumstances, the Government will withdraw the pressure and suspend any action under this licence until the results of the inquiry are known.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The reason is obvious. The Robinson group of mines naturally expected that the licence issued was issued to enable them to recruit effectively. His Majesty's Government see no sufficient reason for departing from the attitude they have taken up in the matter up to the present.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by the shareholders in all the other groups of mines working at Johannesburg at the privilege granted to the Robinson group of mines alone to recruit Kaffir labour in the Portuguese territory; and on what ground the group named was especially favoured, to the detriment of the shareholders in all the other groups of mines.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am aware that those representing the interests of other mines are dissatisfied. The Robinson group applied on the ground that they wished to dissociate themselves from the Witwatersrand Native Labour Asssociation, and it was only at a later date that the other groups applied for separate facilities and proposed to break up the association, after the policy had been adopted of inviting the Portuguese Government to grant facilities for the Robinson group, and to accept the principle of holding an inquiry before any further change was made.

  Local Option in the Colonies.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the forthcoming Government Licensing Bill he will take further steps to secure without delay from those Colonies which have not yet replied to him the information necessary to complete the promised Return of the local option provisions in Colonial liquor laws, so that it may be ready for the use of Members by the beginning of next session.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Colonial Governments from whom replies are still required have been again reminded by telegraph, and when the necessary information has been received every effort will be made to give the Return with as little further delay as possible.
  MR. LEIF JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the House has this information? It is very important.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I most earnestly desire it shall be given, but I can only ask the Colonies for information.

  Mr. Howard Pim.
  Mr. DUNN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Howard Pimhas been dismissed from his position as auditor of certain gold-mining companies because he declined to give an undertaking not to contest a seat in the legislative Assembly of the Transvaal Colony to be elected pursuant to His Majesty's Order in Council just issued; whether Mr. Schumacher, chairman of

  1021
  the Jumpers Deep (one of the companies referred to), admitted, at a meeting held yesterday, that the sole reason of Mr. Pim's dismissal was the political reason; whether the Municipal Election Ordinance, 1903, as adapted in the Letters Patent to elections for the Legislative Assembly, renders such intimidation a criminal offence, and, if so, will the necessary steps be taken to insure prosecution and, if such.Municipal Election Ordinance, 1903, fails to deal with intimidation of the nature referred to, whether any, and, if any, what, steps will be taken to insure that the ensuing elections shall be free from intimidation and corruption.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen statements of the kind referred to in the Press, but no official information on the subject has been received. Inquiry shall be made.

  British West Africa Produce Company.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what course the Colonial Office, or the authorities of the Colony of Sierra Leone, have taken or intend to take with regard to the twenty concessions from paramount native chiefs and others extending over 4,000 miles, as stated in the prospectus of the British West Africa Produce Company, under the name of Sir Frederick Cardew, therein described as a former governor; whether any correspondence as regards those concessions took place between the said company or the original owners of these concessions and the Colonial Office or the Government of Sierra Leone; whether an antecedent sanction of that Government or the Colonial Office is usually applied for in such matters to make such concessions valid; and whether the doubts as to the validity of these particular concessions entertained by the legal advisors of the Colonial Office had been expressed at the time when the paramount chiefs sold the concessions or when the prospectus of the British West Africa Produce Company, Limited, was issued to the, public in Great Britain.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In February, 1905, Mr. E. Brunner, the then holder of these concessions, wrote to the Secretary
  1022
  of State asking that certain amendments, favourable to the interpretation of the concessions, might be made in the law of Sierra Leone, and that certificates of their validity in regard to agricultural rights might be granted. The late Secretary of State for the Colonies replied that he was unable to comply with this request. There has been no other correspondence between the Colonial Office and the concessionaires. Lord Elgin has no information of any correspondence having passed between the concessionaires and the Colonial Government; but it appears that in October, 1904, an application was made to the Concessions Court of Sierra Leone to have the concessions declared valid by that Court, which however, was withdrawn without any pronouncement being made by the Court upon them. Concessions purporting to grant rights in or over land, minerals, precious stones, timber, rubber, or other products of the soil, require the validation of the Concessions Court of the colony, but not the sanction of the Governor or of the Colonial Office. No opinion had been given on these concessions by the legal advisers of the Secretary of State at the time when the chief sold them or when the prospectus of the company named was issued. The Governor of Sierra Leone will, as I stated in reply to a former Question on this subject, be instructed to watch the operations, if any, of the company, with a view to preventing any illegalities or abuses.

  Compulsory Labour on Crown Lands in the Transvaal.
  MR. MOLTENO: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of Stats for the Colonies whether the liability to render compulsory labour, which was imposed in 1903 upon all the adult native population, men and lads residing on the Crown lands of the Transvaal, was imposed by Ordinance or by an administrative act of the Executive Council; whether the imposition, was brought to the notice of or had the express sanction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the time being; and whether, in view of the recent establishment of this obligation, the Secretary of State can see his way to cancel and to annul such legislation or regulation before responsible Government comes into operation in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The arrangement in question which is referred to in the Report of the Commissioner of Lands printed in Cd. 3028, page 26, has formed the subject of correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Governor, who explains that it was not contemplated that the labour supplied by native squatters should be of a compulsory nature. The undertaking to work is purely a matter of contract between landlord (in this case the Government) and tenant. The condition has only been taken advantage of in certain districts; no compulsion has been used and no hardship has resulted to the native. In the circumstances it does not seem necessary for the Secretary of State to take any action in the matter.
  MR. MOLTENO: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the regulation which provides that men and lads are liable to be put on public works for a period of not more than six months in any one year?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, but I have asked for Papers.

  Transvaal Crown Lands.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Crown lands of the Transvaal, occupied in part by natives, were declared by the Executive Council in 1903 to be liable to be allotted under lease or licence to settlers; whether such a declaration has the effect of cancelling all native rights on the Crown lands, and what provision is made for these natives when lands are so allotted; and whether a matter of such serious importance can be dealt with by an administrative Act, or whether legislation would be necessary in order to make it valid.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The disposal of Crown lands in the Transvaal is regulated by the Crown Land Disposal Ordinance, 1903.That. Ordinance among other provisions authorises the Lieutenant-Governor to reserve Crown lands for the use or benefit of aboriginal natives as well as to lease Crown lands to settlers and to utilise them for other purposes. I am not aware that any hardship has been inflicted on natives in leasing such land to settlers.

  Native Taxes on Transvaal Crown Lands.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a new rental of £1 per adult male native, in addition to other taxes, was imposed upon all natives residing on the Transvaal Crown lands by the Transvaal Executive Council in July, 1903; whether this imposition had the sanction of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies; and whether such imposition is lawful without express legislation.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. The circumstances are explained in the Report of the Commissioner of Lands laid before Parliament in July, Cd. 3028, page 25. The position of natives on Crown lands is assimilated to that of tenants living on private farms. The Secretary of State saw no reason to interfere. No special legislation seems required, the case being merely that of contract between landlord and tenant.
  MR. MOLTENOwas proceeding to ask a Question as to a Report in 1904, when Mr. Speaker suggested that notice should be given.

  Prisoners in Natal.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet had an opportunity of using his friendly offices with the Natal Government to secure the return of the Zulu rebels at present in prison to their homes, in view of the distress prevailing in those districts owing to the absence of the male population.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As I informed the hon. Member on the 3rd instant,†the Natal Government are, Iunderstand, taking all necessary measures to relieve distress. The question of deciding as to the return of the Zulu rebels to their homes is one for the local government.
  MR. MYER: Do the Government not intend to grant an amnesty to these native patriots and let them return to their homes?
  MR. CHURCHILLI have answered that Question.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to.ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can yet say whether the proposed transfer of Natal prisoners to a diamond mine in the Transvaal will take place.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am unable to add anything to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on Monday last.†

  Transvaal Land Settlement Finance.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I beg to ask the the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the amount of the balance of money appropriated by the Inter-Colonial Council to the Government of the Colony out of the loan authorised by the Transvaal Guaranteed Loan Ordinance, 1903, for the purposes of land settlement.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has received a telegram from Lord Selborne stating that the balance is £58,637.

  British Indians in Natal and the Franchise.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State to the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have yet arrived at any decision with regard to the Act recently passed by the Natal Legislature, which, if permitted to become law, would take away the municipal franchise from a large number of His Majesty's Indian subjects, many of whom are large ratepayers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: This matter is still under consideration.

  Portugal and Native Labour Recruitment.
  MR. C. NICHOLSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under Section XIII. of the modus vivendi arranged by Lord Milner and the Portuguese Government on the 18th December, 1901, it is in the power of either party to the treaty to terminate it by one year's notice; and whether, if the Portuguese Government adheres to its determination to limit the recruiting of natives to a particular group of mine-
  1026
  owners, to the exclusion of the rest of His Majesty's subjects, His Majesty's Government will take steps to terminate the modus vivendi.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government see no reason at present to contemplate this contingency.

  Regulation of Native Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have considered, in view of their determination to bring the employment of Chinese labourers to an end, the political and economic dangers likely to arise in the Transvaal if the supply of native labour for the mines is left, as it is at present, largely under the control of a particular group of mineowners acting under special arrangements with the Governor-General of Mozambique; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to protect the inhabitants of the Colony from those dangers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government believe that a satisfactory solution of the matter will be arrived at under responsible government. Meanwhile an inquiry is about to be held into the question of recruiting in Portuguese territory being conducted by one or several agencies.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the modus vivendi agreed to between Lord Milner and the Portuguese Government in the 18th December, 1901, contained my provision involving or justifying the grant to a particular group of mineowners of a monopoly of recruiting natives in the province of Mozambique; and, if not, what warrant is there for the attitude of the Portuguese Government in declining to accede to the wishes of His Majesty's Government that the monopoly enjoyed by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association should be brought to in end.
  MR. CHURCHILL: There is no express provision on the point either in one direction or the other in the text of the modus vivendi agreement. But negotiations are in progress, and I have

  1027
  every expectation that they will reach a satisfactory conclusion.
  In reply to a supplementary Question by Mr. Mackarness,
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he believed the Portuguese Government had already consented to give notice of the termination of the present agreement.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are the negotiations with Portugal carried on by them Colonial Office?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, by the Foreign Office.

  South African Railway Tariffs.
  MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the modus vivendi agreed to between Lord Milner and the Portuguese Government on the 18th December, 1901, provided that the Portuguese Government should allow the engagement of native labourers from the Portuguese province of Mozambique for the Transvaal and Rhodesia, and that the Transvaal Government should re-establish the combined tariffs and classification of goods on the railway from Lorenzo Marques to Johannesburg, which were in force before the War; and, in view of the fact that these tariffs were detrimental to the trade of the British Colonies of the Cape and Natal, and of the attitude of the Portuguese Government limiting the engagment of native labourers, His Majesty's Government will revise the tariffs for the benefit of our own Colonies.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The question of the differential railway rates conceded to the Delagoa Bay route under the modus vivendi has formed the subject of negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Portuguese Government. His Majesty's Government do not now propose to take further action pending consideration of the matter by the new Government of the Transvaal.

  Transvaal Customs Duties.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if paragraph VII., Sub-section 4,
  1028
  of the instructions under the Royal Sign Manual to the Governor of the Transvaal, dated 6th December, 1906, prohibiting his assent to any law imposing differential duties, implies that the 25 per cent. preferential rebate in the Customs duties of the Transvaal upon imports the product of British labour, now given in common with CapeColony, Natal, the Orange River Colony, and Rhodesia, is to be withdrawn, and that in the future no lighter duties may be levied upon British goods than upon foreign goods; and, in such case, will he say why this provision, which is prejudicial to the workers in the Mother Country and the British Empire, and destructive of British trade, has been inserted.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The provision in the instructions does not sustain the hon. and gallant Member's apprehensions. It has been inserted in accordance with custom to prevent the coming into operation before the Secretary of State has had the opportunity of considering its provisions of a law which may conflict with treaty obligations.

  Crown Colony Governors.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies are there any and, if so, what precedents for the continuance in office of a Governor of a Colony who administered that Colony as a Crown Colony when the Colony thus administered by him has become a Colony with responsible government; and on what grounds, under these circumstances, has Lord Selborne been continued in his present position.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, in seven out of eight cases of the grant of responsible government, the Governors who had been in office prior to the change retained the governorship. In the eighth case, the change of constitution happened to occur just as the Governor's term of office expired.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Have not all these been cases of Governors favourable to responsible government, and not opposed to it?
  MR. CHURCHILL: We have no records on that point.

  The Imperial Veto.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the event of a return of a proposed Law of the Transvaal Legislature presented to the Governor by him with amendments which he may recommend, what will be the effect of the rejection in whole or in part of those amendments of the proposed law; is the Governor, in proposing such amendments, to act on the advice of his responsible Ministers or on his own responsibility; and, if on his own responsibility, to whom will he be accountable.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The effect of the rejection of the amendments of the proposed law will obviously be that they will not become law. The Governor will act upon the advice of Ministers. A similar provision will be found in Section 58 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

  Lord Selborne.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in continuing Lord Selborne as Governor of the Transvaal in the position of paramount chief over all the chiefs and natives in the Transvaal Colony, regard has been had to the circumstance that Lord Selborne was a member of the British Cabinet which sanctioned the Labour Importation Ordinance, 1904, and who subsequently, as Governor of the Transvaal, administered that Ordinance and suggested many objections to the repatriation of the Chinese indentured labourers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: All the circumstances of Lord Selborne's public and official career have always been and will always be considered by His Majesty's Government in regard to all matters in which his services are employed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the practice for a member of a British Cabinet to vacate that position for the purpose of carrying out as Governor of a Crown Colony a line of policy adopted by the Cabinet of which he was a member in that Colony; what precedents, if any, are to be found in support of that practice; whether it is the practice for a Colonial Governor,
  1030
  appointed by a Cabinet of which he was himself a Member to carry out a certain policy, to remain on a change of administration in the same office at the request of another Cabinet to carry out a different line of policy; what precedents, if any, are to be found in support of this practice; and on what grounds has Lord Selborne, under such circumstances, been retained in his present position in South Africa.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The circumstances in which Lord Selborne was appointed to his present position in South Africa were quite exceptional, and I am not aware of any precedent which exactly applies to those circumstances. The only part of the hon. Member's Question which touches the responsibility of His Majesty's present Government is the last, and in regard to that the Answer is that the grounds on which Lord Selborne retained office were that, as the representative of His Majesty, and thereby removed from all active participation in politics, he was willing to serve after the change of administration, and that His Majesty's present Government desired that he should continue in office.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Do I understand that Lord Selborne, having been a member of the late Cabinet, went out to a Crown Colony to administer a certain policy there, and when that policy was reversed he remained to administer the new policy?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is a sufficiently complete description of the situation.

  Transvaal Land Settlements Board.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the appointments of members of the Transvaal Land Settlements Board will be made by the Governor on the advice of his responsible Ministers, or will be made by this Governor on his own initiative and responsibility; and, if these appointments are to be made by the Governor on his own initiative and responsibility, what is he reason for the distinction in the method of making these appointments from the method of making appointments to the membership of Legislative Councils subsequent to the first

  1031
  Legislative Council, which is to be not by the Governor alone, but by the Governor in council; and to whom is the Governor responsible in the making of these appointments.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The appointments will be made by the Governor, and not by the Governor on the advice of his responsible Ministers. The appointments to the Land Board, which is only to last five years, will, like the first appointments to the Legislative Council, be made by the Governor, the object being to ensure that the Land Board shall not be open to any political influence. The Governor in this matter is responsible to the Secretary of State.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Governor first submit the names to the Secretary of State?
  MR. CHURCHILL: All appointments will be approved from here.

  Transvaal Legislative Council.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, will Lord Selborne, under the Transvaal Constitution, summon on his own initiative every member of the Legislative Council, or will that summons, or the selection of members therein mentioned, be made on any responsible motion, and, if so, who will be the advisers; and whether, having regard to the power of the Legislative Council in the control, alteration, and rejection of measures passed by the elected Legislative Assembly, and the political leanings and antecedents of Lord Selborne, the effects of entrusting him with the nomination of one of the legislative bodies created by the Letters Patent establishing the Constitution has been considered.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Legislative Council will be nominated by the Governor, who will be instructed to consult the Secretary of State before making any appointment.

  Uganda Forest Concession
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the forest concession recently granted in Uganda, the rights of the Natives to obtain wood
  1032
  for building purposes and for fuel are fully secured; and if every precaution will be taken to protect the Natives against the tsetse fly in that part of the concession where it prevails.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The rights of the Natives in the Mabira Forest are, in the Secretary of State's opinion, adequately safeguarded by Sections 18 to 20 of the Agreement with the Mabira Forest Rubber Company. The Secretary of State regrets that he is not aware of any means by which Natives can be effectually protected against the tsetse fly either in the Mabira Forest or elsewhere.

  New Hebrides Convention.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Commonwealth Premier has emphatically denied the statement to the effect that the New Hebrides Convention was not signed till the views of Australia and New Zealand had been consulted and an acquiescence, albeit reluctant, had been obtained; whether he can give any explanation on this point; and whether His Majesty's Government can promise that no appointment of officials will be made in the New Hebrides without the concurrence of Australia and New Zealand.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen a Press report of remarks attributed to Mr. Deakin to the effect that my Answer to the hon. Member's Question of the 31st October†was technically correct, but actually misleading. I am still of opinion that no more exact or appropriate description of the situation could have been given; but the correspondence which will be shortly laid before Parliament will enable all persons to judge for themselves. As regards appointments in the New Hebrides, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 14th November to a Question by the hon. Member for Gravesend.‡
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if that reply was to the effect that Australians and New Zealanders would be eligible?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes.

  German South West Africa.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made to the effect that in German South West Africa the insurgents received reinforcements from British territory.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): There have been some complaints as to natives crossing the border into German territory, but no representations have been made as to anything that could properly be called "reinforcements" being received by the insurgents from British territory. There have also been occasions when the border has been crossed by German troops into British territory and the recent raid by Ferreira from German into British territory is no doubt in the hon. Member's recollection. But none of these incidents have been treated by either Government as evidence of an unfriendly disposition on the part of the authorities on either side.

  Cape to Cairo Railway.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations are in progress between this country and the Congo State as to the concession of a strip of territory for the Cape to Cairo Railway.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Answer is in the negative.
  MR. MYER: Is not the price of this land the silence of His Majesty's Government on the Congo atrocities?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Bahr-el-Ghazal.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has official information that the Congolese troops have yet evacuated the disputed posts in the Bahr-el-Ghazal.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend has no official information on the subject. But there is no doubt that the provisions of the agreement will be carried out.

  Turkish Customs.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the present position of affairs with reference to the proposed increase in the Turkish Customs.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The negotiations on this question between the Powers and the Ottoman Government are still proceeding, and it is not possible to make any statement at present.

  Factory Fatalities.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the increase in the number of fatal accidents in factories for October 1906 compared with the same month of last year; whether he can say how many of the seventy-two deaths were attributable to dangerous machinery or structures as to which the Factory Act empowers the enforcement of means of prevention; and whether he can give the number of non-fatal accidents in factories for the ten months ending 31st October 1908.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): Yes, I am aware that the figures referred to in the Question, which are compiled in my Department, show for factories and workshops an increase of eleven, of which six are accounted for by falls, over those for the corresponding month in 1905. The monthly figures, however, are liable to fluctuations from a variety of causes, and it would not be safe to draw any inference from the present increase. The figures for the preceding and succeeding months were in each case lower than those for the corresponding months of 1905. I cannot give the number of fatal accidents attributable to dangerous machinery or structures in regard to which the Factory Act empowers the enforcement of means of prevention, but the number due to machinery moved by power was twenty-six. The number of non fatal accidents in factories and workshops during the first ten months of the year would be between 78,000 and 79,000.

  Time-cribbing in Factories.
  MR. GILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any additional steps have been taken since August last to put down time-cribbing in factories; what the results of such efforts have been; and whether he has availed himself of the help of the full staff of factory inspectors by authorising the assistant inspectors to deal with this matter in conjunction with their other duties.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The number of firms successfully prosecuted by the Department during the last four months was forty, the number of informations laid being 457.Fines were imposed to the total amount of £397, and costs to the total amount of £204. In the case of only one firm were proceedings unsuccessful.I hope these satisfactory results of the action taken by the Department will be found to have a deterrent effect. As regards the last part of the Question, arrangements are being made to utilise the services of the inspectors' assistants in the Lancashire districts in the prevention of time-cribbing.

  Scarborough Juvenile Offender.
  MR. WALSH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a boy sentenced by the Scarborough magistrates to detention in a reformatory for five years; whether he is aware that the boy bad no felonious intent in taking the tools of his employer; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, he will consider the desirability of revising the decision of the magistrates.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: This boy stole various articles from three different places, and when he was brought before the magistrates his uncle, who is his guardian, said that he was beyond control and refused to be bound over for his good behaviour. I am, however, in communication with the magistrates respecting this case, and I will acquaint the hon. Member with the decision at which I arrive.

  Medical Inspection of Emigrants.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware
  1036
  that at certain European ports emigrants are examined by a medical officer of the United States Government before embarkation with a view to prevent rejections on arrival in America, and avoid the trouble and expense of reshipment to Europe; and whether any proposals for a similar examination at certain ports in this country have reached him.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Lloyd-George, Carnarvon Boroughs): I have no information as to the practice which prevails at Continental ports, but in this country emigrants have not, I believe, been inspected by United States officers since 1900. No proposals respecting the reintroduction of this inspection have reached me.

  Electric Lighting Orders.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have laid down a general rule that they will not sanction transfers of Electric Lighting Orders except in cases where special authority for the transfer is conferred by a provision in the Order; if so, under what statutory authority have the Board laid down this general rule; what is the reason and purpose of the rule; and whether the Board will consent to relax the rule as regards existing Orders (as in the cases of Grangemouth and Denny in Stirlingshire), and save the ratepayers the cost of obtaining fresh Orders.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade have not made a rule in the matter referred to by my hon. friend, but they are advised that without a transfer clause there can be no transfer which will relieve the undertakers of their liabilities to the public, though there might be clauses in an agreement for the exercise under certain conditions of the powers of the undertakers by the contractors party to the agreement. In the two cases referred to by my hon. friend, a power to transfer was not asked for when the applications for the Orders were made, and the Board of Trade, therefore, have no power now to sanction a transfer.

  Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the four flag stations on the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway will

  1037
  be opened for passenger traffic as well as for goods and minerals, by all trains, in the same manner as formerly, as the closing of those stations means a loss to the ratepayers in the guaranteeing area, who have to pay a rate of 1s. in the pound; will he see that men working on the line will be carried by the trains to and from their work, so that less men may be required to do the work of the line, and, thus save further expense; and, in view of the fact that a guarantee was given by the directors, when the line was being constructed, that those flag stations would be erected for the convenience of the people in the different districts, will the Board of Trade see that this arrangement is carried out.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: The railway company with whom the Board of Trade are in correspondence in this matter, state that they are unable to reply fully on the points raised in the Question pending the careful consideration of the whole subject by the directors at a meeting to be hold on the 27th instant. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon after that date as may be practicable.

  Cement Imports.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large proportion of the foreign cements introduced into this country is imported in the bags of home firms, with British trademarks attached, and sold to the home trade as British manufactured cements; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking legal proceedings against such firms under the Merchandise Marks Act.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am informed that the Board of Customs have no reason to believe that foreign cement imported into this country is brought in bags bearing British trade marks without an indication of the country of origin of the cement. Any such importation which came under the observation of officers of the Customs Department would be detained and a necessary condition of release would be that there should be added an indication of the country of origin or that the trade mark should be erased. With regard, however, to this matter and also to the sale in this
  1038
  country of foreign cement as British, if my hon. friend will furnish me with any information on the subject that may be in his possession I shall be glad to have inquires made.
  MR. J. WARD: I will supply the information.

  Clare Hall Hospital.
  *MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board upon what grounds it is proposed to allow authorities in the county of Middlesex to place persons suffering from smallpox in the county of Hertford, and to erect a hospital in the latter county for their reception and treatment.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, BATTERSEA): I presume that the case referred to is that of the Clare Hall Hospital. If so, I may point out that the hospital already exists, and that cases from Middlesex have for some years past been received in it. Indeed, I understand that the hospital buildings are actually in Middlesex, although part of the grounds are in Hertfordshire. There did not appear to me to be any sufficient reason for withholding sanction to the loan required for the purchase.
  *MR. CARLILE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make the county of Hertford the dumping ground for the insane and diseased from the counties adjacent?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: No, it is not my intention, but these institutions are necessary and must be located somewhere. Generally speaking, their proximity to houses is grossly exaggerated.
  *MR. CARLILE: Is not the hospital to which the right hon. Gentleman refers a small private hospital, and is there not abundant accommodation in different parts of Middlesex for these diseased persons?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I cannot see any reason to assume that this institution will be worse conducted under public auspices than it was under private management.

  Local Loans for Public Works.
  MR. BRACE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in face of the disadvantages local authorities suffer in consequence of the refusal of the Local Government Board to allow the repayment of moneys borrowed, by them for carrying out public works to extend over a longer period than is at present the recognised rule, viz., thirty years for buildings and twenty years for the construction of new roads and for road improvements, he will consider the question of substantially increasing the period for the repayment of loans, so as to meet the wishes and needs of local municipal authorities.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have on several occasions had to consider the question of the terms which should be fixed for the repayment of loans raised by local authorities, but I have not seen my way to an alteration of the periods usually allowed by the Local Government Board.

  Loans for Electrical Works
  MR. HEDGES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the period allowed for repayment of loans raised for electrical works undertaken by local authorities; and what regulations are in force with regard to the charging to capital account of the wages of men employed by the authorities on their regular work, but temporarily diverted to work of extension, which, if put out to tender, would be chargeable to capital account.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The period allowed by the Local Government Board for the repayment of loans for electrical plant varies according to the nature of the plant, but the maximum period usually allowed is twenty-five years. As regards the latter part of the Question, the view taken by the Board is that the wages of workmen permanently employed by a local authority should not be paid out of borrowed money, and consequently it is their practice to exclude from the amount to be borrowed for works proposed to be executed by the authority any sums which would be paid in respect of such wages.

  Merthyr Tydvil Chapels.
  MR. BEIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if several thousands of pounds have been paid within the last few years in rent by the local education authority for Merthyr Tydvil to the owners of chapels for the use of buildings for educational purposes, which cannot be regarded as fulfilling modern educational requirements; and if he will give a Return for the last seven years, stating the total amount paid for such purposes, and giving the amount for each several year.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): The only information in the Board's possession in regard to the points referred to in the Question is: (a) that there appears to be a chapel in temporary use for public elementary school purposes connected with Merthyr Vale Council School; and three chapels seem to have been used in 1903–5 while alterations were being made to Abermoralis Council School; and (b) that the financial statement of the local authority shows some £342 to have been paid in the shape of rent for premises used for public elementary school purposes during, the year ending 31st March, 1906. I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by any such Return for seven years as is asked for in the concluding paragraph of the Question. The Board have to see that satisfactory accommodation is provided for the school children. whether temporary or permanent; and so long as this is satisfied the Board of Education are not concerned with discriminating between premises that are rented and premises that are purchased, or are specially erected.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: Do I understand that the chapels are used for temporary purposes only?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes, temporary purposes.

  St. David's Schools, Merthyr Tydvil.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the Board is being invited by the local education authority in

  1041
  Merthyr Tydvil to sanction the closing of the girls' and infants' departments in St. David's Schools; that the effect would be simply to transfer the children to an unsuitable building in a Nonconformist chapel at a rental of over £50 a year, whereas a large sum sufficient has been promised towards the rebuilding and improvement of the St. David's School, the plans approved, and the contract signed, work having only been suspended until the proposals as to school buildings in the Bill now before Parliament have definitely been settled; and whether he will state what action he proposes to take.
  MR. BIRRELL: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer that I gave on 28th November last to a Question from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil concerning this school.†The Board have already some time since withdrawn recognition as from 31st December next of the girls' and infants' departments. The local authority have informed the Board that they "have arranged for suitable accommodation for the children at present attending the girls' and infants' departments." The authority are also about to submit a comprehensive scheme for a now and modern school building.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: Were not these buildings first approved and thon disallowed?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will inquire as to that.

  Irish School Teachers.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that teachers trained in Irish colleges are graded as uncertified for two years after appointment in England, with the result that their salaries are considerably reduced; and whether he proposes to take any steps to alter this arrangement.
  MR. BIRRELL: I think that the statements in the question are not altogether accurate. It is true that teachers trained in Irish colleges who come to England immediately on leaving those colleges are not eligible for recognition in this country as certificated
  1042
  teachers until they have received their diplomas from the Irish Commissioners of Education; and that those Commissioners I require two years of satisfactory teaching service, subsequent to the training college course, as a condition of granting those diplomas. But I do not think that this offers any ground for interference on my part, beyond that measure of relaxation which has been already made in this year's as compared with last year's code. It must be remembered that to give, as is suggested by the hon. Member, to these Irish candidates full recognition as certificated teachers in this country immediately after leaving the Irish training colleges, would render the young persons eligible for permanent head teacherships of public elementary schools—thus giving them in this country an advantage which thy are not given, at that stage, in Ireland under the Irish Regulations.
  MR. MURPHY: But Irish teachers, I can show, lose £20 or £30 a year by it.
  MR. BIRRELL: I shall be glad to have information as to that.

  Swansea Education Dispute.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when the law officers were consulted upon the point of law raised in connection with the salaries paid to teachers in non-provided schools at Swansea; whether they have reported thereupon; and, if not, whether he can inform the House when he expects to receive their Report.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have as yet nothing to add to the Answer given to the noble Lord on this matter on Monday last.‡The case is before the law officers and is now being carefully considered by them.

  London Technological College.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to state what the constitution of the governing body of the new Technological College in London will be, and what relation it will have to the Senate of the University of London; and whether, in the event of the

  1043
  incorporation of the college in the University being decided upon, any change will be made in the constitution and powers of the Senate of the University or of its councils and faculties.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am of opinion that it will not be in the public interest to make any statement just yet in regard to the matters named in the Question, seeing that the negotiations are now at an advanced stage in which I have every hope of arriving shortly at a satisfactory settlement; and I am sure the hon. Member will share my anxiety to avoid doing anything which might hamper this process.

  Swansea Education Authority Accounts
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Swansea Local Education Authority have failed to keep accounts showing the receipts and expenditure in respect of each non-provided school there; and, if so, for what reason.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Board of Education do not require the production of accounts in any particular shape from local education authorities, that being a matter within the province of the Local Government Board. I do not know whether the Swansea local authority has or has not kept separate receipt and expenditure accounts for each voluntary school in its area. I am not aware of any reason why they should be compelled to do so; nor is it, so far as I know, by any means an invariable practice.

  The Harcourt Statue.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, as it was a subject of general observation that the pedestal of the statue of Sir William Harcourt in the lobby ought to be lowered in the interest both of the statue as a work of art and of the appearance of the lobby, he would consider the matter.
  THE FIEST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale)said it had come to his knowledge that the desire expressed by the right hon. Gentleman was one generally felt by the House, and therefore he would try to exhibit some plan for
  1044
  the approval of Members in the usual manner in the tea room.

  Blackpool Motor Car Fatality.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been directed to the death of a woman at Blackpool caused by the driver of a motor car driving negligently and beyond the statutory limit of twenty miles an hour; and if he will satisfy himself if it is a case in which the Public Prosecutor could be moved with the object of securing some security for life and limb of His Majesty's subjects.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): I have seen the coroner's summing up, and the report of the chief constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and considered the prospect of another jury taking a different view, and I do not think I ought to intervene.

  Illegal Trawling at Shetland.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that complaints of illegal trawling from Shetland are more numerous at present than at any time during past years; and whether he has official information showing that this is to be accounted for by the persons committing these nefarious practices being shut out of the Moray Firth.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): I am informed that since August last there has been a considerable number of complaints of illegal trawling off the coasts of Shetland, and possibly these have been more numerous than the complaints from Shetland covering a similar period in recent years. This circumstance cannot, however, be associated with the exclusion of trawlers from the Moray Firth as a result of the recent decision in the High Court of Justiciary. As a matter of fact, no Norwegian trawlers have been detected fishing in Shetland waters since the date of the decision referred to.

  North Sea Fisheries Investigation.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists with reference to the money expended on the international scientific

  1045
  investigation of the North Sea; if he can state the practical results obtained from money expended in this direction; if it is proposed to continue the expenditure; and, if so, for how long.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware that there is a difference of opinion as to the value of the practical results obtained from the international inquiry which was inaugurated in 1902, but I may remind my hon. friend that under the existing arrangement that inquiry is to continue till July, 1907, while the preparation of Returns showing results must occupy a considerable period beyond that date. As to future arrangements I am in communication with the Treasury and can make no announcement at present.

  Scottish Fishery Board Cruiser "The Goldseeker."
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will recommend the Treasury to hand over the "Goldseeker," which is admirably suited for the purpose as an extra fishery cruiser, to the Scottish Fishery Board; and whether in view of the fact that the Shetland waters are now the principal hunting grounds of poaching trawlers, and that fishing is practically the only industry and employment the islands afford, special precautions will be taken in that quarter.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am not in a position to make any statement in reference to the "Goldseeker" which is now employed in scientific investigations. One of the fishery cruisers has been exclusively employed in the Shetland waters for a considerable time and has been successful in obtaining convictions for illegal trawling. These waters have had their full share in the services of the fishery cruisers.

  Duke Street Prison, Glasgow.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how long a period has elapsed since applications were invited for the position of assistant medical officer for Duke Street Prison in Glasgow; and what steps, if any, have been taken to fill the vacancy.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Since 30th August; but, so far as I am aware, there has been no call for the services of the assistant
  1046
  medical officer in the meantime. I understand that an appointment will be made shortly.

  Connaught Assizes—Agrarian Outrage Trial.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the trial of nine persons at Connaught assizes, charged with unlawful assembly on 7th November, and with beating the cattle of John Beirne; and whether, seeing that the jury disagreed, and the Judge said it was a great misfortune, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): My attention has been called to the result of the trial referred to in the Question, which, unfortunately, was a disagreement of the jury. I propose to adopt the usual course in such cases, namely, to put the accused upon trial again at the next assizes for the county of Roscommon, which will be held in March next.

  Agrarian Trials at Connaught Assizes—Challenging Jurors.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask Mr Attorney-General for Ireland whether any convictions were obtained in the agrarian cases tried at the Connaught winter assizes last week: and whether, he will state the nature of the instructions issued with respect to the challenging of jurors.
  MR. CHERRY: There were, as I am informed, only two cases of an agrarian nature for trial from the whole province of Connaught at the winter assizes, which have just concluded. Neither of these was of a very serious nature, involving either loss of life or injury to the person. The charges were for riot and unlawful assembly; and in both cases, unfortunately, the jury disagreed. The instructions issued by me to the Crown solicitors with respect to the challenging of jurors were to the effect that no juror should be ordered to stand aside on account of his religious or political convictions, but that if the Crown solicitor had information upon which he could rely that any particular juror was related to any of the accused, or that he had expressed any strong opinions on

  1047
  the merits of the case, or that he had been canvassed on behalf of the accused and was for that reason unlikely to try the case impartially, he should order him to stand aside.

  Drumkeeran Disturbances.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the trial at the Connaught Assizes of eight men charged with unlawful assembly at Drumkeeran on the 7th July; and, seeing that the jury disagreed, whether he proposes to take further action in the case.
  MR. CHERRY: Yes, Sir. I propose to follow the usual course, namely, to put the accused upon trial again, at the next assizes for the county of Leitrim.

  Kilgarvan Letter Delivery.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to state what steps, if any, he proposes to take with a view to having a second delivery of letters at Kilgarvan, county Kerry.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The second post letters now reach Kilgarvan post office at 6.45 p.m., and are available to callers shortly afterwards. I am sorry to say that, owing to the comparatively high cost of the Kilgarvan postal service and to the small number of letters affected, I should not be justified in incurring additional expense for accelerating this service or for affording a house to house delivery of the second post letters.

  Irish Post Office and the Irish Language.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that an Irish addressed postcard was not delivered at the address of Messrs. Geoghegan, Lower Leeson Street, Dublin, until 1.30 p.m., although it bore in printed characters the English translation of the address, and should, in the ordinary course, have been delivered by the first morning post; can he state the cause of the delay; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in order to prevent a repetition of this inconvenience to a business firm.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: From the position of the English address it was not clear that it was a translation of the Irish address and the card was sent to the proper officer for the address to be translated. A slight rearrangement of the printed addresses would prevent any possibility of a delay from the same cause in future.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether letters addressed in Irish to places within the county of Donegal, where the Irish language is largely spoken, are delayed no fewer than three days in delivery, being in all cases forwarded to Dublin for translation; and whether, having regard to the increase of correspondence in Irish, and to the inconvenience to which the Irish-speaking population are subjected through the present postal management, he will consider the desirability of appointing some Irish-speaking officials within the county.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Letters addressed in Irish are sent to Dublin for translation only in cases where the addresses cannot be translated at the post offices at which the letters are first dealt with. It does not seem necessary to take any special steps in the direction suggested by the hon. Member in the latter part of his Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the reason why the letters cannot be translated in post offices in Irish-speaking districts due to the fact that the post offices are manned by foreigners?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, Sir; but in many post offices there is no one capable of making the translation.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not ask the next door neighbour?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: In New Zealand post offices telegrams are translated in the Maori language. Surely Ireland is as good as New Zealand.

  Irish Trade Mark.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Irish trade mark was registered on 8th December; and whether, with a view to

  1049
  making the design of the mark known in places abroad where Irish goods bearing the mark are likely to obtain a sale, he will give facilities for the display of the design in various consular offices.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend understands that a trade mark was registered by the Irish Industrial Development Association on the 8th instant. There is no objection to the association sending specimens of the mark to His Majesty's consular officers.

  The Hague Conference.
  MR. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make a general statement of the intentions of His Majesty's Government in reference to the forthcoming Hague Conference; and, more particularly, whether they will consider the possibility of formulating proposals for the limitation of naval armaments, and of selecting as one of the representatives of Great Britain some statesmen of high position in sympathy with the cause of international peace.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The proposals to be discussed at The Hague Conference are being carefully examined, including the question of the limitation of armaments on which the views of His Majesty's Government are already known. I am not in a position to give the names of the delegates who will represent Great Britain at the Conference, but they will eventually be chosen with the object of promoting the cause of peace.

  Governorship of the Cape of Good Hope.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, seeing that there will shortly be a I vacancy in the governorship of the Cape of Good Hope, and that both Parties in that Colony would appear to be in favour of the re-attachment of the High Commissionership to the governorship of the Cape of Good Hope, whether His Majesty's Government have considered the advisability of reverting to the former arrangement upon the inauguration of responsible government in the new Colonies; and, if so, whether he can make any statement on the subject.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: His Majesty's Government do not consider that it would be advisable or feasible to revert to the former arrangement for the present.

  Proclamation on the Annexation of Natal.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the proclamation that was issued by Sir George Napier, the governor of Cape Colony, in May, 1843, as a preliminary to the annexation of Natal, declaring that there shall not be in the eye of the law any distinction or disqualification whatever founded on mere distinction of colour, origin, language, or creed, but that the protection of the law in letter and in substance shall be extended impartially to all alike; whether this proclamation has at any time been withdrawn or modified; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Ministers will take steps to ensure the observance in letter and in substance of the promises made in the name of His Majesty's predecessor upon the Throne.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The proclamation to which my hon. friend refers was that by which Natal was made into a Colony, and was issued many years before the Colony, after various changes, received complete self-government. When a full Legislature was instituted it had the ordinary powers to legislate without restriction, subject only to the assent of the Governor and the power of disallowance by the Crown.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the Prime Minister could give some information to the House as to business for the remainder of the session.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had nothing to add to the information already in the possession of the House. The only point in doubt was whether it was still the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to have a debate on the Army on Wednesday.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not desire himself to take any part in a debate on Army matters in the course of

1051
the present session, as the time could not be far distant when the Secretary for War would be in a position, which the right hon. Gentleman was not at present, fully to explain his policy in regard to the Army, and he hoped none of his hon. friends desired to raise the question.

NEW BILL.
  ABSENT VOTERS BILL.
  "To facilitate the recording of Votes at Parliamentary Elections by Fishermen, Sailors, and other persons liable to habitual absence from their usual residence in pursuit of their calling," presented by Mr. Alexander Black; supported by Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Bell, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Havelock Wilson, and Mr. Sutherland; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 375.]

  THE WORCESTER VACANCY.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD,in accordance with notice, rose to movo—"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Worcester, in the room of George Henry Williamson, Esq., whose election has been declared to be void."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLrose to a point of order. He said that the Motion could not properly be moved, because, by the ruling of the House, Government business took precedence for the remainder of the session. The right hon. Member's Motion, which was opposed by the Attorney-General, was not a Government Motion. Of course he was well aware that Motions for the issue of a new writ were ordinarily matters of privilege, and under the old rules could be moved at any time without notice, whilst under the new rules they could be made either at the commencement of business or at the conclusion. Having regard to the fact that the Motion for a writ might be a subject of controversy, he contended the House should have proper notice of it so that the matter might be discussed as an ordinary Motion. When
  1052
  it was moved, it was absolutely essential that two days notice should be given. All these things divested this Motion of the essence of privilege. This was the first occasion on which a notice of this kind had been moved. Under the terms of the Resolution passed in August last the remainder of the session was given for Government business. This not being a Government Motion, being no immediate necessity for it, and as it could not be discussed until the commencement of next session, except in the extraordinary circumstances of the Government summoning the House specially to discharge public business, he asked for Mr. Speaker's ruling on the matter.
  *MR. SPEAKER: In my judgment the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to move the writ now, first of all because I consider that the issue of a writ under the circumstances is still matter of privilege, even although notice must be given. But beyond that I would remind the hon. Member of the Resolution of 30th May last, dealing with this particular subject, which ordered—
  "That in all cases, where the seat of any Member has been declared void on the ground of corrupt or illegal practices, no Motion for the issue of the new writ shall be made without two clear days previous notice on the notice Paper of the House,"
  and I would especially call attention to to the last words—
  "and that such notice be considered before the orders of the day and notices of Motion."
  Therefore the House has itself appointed the time at which this Motion may be taken.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODmoved that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a Member for the borough of Worcester, in the room of Mr. George Henry Williamson, whoso election had been declared to be void. He said he did not propose to quote any precedents. He had been a great many things in his life, but, thank Heaven! he had never been a lawyer. He thought the House would agree that when a vacancy occurred it was the duty of the person responsible to move the writ at an early opportunity, and if he failed to do so he would be guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. As regarded this

  1053
  particular vacancy, it arose when the late Member for Worcester was unseated on petition. After that petition, this House in conjunction with the other House presented an address. In consequence of that joint address a Commission was appointed and that Commission had now reported. He proposed to deal very briefly with the conclusions arrived at, the first being that the constituency as a whole was not corrupt. If that were so—and it was the deliberate judgment of three most capable and expert lawyers after a very searching inquiry—there was no case for withholding the writ even temporarily from a city which had been represented in this House for many centuries. He came to the other conclusions of the Commission, which were that there existed in Worcester a class of voters, approximately 500, consisting mainly of the needy and loafing class, who were prepared to sell their votes for money, and, further, that the organised corruption in the city of Worcester was confined to that particular class. The conclusion—and, in passing, he might recommend it to those hon. Gentlemen opposite who wanted still further to lower the franchise—was that 500 men were prepared to sell their votes. Even after a searching inquiry, only ninety-eight persons were put in the schedule, and of these only twenty-nine were refused certificates of indemnity. There were in Worcester 8,412 electors, and he submitted that it was very unfair to 7,912 respectable men who had stood the searching inquiry and had come out with clean hands that they should suffer for the misdoings of ninety-eight men. He was as strong as any Member in believing that this House ought to maintain the purity of our electoral system. He thought the House had done its best to maintain that principle by voting an address for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the late election at Worcester, but that Commission having reported that the constituency as a whole was not corrupt, it was a very strong order that the House should refuse the writ. Withholding a writ under any circumstances was a very grave matter. There were conceivable circumstances under which the power might be used in a very improper way, or if the House were divided, not byParty divisions, but
  1054
  on some great national question, the withholding of a writ might mean the victory or the defeat of the Government of the day. The vast majority of the electors of Worcester, having been acquitted as a body of any general or organised corruption, were entitled to be once more represented in the House. Especially at a time like the present when very grave issues were before Parliament, it was only fair that the electors of Worcester should be given the right to have their opinions represented in this House at the earliest opportunity.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Worcester, in the room of George Henry Williamson, esquire, whose election has been declared to be void."—(Sir A. Acland Hood.)
  *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)said he could only regret that the profession to which he belonged was one which did not possess the right hon. Gentleman among its members, and he regretted still more that the right hon. Gentleman regarded his exclusion from that profession with a feeling of satisfaction. He was a little astonished that the right hon. Gentleman found in this Report grounds for the immediate issue of a writ for the election of a representative for the City of Worcester. He should have thought that the findings of the Commission gave serious reason for withholding for a considerable period the representation in this House of a city of which they had given such a discreditable account. The forms of the House precluded him from moving his Amendment in the way he would have chosen. The form of the Amendment was that the writ should not issue during the present session of Parliament. In his view, and in that of the Government, it should be suspended for a substantial period in order to allow the necessary steps to be taken which should follow the issue of such a Report as that which had been laid upon the Table. He would remind the House of the facts which had led to the present situation. Early in this year a Conservative Member was

  1055
  returned by a majority of 189 for the City of Worcester. The seat was challenged by a petition which was presented and was heard by two learned Judges, who declared that there had been corruption and bribery, and that they had reason to suppose these practices had extensively prevailed. A Commission was appointed to investigate the foundation for the suspicion of the learned Judges. The Report had been laid upon the Table, and it was necessary under the statute that it should be examined, first of all by the Attorney-General with a view to the prosecution of all those persons who had rendered themselves obnoxious to the law, and in order to purge the electoral list of disqualified persons who were incriminated by the findings of the Commission. It was also necessary that the House itself should exercise some function in regard to the I matter, and following precedent Parliament might disfranchise the whole city or certain persons in it, or they might suspend the representation for a period more or less long, having regard to the gravity of the charges in the Report. After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he could not refrain from calling attention to one or two of its most salient features. In 1892 an election petition was presented against the return of the then Conservative Member, and the petition was dismissed. But the Commissioners found that at that period and since, in connection with both municipal and Parliamentary elections, bribery and treating had systematically prevailed in the city. They said that in every ward of the city there was a tainted element not only susceptible to the temptations of bribery and treating, but who would not vote unless they were either bribed or treated. One local leader of the Conservative Party had expressed his opinion that no political victory could be gained in the City of Worcester except by a candidate who resorted to bribery. Dealing with the causes which lead to this state of corruption, the Commissioners found that the main cause was due to the local branch of the National Conservative League. That body carried on the political education of the people of Worcester by means of lodges, which met in public-houses in different parts of the city. The shilling subscription entitled a member not only to have his political horizon enlarged, but to participate in
  1056
  the dispensation of free drinks, which invariably followed at the expense of the chairman. The hospitality of these lodges, if not lavish, was at least liberal, and the invitations were not confined to members of the league. All Conservatives were cordially invited to attend, and there was no test of political opinion imposed before the concluding portion of the evening was reached when free drinks were handed round. This machinery was controlled by a local official, who was called the Provincial Grand Master, and by a curious coincidence he happened to have been the election agent of the Conservative candidate at the recent election. In 1892 the operations of this body came under judicial review, and Mr. Justice Wills characterised in vigorous terms the practice of dispensing drinks at political meetings convened under its auspices. He described it as "objectionable, demoralising and dangerous to the seat." But apparently the censure uttered on that occasion fell upon deaf ears. There was one bright glimpse in the picture. The operations of both political parties fell under review. In dealing with the Liberal Party, the Commissioners observed that in 1903 a new Liberal Association was formed. It declared that it would not countenance the resort to any corrupt or illegal practice, and the Commissioners found that the association had adhered to that determination, and that with the exception of a single charge of treating, which entirely failed when it was examined, no accusation of any corrupt or illegal practice had been made against any member of the Liberal Party. They were therefore assisted in their efforts to locate the tainted element to this extent—that they knew the political party to which it did not attach. The Commissioners pointed out that the extent of political corruption was probably less than at previous elections, and the amounts paid for votes probably lower. They attributed this not to any growth of electoral purity or any diminution in the vice of avarice, but to the fact, first, that the Liberal Party employed a private inquiry agent, the knowledge of whose presence exercised a restraining influence upon the other side; and, secondly, that the absence of competition caused the prices of votes to fall below the figures which formerly prevailed. If they were to ignore

  1057
  all these facts and issue the writ in hot haste, what became of the law which remained to be vindicated; what became of the maintenance of the high standard of electoral purity in the conduct of those contests? Would it not make the task of purifying elections so very much more difficult if it could be said that, with the pages of this Report open to them, the House of Commons, on the motion of one of the great political parties, throw it into the wastepaper basket and issued the writ at once? He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman had carefully considered the Report or could have observed that the 500 voters who constituted the corrupt element in Worcester gave to his party a majority of 189 at the last election, and that their allegiance, which was purchased then by an appeal to corrupt motives, might be now retained by an appeal to the feeling of resentment against the Government which had led to the exposure of their conduct.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, after the word 'do,' to insert the words 'not during the present session of Parliament."—(Mr. Attorney-General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had the honour to be one of the representatives for Worcestershire, and therefore he thought he was entitled to take an interest in a question which concerned the county town of the county which he represented and in which he lived. He was moved to speak by the tone of the Attorney-General's observations. His right hon. friend the Chief Conservative Whip had scrupulously abstained from anything in the nature of political controversy, and from any attempt to make party capital out of the discussion. His right hon. friend could not have done less than move the issue of the writ, and he could not have done so in terms less open to challenge or giving a slighter justification for a provocative party attack. No member of the Opposition desired to palliate electoral corruption, wherever it took place, and if his right hon. friend's Motion were such as to prevent due notice being taken of the illegal acts committed at Worcester he
  1058
  would not support it. But the criminal side of the procedure which should follow upon the Commissioners' Report would not be in the least affected by the issue of the writ. The Commissioners had found that there was in the City of Worcester—and let them have no cant, it existed in other cities—a certain corrupt element which had traded upon the anxiety of candidates on one side or the other, to got into Parliament. [An Hon. Member: One side.] That was not the fact. That corrupt element was in the opinion of the Commissioners limited to about 500 out of an electorate of nearly 9,000, while about 100 persons had been scheduled as guilty of corruption, and if now any one of those 100 voted in an election his vote would be disallowed on a scrutiny, so no candidate would desire to have any of those 100 votes. Why, because of the 100 or the 500 making the corrupt element, should the city of Worcester be indefinitely deprived of representation? What was the history of the Liberal Party as laid down by the Commission? The late Liberal candidate, to his honour, fought a pure election campaign. But did the Attorney-General pretend that his Party did not on previous occasions,—["Oh, oh."] did the hon. and learned Gentleman when he flung about his taunts and posed as the champion of political purity—
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he simply spoke of the findings of the Commission upon matters of fact.
  MR, AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Gentleman spoke of those findings which he wished to bring to the knowledge of the House, avoiding others, he ornamented them with his own suggestions as to where corruption lurked, and the hidden motives for moving for a writ; but when he posed as the special guardian of political purity did he pretend that his own Party did not dabble in the same practices previously? He could not do so. It was to be regretted that this tone had been introduced into the debate. Neither Party desired to defend corruption, but it was a very strong measure to delay the issue of a writ indefinitely when the Commission had reported that the corrupt element extended to a small portion only of the electorate, and when proceedings could be instituted against the scheduled persons whether the writ were

  1059
  issued or not. He should vote for the Motion, as a protest against the disfranchisement of the great mass of incorruptible electors of Worcester and the tone of the Attorney-General's speech.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid that whatever way they looked at this matter the Motion of the Attorney-General would disfranchise for a time about 8,500 electors in consequence of the action of 500 people or thereabouts. The House would probably desire to act strictly in accordance with precedent in connection with such a proceeding. He thought the Attorney-General was going to say that the Government had not yet had time to consider what they ought to do in regard to the report furnished by the Commissioners. If he had taken that course, there would have been a good deal to be said in support of the Motion, but the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be of opinion that he could by making use of the Government majority suspend indefinitely the issue of a writ.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he certainly had not submitted such a proposition. A writ could only be suspended for a definite period by Act of Parliament, but it was obvious that before a prosecution could be issued some
  time must elapse, the prosecutions it instituted would take time, and the Government must also have time to consider the evidence not yet printed before deciding whether they should introduce a Bill. The notice of Motion appeared contemporaneously with the presentation of the Report, when the ink was scarcely dry, and before the evidence was printed. Later the view of the Government would be indicated.
  SIR E. CARSONwas sorry that the Attorney-General, instead of making a provocative speech, did not state that the Government desired time to consider what they should do. This he had not done, and, listening to the speech, it might have been supposed that the Government had a right on a more Motion to suspend the writ. On no occasion had there been, nor should there be, disfranchisement without the passing of a Bill by the House.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODremarked that ink must take long to dry at the Home Office, for the date of the Report was 22nd November, and it was laid on the Table on 10th December.
  Question put.
  The House divided :—Ayes, 263 Noes, 66. (Division List No. 499.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

  Agnew, George William

  Brace, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Alden, Percy

  Branch, James

  Corbett, C.H.(Sussex. E. Grins'd

  Ambrose, Robert

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cory, Clifford John

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bryce, Rt. Hon James (Aberdeen

  Cotton, Sir H.J.S.

  Atherley, Jones, L.

  Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cox, Harold

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Crombie, John William

  Barker, John

  Byles, William Pollard

  Crooks, William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cameron, Robert

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B(Hexham

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Bell, Richard

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Benn, W. (T'wr'Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Bertram, Julius

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Elibank, Master of

  Bethell, Sir J.H. (Essex, Romf' rd

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Erskine, David C,

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Essex, R. W.

  Billson, Alfred

  Clough, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Boland, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macdonald J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rowlands, J.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Runciman, Walter

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Russell, T. W.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Crae, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Killop, W.

  Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Shackleton, David James

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B).

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Sheehy, David

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Marnham, F. J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Meagher, Michael

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hart-Davis, T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Harwood, George

  Montagu, E. S.

  Snowden, P.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morse, L. L

  Steadman, W. C.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murphy, John

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Myer, Horatio

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Napier, T. B.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thorne, William

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Toulmin, George

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperay Mid

  Verney, F. W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

  Walker H. De. R. (Leicester)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  O'Loherty, Philip

  Wallace, Robert

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Malley, William

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Mara, James

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wardle, George J.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Partington, Oswald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Paul, Herbert

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (South'mpt'n)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Price, C. E. (Edinbugh, Central

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Radford, G. H.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Williamson, A.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, Hn. C.H.W. (Hull, W.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Rees, J. D.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Lough, Thomas

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

  NOES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bridgeman, W. Clive.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Wore-

  Ashley, W. W.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Courthope, G. Lloyd

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (CityLond.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cave, George

  Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants, W.)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Fell, Arthur

  1062

  1063

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S.Edm'ds

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Percy, Earl

  Younger, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Liddell, Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Ordered, That Mr. SPEAKER do not, during the present Session of Parliament, issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Worcester, in the room of George Henry Williamson, Esquire, whose election has been declared to be void.

  TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONIES (CONSTITUTIONS).
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.)in moving "That this House approves the grant of Constitutions conferring responsible government upon the peoples of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies," said: Letters Patent have been issued during the last week conferring a Constitution upon the Transvaal Colony. These instruments have now been for some days at the disposal of the House, and this afternoon affords an occasion for their discussion. Other Letters Patent conferring a Constitution upon the Orange River Colony are in an advanced state of preparation, and I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if I were to make a general statement as to the character and scope of that Constitution. With that view I have, by the direction of the Prime Minister, placed upon the Paper the Resolution which I now move, and which permits a general discussion upon the constitutional arrangements which we are making both in the Transvaal and in the Orange River Colony. Now,
  1064
  Sir, by the Treaty of Vereeniging, Great Britain promised full self-government to the peoples of the two Boer Republics which had been conquered and annexed as the result of the war. This intention of giving responsible government did not arise out of the terms of peace, although it is, of course, solemnly expressed in them. It has always been the settled and successful colonial policy of this country during the last fifty years to allow great liberties of self-government to distant communities under the Crown, and no responsible statesman and no British Cabinet, so far as I know, ever contemplated any other solution of the South African problem but that of full self-government. The idea which I have seen put forward in some quarters, that in order to get full satisfaction for the expense and the exertions to which we were put in the war we are bound to continue governing those peoples according to our pleasure and against their will, and that that is, as it were, an agreeable exercise which is to be compensation for our labours, is an idea which no doubt finds expression in the columns of newspapers, but to which I do not think any serious person ever gave any countenance. No, Sir, the ultimate object was not lost sight of even in the height of the war, namely, the bestowal of full self-government; and as all parties were agreed that some interval for reconstruction must necessarily intervene, the only questions at issue between us have been questions of manner and questions of time. First as to manner. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, the other day said that the manner in which we had given this Constitution to the Transvaal was a breach of the terms of peace.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not think I said that.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not press the point if the right hon. Gentleman did not say so. He was certainly reported to that effect.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not think I said it.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Then we are agreed as to the manner, in so far as it is not suggested that there is any breach of the terms of peace in the omission of the representative Government stage. I am very glad to have that admission, because I was about to assert most clearly that so far from being a breach of the spirit of the terms of peace, the step we are taking in the Transvaal to give full responsible government at once is a more precise and punctual fulfiment of those terms. Then, Sir, how much difference is there between Parties in this House as to time? It is now more than three years since Lord Milner, speaking in the Inter-colonial Council, bore emphatic testimony to the faithfulness with which the Boers—those who had been fighting against us—had observed their side of the terms of peace. Lord Milnersaid—
  "It is perfectly true that the Boer population, the men who signed the terms of peace at Vereeniging, have loyally observed those terms and have carried them out faithfully, They profess to-day, and I absolutely believe them, that no idea of an armed rising or unlawful action is in their minds. I may say I am in constant, perhaps I should say frequent, communication with the men who in the war fought us so manfully and then made manful terms. We differ on many points, no doubt, and I do not expect them to rejoice with us in what has happened, or to feel affection for a man who, like myself, has been instrumental in bringing about the great change which has come over the Constitution of the country. But I firmly believe their word when they come forward and meet us, and without professing to agree in all respects with the policy of the Government, declare that they desire to co-operate in all questions affecting the prosperity of the country and the maintenance of public order. I accept the assurance they give in that respect, and I think it is practically impossible to put your hands on anything done by myself or any member of the Government which can be regarded as a manifestation of distrust of the men who have shown themselves, and do show themselves, men of honour. Let me say then, I am perfectly satisfied that so great is the influence of their leaders over the minds of the main section of the Boer population that
  1066
  so long as those leaders maintain that attitude a general rising is out of the question."
  Those are the words which Lord Milner used three years ago, and I think they are words which do justice to the subject and to the speaker. But more than two years have passed since the representations were made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square, which, induced him to confer a measure of self-government on the Transvaal. Those representations laid stress on the fact that the desire for self-government was not put forward only by the Boers, but that both sections of the community in the Transvaal desired to take the control of affairs into their own hands. The right hon. Gentleman published a Constitution. That Constitution conferred very great and wide powers. It conferred upon an overwhelming elected majority the absolute power of the purse and control over legislation. But it has always been my submission to the House that that Constitution had about it no element of permanence, that it could not possibly have been maintained as an enduring, or even a workable, settlement; and I am bound to say—I do not wish to be controversial this afternoon if I can avoid it—that, when I read the statement that this representative Government stage would have been a convenient educative stage in the transition to full self-government, the whole experience of British colonial policy does not justify such an assumption. The system of representative Government without responsible Ministers, without responsible powers, has led to endless friction and inconvenience wherever and whenever it has been employed. It has failed in Canada, it has failed in Natal and Cape Colony. It has been condemned by almost every high colonial authority who has studied this question. I do not think I need quote any more conclusive authority upon that subject than that of Lord Durham. Lord Durham, in his celebrated Report, says of this particular system—
  "It is difficult to understand how any English statesmen could have imagined that representative and irresponsible Government could be successfully combined. There seems, indeed, to be an idea that the character of representative institutions ought to be thus modified in Colonies; that it is an incident of colonial dependence that the officers of government should

  1067
  be nominated by the Crown without any reference to the wishes of the community whose interests are entrusted to their keeping. It has never been very clearly explained what are the Imperial interests which require this complete nullification of representative Government. But if there is such a necessity, it is quite clear that a representative Government in a Colony must be a mockery and a source of confusion, for those who support this system have never yet been able to devise or exhibit in the practical working of colonial Government any means for making so complete an abrogation of political influence palatable to the representative body."
  I contend that the right hon. Gentleman's Constitution would have broken down in its first session, and that we should have then been forced to concede grudgingly and in a hurry the full measure of responsible Government which, with all due formality and without any precipitancy, the Letters Patent issued last week have now conferred. But even the right hon. Gentleman himself did not intend his Constitution to be a permanent settlement. He intended it to be a transition, and a brief transition; and in the correspondence which passed on this subject two or three years is sometimes named as the period which such a Constitution might conveniently have endured—two or three years, of which, let me point out to the House, nearly two years have already gone. Seeing how little difference there is between us upon that question, I dispense with further argument as to the grant of a Transvaal Constitution, as I see the course we have adopted does commend itself to the good sense of all Parties in this country and is sustained at almost every point by almost every person conversant with South African affairs. It is said, we have heard it often said, "It may be wise to grant responsible Government to the Transvaal, but it is not wise to give it to the Orange River Colony. Why should you give it to the Orange River Colony too?" I say, "Why not?" Let us make it quite clear that the burden of proof always rests with those who deny or restrict the issue of full Parliamentary liberties. They have to make their case good from month to month, and from day to day. What are the reasons which have been advanced against the issue of a constitution to the Orange River Colony? A variety of reasons has been put forward. We have
  1068
  been told that the Colony is not ripe for self-government When you have very small communities of white men in distant and immense territories, and when those communities are emerging from a wild into a more settled condition, then it is very necessary and very desirable that the growth of self-governing institutions should be gradual. But that is not the situation in the Orange River Colony. The Orange Free State was the model small republic of the world. The honourable traditions of the Free State are not challenged by any who take the trouble to study its history either in the distant past, or in the years just immediately preceding the South African war. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham himself, speaking in this House on 7th December, 1900, used language which, I think, should go far to dissipate the idle fears which we hear expressed in various quarters upon the grant of self-government to the Orange River Colony—
  "We do not propose,"
  said the right hon. Gentleman,
  "that the constitution of the Orange River Colony should necessarily be the same as the Constitution of the Transvaal, Colony, either at starting or in the immediate future. It will be dealt with upon its own merits, dealt with separately, and we think it possible—"
  I ask the House to mark this—
  "from the circumstances with which every one is familiar, that an earlier beginning to greater political liberty may be made in the Orange River Colony than in the Transvaal. That is due to the fact that the Government of the Orange River Colony previous to the war was by common consent a very good Government, and consequently, speaking generally, of course, and not of individuals, we shall find there probably the means to creating a satisfactory administration more quickly than we can do in the case of the Transvaal Colony."
  Then we have been told that responsible government presupposes party government, and that in the Orange River Colony there are not the elements of political parties, that there is not that diversity of interests which we see in the Transvaal, that there are not the same sharp differences between town and country, or the same astonishing contrasts between wealth and poverty which prevail in the Transvaal. And we are told that, in order that responsible

  1069
  government should work properly, that party government should be a success, there must be the essential elements of party conflict. I suppose we are all in this House admirers of the party system of government; but I do not think that we should any of us carry our admiration of that system so far as to say that the nation is unfit to enjoy the privilege of managing its own affairs unless it can find some one to quarrel with and plenty of things to quarrel about. Then we are told that—"The country is prospering as it is. Why change now? The land is tranquil, people are regaining the prosperity which was lost in the war. It is a pity to make a change now; now is not the moment." I admit the premise—I shall have something to say before I sit down about the economic conditions of the Orange River Colony—but I draw exactly the opposite conclusion from that premise. It is just for that reason that we should now step forward and, taking occasion by the hand, make an advance in the system of government. How often in the history of nations has the golden opportunity been allowed to slip away! How often have rulers and Governments been forced to make in foul weather the very journey which they have refused to make prosperously in fair weather! Then we are told that Imperial interests would be endangered by this grant. I do not believe that that is so. The Boer mind moves by definite steps from one political conception to another. I believe they have definitely abandoned their old ambition of creating in South Africa a united states independent of the British Crown, and have accepted that other political ideal which is represented by the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia. At any rate, no people have a greater right to claim respect on the ground of their loyal adherence to treaty engagements than the people of the Orange River Colony; for everyone knows that it was with a most faithful adherence to their engagements, with almost Quixotic loyalty, that they followed, many of them knowing where their fortune was going to lead them, knowing full well what would be the result of their action, their sister State into the disastrous struggle of the South African
  1070
  war. It is quite true that there is in existence at the present time, and I think Lord Milner has pointed it out no bond of love between the men who fought us in that war and this country. I was reading the other day a speech by Mr. Steyn. Mr. Steyn is, of course one of the most clearly avowed opponents of the British power. But Mr. Steyn is quite clear upon this point. He says there is no bond of love, and it would be untruthful and dishonest on their part to say that such a bond existed. But, he says, there is another bond, there is such a thing as a man's word of honour; "we gave our word of honour at Vereeniging, and it is our intention to abide strictly by that." I state my opinion as to the safety of this step we propose to take, but I cannot expect right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to set much store by that, although it is an honest and sincere opinion. But I will quote them an authority which I am sure they will not dismiss without respect. As soon as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham returned from South Africa, while his experiences in that country were fresh in his mind, while he had but newly been conversing with men of all parties there on the spot, the scene of the struggle, he made a speech in this House which really ought not to be overlooked by persons dealing with this question.
  "Great importance,
  said the right hon. Gentleman,
  "Seems to be attached to the view that in the interests of the two Colonies it is desirable that a certain time, not a long time n the history of a nation, but still a certain time should elapse before full self-government is accorded. Whether a long time will elapse I really cannot say. One thing is clear; if the population of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, both Boer and Briton, by a large majority, desire this self-government, even although it might seem to us to be premature, I should think it unwise to refuse it. I do not myself believe there is any such danger connected with Imperial interests that we should hesitate to accord it on that ground. The ground on which I should desire that it might be delayed is really the interest of the two Colonies themselves, and not any Imperial interest."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What date was that?
  MR. CHURCHILL: 19th March, 1903, three years ago. The peace and order

  1071
  of the Orange River Colony establishes this case on its merits. It is a State bound to moderation by the circumstance of its geographical position. In all its history in South Africa it has been largely dependent on the goodwill of its neighbours, goodwill and friendly relations maintained with Natal and the Transvaal, on the one hand, and with the Cape Colony on the other. It is inconceivable that a State so situated in regard to its railways and its economical position generally should be a disturbing influence from the point of view of the different States of South Africa. But there is another fact which justifies this grant, and that is the extraordinary crimelessness in a political sense of the whole of that country. Let the House remember that there had been three years war, of which two years were fierec guerilla fighting, and that on all sides there were to be found desperate men who had been for a long period holding their lives in their hands and engaged on every wild and adventurous foray. Peace is agreed on, and what happens? Absolute order exists and prevails throughout the whole country from that moment. There has not been a single case of violent crime except, I believe, one murder committed by a lunatic—hardly a case of sedition—and not a single case of prosecution for treason of any kind. I say without hesitation that in order to find a similar instance of swift transition from violent warfare to law-abiding peace you have got to look back to the days when the army of the Parliament was reviewed and disbanded at the Restoration. I submit to the House that a case for conferring responsible Government on the Orange River Colony is established on its merits. But that is not the whole question before us this afternoon. We have not merely to decide whether we will give a Constitution to the Orange River Colony, but whether having given a Constitution to the Transvaal we will deliberately withhold one from the Orange River Colony; and that is an argument which multiplies the others which I have used. On what ground could we refuse that equal treatment of the Orange River Colony? There is only one ground which we could assign for such a refusal, and that is that in the Orange River Colony there is sure to be a Dutch
  1072
  majority. I cannot conceive any more fatal assertion that could be made on the part of the Imperial Government than that on this specific racial ground they were forced to refuse liberties which otherwise they would concede. I say such a refusal would be an insult to the hundreds and thousands of loyal Dutch subjects the King has in all parts of South Africa. I say that this invidious treatment of the Orange River Colony would be the greatest blunder, a fitting pendant to all that long concatenation of fatal mistakes which has marked our policy in South Africa for so many years; and I say it would be a breach of the spirit of the terms of peace, because we could not say, "We promised you self-government at the terms of peace, but what we meant by that was that before you were to have self-government enough persons of British origin should have arrived in the country to make quite sure you would be outvoted." If we were to adopt such a course we should be false to that agreement, which is the great foundation of our policy in South Africa. I hope the House will earnestly sustain the importance of that Vereeniging agreement. For the first time in many years the two white races dwelling together in South Africa have found a common foundation on which they can both build, a foundation much better thin Boomplaats, or the Sand River Convention, or the Conventions of 1880 and 1884, far better than Majuba Hill or the Jameson Raid. They have found a foundation which they can both look to without any feeling of shame, on the contrary with feelings of equal honour, and I trust also with feelings of mutual forgiveness. On those grounds, therefore, we have decided to give to the Orange River Colony full responsible government. We eschew altogether the idea, of treating them differently from the Transvaal, or interposing any state of limited self-government between them and the full enjoyment of their right. There is to be a Legislature which will consist of two Chambers, as in the Transvaal. The first Chamber will be elected upon a voters' basis and by manhood suffrage. The residential qualification will be the same is in the Transvaal, six months. The distribution of seats has been settled by general consent. The Committee which

  1073
  we sent to South Africa, and which was so very successful in arriving at a adjustment between the parties in the Transvaal, have made similar investigations in the Orange River Colony, and think we may accept with confidence their recommendation. They recommend that the number of members should be thirty-eight. The old Volksraad had sixty members, but it was found to be much too large for the needs of the country, and on several occasions efforts were made to reduce the representation. Those efforts were not successful, from the fact which we all can appreciate, that it is very difficult indeed to get a representative body to pass a self-denying ordinance of that character which involves the extinction of its own members. There will be separate representation of towns in the Orange River Colony. In the Volksraad there was such a representation, there were forty-two rural members and eighteen urban members. Out of the thirty-eight we propose that there shall be twenty-seven rural members and eleven urban members; rather less than a third of the representation will be that of the small towns. That is a proportion which is justified by the precedent of the old Constitution, and also by the latest census, of 1904. As in the case of the Volksraad, every magisterial district will be represented. The allocation of members among the constituencies thus delimited will proceed on an arithmetical basis. We take the adult males in the census of 1904, and arrive at our quota for distribution, which is 1,058. Half a quota entitles a town or a district to a member, and an additional whole quota entitles a town or district to a second member. That is an arithmetical device to govern the working of automatic redistribution, and to regularise a distribution otherwise supported by precedent and by general agreement. I will read the schedule of the constituencies. There will be two members each to the districts of Bloemfontein, Kroonstad, Rouxville, and Winburg; one member each to the districts of Bethlehem, Bethulie, Boshof, Edenburg, Ficksburg, Frankfort, Harrismith, Heilbron, Hoopstad, Ladybrand, Lindley, Philippolis, Senekal, Smithfield, Thaba 'Nchu, Vrede, Vredefort, and Wepener; one member to the districts
  1074
  or Fauresmith and Jacobsdal together The following are the towns: Bloemfontein, five members; Harrismith and Kroonstad, one each; one member for Bethlehem, Fouriesburg, and Ficksburg together; one for Jagersfontein and Koffyfontein together; one for Parys, Vredefort, and Heilbron together; and one for Ladybrand and Thaba 'Nchu together. There will be a Second Chamber, and, as in the Transvaal, it will be nominated, end for the first time only. It will be nominated by the Governor under instructions from the Secretary of State, and vacancies will be filled up by the Governor in Council—that is to say, the Governor on the advice of his responsible Ministers. A Second Chamber is not, perhaps, a very pleasent object for us to contemplate; but, at any rate, it is not an hereditary Chamber; and it may be, therefore, assumed that the distribution of parties in that Chamber will be attended by some measure of impartiality, and that there will be some general attempt to select only those persons who are really fit to exercise the important functions entrusted to them. But even so protected, the Government feel that in the ultimate issue, in a conflict between the two Chambers, the lower and representative Chamber must in the end prevail. The other body may review its proceedings, may delay them, but if measures are sent up in successive sessions from the representative Chamber and no agreement can be reached, we have introduced the machinery which appears in the Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, that both Chambers shall sit together, debate together, vote together, and the majority shall decide. The whole success of that operation depends upon the numerical proportion observed between the two Chambers. In the Australian Commonwealth the proportion is rather more than two to one, but in the Transvaal the proportion will be more than four to one, namely, sixty-five to fifteen; and in the Orange River Colony it will be thirty-eight to eleven. Members of both Chambers will receive payment for their services; £300 year is the maximum that can be paid to any member; £150 is paid to a member with £2 a day extra for every day of attendance in the course of the session. I am sure that such a wise provision will

  1075
  have the effect of limiting the length of the session very much, and no doubt, if it were included in a measure for the payment of members introduced in this House, it would receive the widest support from all Parties. The other provisions of the Constitution will mainly follow the lines of the Transvaal. There will be the same reservation in regard to legislation which imposes a difference between man and man on account of race. These reservations are common in all colonial Constitutions. I think we could not do more; we could not, I am sure, have done less. There will be a schedule of pensions for retiring officers of the Executive, as in the case of the Transvaal, and that schedule will be calculated strictly upon the Treasury rule which prevails in this country. For every year of service one-sixtieth of the salary is allowed, but on account of the abolition of office, when the service has exceeded five years, five years additional will be allowed, and in the case of professional attendance, following the Treasury rule in this country, ten years extra will be allowed in the case of the Attorney-General, both of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. The sums involved are smaller sums than have attended the grant of self-government in other Colonies. There will be very nearly the same reservation in respect to land settlement. I will remind the House that on 5th July last I had to outline certain proposals which we intended to make to various parties in South Africa. We inquired whether any local support would be given to the plan for continuing the planting of new settlers on the land. We could get none. No effective support of any kind was forthcoming for the continuance or the expansion of that system. Even those gentlemen who undertook to underwrite the loan of £10,000,000 which was to be repaid to this country evinced no special desire to come forward and apply a smaller proportion of that sum for the purpose of land settlement. Therefore the Government have abandoned the matter altogether. But in regard to the existing settlers we feel under a distinct obligation. We feel that a sympathetic administration was one of the essential conditions of their tenancies, and we feel that a Land Board, nominated and formed as outlined in the
  1076
  Transvaal Letters Patent, is the only effective way of interposing a screen between mortgagor and mortgagee. But in making this arrangement I repudiate altogether any slur upon the humanity or sense of justice of the Boers or any other section which will vote in the election of the new Parliament. The Boers, indeed, are the last people to be uncharitable to the farming people. But we are bound to deal directly with the settlers. We have been informed—and although I do not like the language which has been used, I cannot quarrel with it in substance—that it is an obligation of honour upon the Imperial Government to relieve these settlers from any anxiety which they genuinely feel and which is shared by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore we have decided to elect a Land Board as described—a Land Board which will have no power to put any more new settlers on the land, which will last only five years to enable the existing settlers to take root, and which may be dissolved sooner if it is found satisfactory to all parties. In regard to the contribution which it was proposed to secure to this country as a payment towards the expenses of the war, the Government fully and frankly forgive and obliterate, and let us trust also forget, any obligation which may have been incurred on that head. We put that away. Let the House not overlook the fact that in the expectation of a payment of that character this House was induced to guarantee the interest of the loan of £35,000,000, amounting to £350,000 a year; or, in other words, a permanent endowment of £350,000 a year has been conferred upon the people of the two colonies. That fact must be regarded is establishing an acquittance in full on the part of the Imperial Government for my claims—for any further compensations or for any outstanding obligation—no matter where or by whom they may be in future brought forward. What is the condition of the Orange River Colony to whom we are now going to entrust a Parliament for the management of its own affairs? It has long been noticed low very rapidly a country devastated by war recovers from the effects of war. That is especially true of the Orange River Colony. Not only has the ruin of the country been most swiftly repaired,

  1077
  but every evidence shows that when the live stock have multiplied, as they must in the course of a few years, the country will have risen to a level of prosperity far above anything it has never known before. The population has increased from 96,000 before the war to 143,000. The railways have doubled, from 400 miles to 800 miles. Telegraphs have more than doubled, from 1,700 to 3,700. In 1898 Customs amounted to £1,190,000, and yielded £160,000 in duty at a cost of £8,500 in collection. In 1904–5 Customs amounted to £4,050,000 yielded £314,000, and cost in collection £8,100. Although there has been no extra taxes, except the 10s. polltax, ear-marked for educational purposes, and no grant-in-aid, and large railway rebates have been made, the revenue of the country which before the war was £391,000, has increased to between £700,000 and £800,000 a year, and after providing improved Government buildings of all kinds, museums, colleges, and hospitals there remains a balance of £150,000, accumulated out of annual savings. Schools have been rebuilt and multiplied. Before the war there were 8,000 children in 200 schools, with 313 teachers. There are now 16,000 children in 262 schools and 515 teachers. Mails have increased from 17,000,000 in 1898, to 43,000,000 last year. The Bloemfontein monthly delivery alone has increased from 1,900 to 50,000. Against all that it must be stated that there is a debt charge on the country. What the amount of the debt is one cannot accurately ascertain; but it is something under £10,000,000, and that is the ghost of the ruin of the war which is now passing away for ever from the land. These figures reflect great credit on Sir Hamilton Goold-Adams and those who have been associated with him in the work of restoring the industry and prosperity of the Orange River Colony. I say that with all the more satisfaction, because when my knowledge of the country was not so full as it has since become I used a phrase which might possibly be considered disparaging of the work which Sir Hamilton Goold-Adams and his assistants have brought in so short a space of time to so marvellous a completion. The Constitution of the Orange River Colony will become effective as soon as possible. It will be necessary to prepare Letters
  1078
  Patent, as in the case of the Transvaal, and these I should hope will be issued before Parliament meets after the Christmas holiday. Before the Letters Patent come out we shall set to work to form a register of voters and appoint a Boundaries Commission. The work of this Commission will take a considerable time, and I do not expect it will be completed until June of next year. So I should think that the new Parliament might assemble in Bloemfontein some time during the autumn of next year. When that work has been completed, and the new Parliament has assembled, the main direction of South African affairs in these Colonies will have passed from our hands; and I am sure it will be the wish of this democratic House of Commons, which has created these new Parliaments in the first year of its life, to secure to them in the fullest manner the enjoyment of the liberties with which we have endowed them.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That this House approves the grant of Constitutions conferring responsible government upon the peoples of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies."—(Mr.Churchill.)
  MR. LYTTELTON: At the end of July last we discussed at considerable length the Constitution which was then adumbrated by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. That referred only to the Transvaal. We have since had the Letters Patent issued embodying those provisions. We shall no doubt have another opportunity of discussing the Letters Patent relating to the Orange River Colony. Therefore, I shall abstain from dealing in detail with the provisions relating to the Orange Colony at the present moment, feeling certain that it is better to see those proposals in print, and to consider them carefully before criticising them at length. This much, however, I should like to say—namely, that one of the objections which the Opposition have to the granting of full responsible government to the Transvaal, which we all agree must take place at some time, is that we cannot refuse to the Orange Colony that which we grant to the Transvaal. I rejoice to hear

  1079
  of the regained prosperity of the Orange Colony, and I congratulate Sir Hamilton Goold-Adams and his assistants on the admirable work they have done in promoting that prosperity; and certainly I for one should not for a moment desire to say that that Colony has not within it the seeds of great future development. I acknowledge the obligations we on the Opposition side feel for some matters in the Constitution of the Transvaal that have now been brought to light by the Letters Patent. I am glad there is a Second Chamber which is a reality. Not merely is it warranted to exist for five years, but in the event of agreement not having been come to by the Legislature for the creation of another Second Chamber, then the Governor will nominate a Second Chamber again after the five years have expired. I am bound to say this is a substantial point. I think also the Government have done well in making English the official language of the Transvaal State. And for myself, I am also quite willing to say that I think that the whole of the provisions with respect to the Dutch language being spoken in the Assembly—which was always the intention of the late Government—are more happily dealt with. I express our obligations in some sense for the policy of land settlement and the establishment of the Imperial Board. It is a matter of very great importance to the Orange Colony, where there are so many British settlers, that our interests should be conserved, not merely by a just, but by a sympathetic Government. I do not say that the Boers will desire to act unjustly, but a man may be a just landlord who is not a sympathetic landlord. I am bound to say, however, that the sum of £58,000 seems an uncommonly small one for the effective establishment of the Imperial Board and for the maintenance of its work.
  MR. CHURCHILL: That money has been advanced to the settlers and moneys are due from them. These moneys in the last year in the Orange River Colony alone amounted to over £22,000. That income is at the disposal of the Board, and a very considerable income it is. All they have to do with it is to shield the existing settlers from unsympathetic administration. The fund available for the
  1080
  Board will not only be sufficient for carrying on the limited purpose to which we propose to devote it, but will be largely in excess. The extra £58,000 placed at their disposal is only to enable the Board to tide over the fresh period before the rent and instalments to which they are entitled naturally fall due.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Whilst fully appreciating the hon. Member's explanation, I still think the sum allocated is a beggarly one and insufficient, and it is not a generous response to appeals made even from the Government's own side by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chippenham and the hon. and learned Member for Reading. Although £9,500,000 has been expended by the Imperial Government upon repatriation, and almost entirely devoted to our Dutch fellow subjects, yet the £3,000,000 voted by the Ordinance and by Parliament for the assistance of British settlers has now, notwithstanding the obligations which the Under-Secretary has acknowledged, been cut down by nearly £500,000. It is a matter for congratulation, however, that some pensions have been granted to the Transvaal and have been promised in the case of the Orange Colony to those civil servants who in the past have worked themselves almost to the bone on behalf of the Colonies, and whose services most thoroughly deserve recognition in the form of pension, if any services ever did. But the reservations which the Government have made from the autonomy which they have granted to the two Colonies undoubtedly raise considerations of a controversial character, and involve some consideration of the policy of the late Government. I embark on the consideration of them, I hope the House will believe me, not from any vanity nor from any desire to arouse strife, but in a business of such vast importance as this it is right that the country should appreciate and know what the differences are between parties, and when they come, as they ultimately will, to adjudicate between the two great parties in regard to their policies in South Africa, they should know what the differences at this time have been. Having myself for many months navigated the troublous waters of the South African question, I desire to point out to

  1081
  the Government from that experience on a somewhat uncharted sea some of the rocks on which by these reservations and other provisions of the Constitution they appear to be drifting. I do not wish to develop them at large, but the House will remember the broad outlines of the policy of the late Government—the policy as expressed at Vereeninging, as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, as, I think, confirmed by this House on more than one occasion, and as ultimately embodied in the Letters Patent. The policy of the last Government was to draw out gradually to self-government and to take the usual steps which had been taken in the history of every other self-governing colony in the British Empire. No originality was claimed for this. There was nothing new in it. It was always thought by the late Government that that having been the practice it was not desirable to depart from it in this particular case, and the Under-Secretary will forgive my saying that it is really not worth my while to consider his comment that the proposals of those Letters Patent were unworkable. In point of fact proposals of the same sort were worked in Canada, Cape Colony, Natal, and Australia for various periods, and it really is absurd to say that they are not workable. I have stated myself that they led to friction, and so does the British Constitution lead to friction. That was the first item in the policy of the last Government. Then next there was the desire gradually to populate the country by immigrants in order, by peaceful association with the Boers, to gain that good feeling which does subsist between the agricultural communities in both Colonies, which has led to admirable harmony between the two races engaged in those peaceful agricultural pursuits, and which would have energetically promoted what I believe is a most desirable thing—the merging of the sharp dividing line between the country and the towns in South Africa, which was also the dividing line between Briton and Boer. With the object of introducing settlers and promoting prosperity though out the country we desired that the gold-mining industry should be worked to the full extent. The three great sources of revenue in the Transvaal are railway
  1082
  receipts, customs, and the tax upon profits of the mines. [An Hon. Member: And the poll tax on natives.] That item is a good deal smaller, though the polltax no doubt comes to something. It was the desire of the late Government that the gold-mining industry should be worked to the full, not for the purpose of earning dividends for their shareholders only, for dividends were a matter of comparative unimportance to the late Government. What they had to look to was the 10 per cent. profit tax and the receipts from the railways, which depended very largely on the prosperity of the mines, and the customs, which largely related to the mines also. The fourth desire of the late Government—and I do not hesitate to say it was a right desire—was to postpone the passionate conflicts of Party Government at so early a date after the war. Lastly, they wished to approach the federation of all the States in South Africa by the surest, safest, and smoothest route. They wished that the federation and self-government might be brought about at the same time, and, if possible, before the Transvaal State had attained that degree of individuality, that individual wealth, which is sometimes in the history of a State called capitalism, and which, very often presents obstacles and barriers to the smooth effecting of federation. Those were broadly the objects of the late Government, and I have never heard an argument in the House why the ordinary course of development and devolution might not have been pursued. You have got to contrast the scheme of the late Government with the reservations which the Government have made in what they call their scheme of self-government. The four reservations which the present Government have made are in regard to natives, British Indians, land settlement, and Chinese. You have reserved from the purview of the Colony the four matters in which they have the most vital and permanent interest. I am not saying whether any of these matters should or should not be reserved. That is a matter for the responsible Government, and they, after considering the matter for some, three months, have decided that they must reserve these matters and they indicate with respect to one or two of them that

  1083
  a conflict between themselves and the self-governing Colony are extremely likely. Would it not have been more straightforward and frank to have admitted that you could not take that position—that you could not grant the Colony absolute self-government on those points? Would it not have been better to have said, "We will not depart from the old procedure?" There were many good reasons for it, and, above all, reasons why they were not prepared to hand over to the Government of the Transvaal the matters in which the colonists themselves took the greatest and most vital interest. No doubt the fact that what is called responsible government has been granted to this Colony will enable a great many Party orators on the platform to make from their point of view very convincing and elaborate perorations upon the final triumph of Liberal opinions in the case of this Colony. That may be very satisfactory to the orators who proclaim what has been done; but I do not think they will be very convincing to the audiences which hear them. Can anything be more factious—can anything bring greater friction than to say with one voice that we are going to grant self-government and with another voice say, "No, there are some topics in which, no doubt, you take a very great and material interest, but on which we cannot admit that you should govern yourselves"? I venture to say from a not inconsiderable experience in this matter that no lover of his country can await without the greatest possible anxiety the conflict between this country, this Parliament and this House of Commons, and the self-governing Colony upon these points. Take, for instance, the question of British Indians. So long as there was merely representative government there that was a totally different matter. That responsibility was known to rest in Downing Street. Now responsible government all over the British Empire is identified with autonomy and practical independence. You are now—and I am not quarrelling with that—wishing to retain control of some of those matters in your own hand. You reserve these matters. You admit that you anticipate a conflict with the Colony on the matter.
  1084
  I say that that is not only a most dangerous course to pursue, but it is more. The Transvaal is made responsible for independent government, and in a matter that affects them vitally, and on which they have pronounced an opinion by a large majority, you cannot, if you go into a controversy, prevent every other self-governing colony, irrespective of the merits of the question, from saying, "The Transvaal is as independent as we are, and you ought not to interfere." That is a consequence which I am afraid must arise upon some of these points which you have reserved, and upon which you have expressed strong opinions. I wish the House to understand most distinctly that I do not blame the Government or their supporters for holding these strong opinions. They may be right or they may be wrong in holding them and in expressing in despatches these strong opinions in regard to the treatment of British Indians. I have expressed them myself, but I did not hold those views and grant responsible Government, and, having granted responsible Government take it back by cutting out from the grant such important matters. Mr. Deakin, who was Premier of the Australian Commonwealth, in a recent speech with reference to the Imperial veto on colonial legislation, said that in that part of the world the power had only been exercised in minor matters and had never been used to destroy any measure on which the opinion of the people had been clearly expressed. Surely that expression of opinion on the part of an eminent Australian statesman could not have escaped the notice of the Government. I wish to say with great earnestness that if the Government believe that they are in direct conflict with the views of the colony on some important matters which affect the Colony, do not select those matters which will provoke the greatest possible resistance, and at the same time challenge the other Colonies to get into line with that Colony. Again, the Constitution sets forth that—
  "Whereas it is our will and pleasure that all persons within our dominions should be free from any conditions of employment or residence of a servile character, the governor shall reserve any law providing for the introduction under contract indenture or licence of labourers into the Colony from places outside South Africa."

  1085
  That is a very remarkable limitation. What is the position? The Government has been, so to say, seised of this subject of Chinese labour for nearly twelve months, and they have amended the Ordinance by cutting out from it certain provisions which they deemed undesirable and recommended that the Government of the Transvaal should administer other provisions in regard to Chinese labour with the greatest possible caution and regard them as temporary during the next twelve months. But in a year's time they have placed themselves in the position that even the amended Ordinances of Lord Milner shall wholly cease and determine from the date of the first meeting of the Legislature. If the Colonial Parliament desires the Chinese to remain they will have to pass an Ordinance of their own, and then the British Government will be in the position of having to consider whether, after all these declarations, they will veto it. They will be very much in the same position in which the late Government were when it was proposed by a very large majority, as we believed, of all the white population to have the original Ordinance, and the question was, seeing the legislation had been passed for a Crown Colony, could we refuse the Colony the right to have indentured labour on the terms desired? I have never disguised that I had some objections to certain particulars in that Ordinance, but you have to consider whether you are in a position to say to a self-governing Colony, "We refuse you the right to get the labour you require for your leading industry on the terms you now desire." I must ask the House to consider that problem in the light of legislation that exists for other Colonies. In 1894 a Liberal Government, of which Lord Ripon, the present Postmaster-General, and the Chancellor of the Duchy were members, approved of an Ordinance for British Guiana, which provided that labourers from India might be indentured for five years, that they could not absent themselves without leave from the plantation to which they indentured; that anyone who persuaded a labourer to absent himself would be fined twenty dollars or suffer two months' imprisonment;
  1086
  that the labourer was compellable to do any work to which his employer set him; that he could be transferred from one employer to another for twelve months; that the employer might force him to do piece-work with or without his consent; that the employer was to pay him from a shilling a day; that no passport was to be issued to the labourer to enable him to return home until he had served five years except with the consent of the Governor, and that the labourer had to pay the cost of his return journey. These conditions were imposed in the Consolidating Act in 1894 after long experience, both in this House and outside. It differs from the Transvaal Ordinance in some minor points; but will any hon. Member project his imagination into a situation in which an African negro was engaged under these conditions and say that the negro was in a state of slavery? The hypothesis is that you will have to argue with the inhabitants of a colony which has been the theatre of a devastating war, with economic ruin staring them in the face, who say that their country is being made desolate for want of labour for their principal industry, who wish to recuperate that country and make it fit to live in and thrive. Are you going to say to that great Colony that you will refuse to it those facilities for obtaining labour which other Colonies have had for over fifty years? I would be sorry, if a Minister, to have to propound such an argument, because I should feel that I was on hopelessly weak ground, and I am satisfied that there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who would feel that also. That is the position with regard to the future. Now mark what is the position of the Government with regard to the provision which forbids in terms the renewal of the contracts by the Chinese after the expiry of the first period of three years. The House will remember that provision. It is an absolute breach of contract. I do not mean to say that you cannot by an Act of Parliamentor by Letters Patent, which have the effect of an Act of Parliament, break contracts, but this Government ought to be the last Government in the world to do so. What did they say with regard to the 16,000 coolies, the recruiting of whom was

  1087
  licensed by Sir Arthur Lawley shortly before we came out of power? Six months ago the Under-Secretary told us it would be unjust and illegal to revoke the recruiting licences, and for that reason these 16,000 coolies have been suffered to be taken to South Africa. Will he now tell the House that it is just and legal to break a contract when it will involve a far greater loss? The proposition is in credible. One of the considerations which induced the employers to incur the great expense of bringing Chinamen to South Africa was that at the end of the first three years, when the labourers were well trained, they should have the right of renewing the contract for the following three years, making altogether a six years period of service. The House knows perfectly well that the loss of that option will bring the loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds upon the mineowners. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not mind that; but those who call it unjust and illegal to revoke licences do mind it, and ought to mind it. If they do not care about inflicting a loss upon the mineowners what do they think about the loss to and the breach of faith with the Chinese? The Chinese were brought to South Africa under a most elaborate system of assurances, under a contract which had the faith of the British Government at the back of it. It is now proposed to tear up that contract. That is a very great loss to a Chinaman who, after six years service, would be able to return to China, being still a young man, with sufficient earnings to enable him to buy land and live immeasurably above his fellows for the rest of his life. He has been promised that opportunity on the faith of the British Government, and they now tell him he shall not have it. Is that just or legal? Six months ago the Under-Secretary himself said they really ought not to revoke these licences and sheltered himself under a plea of injustice and illegality. At that time not a single one of these 10,000 coolies had been recruited or signed a contract, still less left China. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer compare the revocation of licences upon which no action has been taken, and under which not a single coolie has left the shores of China, with the gravity of breaking a contract in part fulfilled, which involves the loss of hundreds
  1088
  of thousands of pounds to the mine-owners, loss to the coolies, and breach of faith on the part of the British Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I do not admit that it is breaking a contract at all. I deny altogether that the persons who had imported these coolies had any right to speculate on the indefinite continuance of a law which would entitle them to renew these contracts.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I contend, with great respect to my right hon. and learned friend, that the document which gave one party the right at the end of three years to renew and the other party the right to accept that renewal, was a contractual right. So far as the mineowners are concerned, it is a very valuable right, because it means that instead of employing new labourers and getting them from far away they can continue efficient labourers in their places.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is a contractual right contingent on the continuance of an Ordinance, and that Ordinance the Legislature has the right to amend, modify, or repeal.
  MR. LYTTELTON: But it was not amended in such a way as to repeal contractual rights. I agree that if the Government wish to do illegal Acts it is always open to Parliament to say that they will countenance them. It is always competent for Parliament to repeal a statute which gives a person a statutory right, but I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman will make such a proposal with regard to any British citizen. I complain of the secrecy with which the Government have treated these important matters and the absence of open dealing between the Government and those who differ from them upon this point. I do not wish to dwell upon the personal aspect—for which the Prime Minister has handsomely apologised to me—of the unfortunate handling of the Bucknill Report. But I think that when garbled versions of that Report got into the Press, owing to the unfortunate mistake that was made by the Government—I will put it no higher—the people who

  1089
  were vitally concerned in the Transvaal should not have been left in entire ignorance of the position of matters. I may be mistaken, but I understood the Under-Secretary to say the other day, in answer to a question with reference to the dealings of Mr. J. B. Robinson and his group, that no preference or monopoly has been given to one group of mines. But that is what has occurred. The Witwatersrand Native Association was formed with the approval of all parties. Who is Mr. Robinson that he should be allowed to break out from that Native Association, to which he belonged, and be granted a preference over and above all his neighbours?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I did not say in so many words that nothing of the kind had occurred.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have seen the documents in this case, and I can say without fear of contradiction that Mr. Robinson has been granted this preference. I fail to see any sort of justification for the grant to him of any preference. At least the Government should have had the decency to wait until after the inquiry with regard to this matter before pressing the Portuguese Government on behalf of an individual who it seems to me has no title whatever to be preferred over his competitors. I think we have a right in these highly controversial matters to complain that the Ridgeway Report has, in no portion of it, been shown either to the public or to the House. Sir West Ridgeway made a speech the other day in which he seemed to indicate that he did not know why in the world it should not be printed. He also used language which gave me the impression that the Report contains things, especially with regard to the Progressive Party in South Africa, who have been consistently defamed in many quarters of the House, which the country has a right to know. The observations of the chairman of the Commission showed that he regarded the Progressive Party as a body of most patriotic men; indeed, I think Sir West Ridgeway said their patriotism was almost excessive, and he also spoke very strongly of the necessity of preserving the industries of the Rand. That one Report should be
  1090
  withheld from the House we might perhaps be able to understand, but it certainly does seem to me a subject I will not say more than of regret in so many matters in which the future of South Africa is concerned—matters of profound moment, which involve a right judgment in dealing with most momentous questions—the Government should say they will not produce the documents, that they will not give any information as to their contents, and that they will not answer questions in regard to them in this House, and I do not think I should do my duty if I sat down without making this protest. I have put forward the difficulties which I think the Government will have to meet, but I hope the prognostication I have felt compelled to make will not be fulfilled, and that the prosperity which we all desire for the future of these Colonies may, however improbable it seems, be granted to them.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there had been no allusion to circumstances which made this occasion the most momentous, in connection with our Colonial Empire and our Empire generally, that this country had ever known. It might be inevitable, it might be impossible to resist it, but we were for the first time establishing a colour bar in the British Empire by the action of the Imperial Parliament. The results of that establishment must be so momentous, might be so disastrous, that it seemed an amazing fact that no allusion whatever should have been made to it by either the Under-Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There were many omissions from the speech of his hon. friend which might be generally described in those few words, but there were some passages in it which, he confessed, amazed him coming from the Under-Secretary. They all agreed, he supposed, that it was safe to give the freest institutions to the Orange River Colony; but the ground on which the Under-Secretary based that safety struck him as amazing coming from that side of the House. If he understood his hon. friend rightly, he said the Dutch had now laid aside the ideal of a Dutch South Africa under a Dutch flag, excluding the British Crown. Did any one except his

  1091
  hon. friend believe that that idea was ever entertained by the people of the two Republics? Dr. Leyds, indeed, entertained that idea and planted it on President Kruger, but the whole course of the history of the Republics and of the war contradicted emphatically the suggestion that any such idea prevailed in the two Republics. There was another amazing statement from his hon. friend. He told the House he might safely appeal to Lord Durham's condemnation of all possibility of working representative institutions without fully responsible institutions. The whole history of the Empire contradicted that very rash assertion of Lord Durham. There had been Colonies that had enjoyed that institution without a break since the Elizabethan times, and there were Colonies where it had been modified since those days. It was the only possible plan, admitted by every statesman from every party, of dealing with countries where there was an overwhelming black or native majority. There were not the same dangers, there were not the same fears in the case of the Orange River Colony as existed elsewhere, but in South Africa as a whole there was the consideration of the future, and the one argument used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite which weighed with him on this occasion, as it had weighed with him before, was that they could not shut their eyes to the future of South Africa under federation in the arrangement which they now set up. He could not agree with either of the preceding speakers as to the reservations. His hon. friend would no doubt have an easy task to-night in his reply, because he would be able to assume a safe position, and he would, in popular parlance, be able to knock the heads of himself (Sir Charles Dilke) and the late Colonial Secretary together. But there were occasions when the House must consider something more than the ordinary debate, and this was one of them. His hon. friend only really mentioned one reservation. He said it was an obligation of honour and we must redeem it. It was the obligation in connection with land settlement. But was there no obligation of honour on this country with regard to the natives, the overwhelming majority of the people
  1092
  of the Transvaal? Why should we be so tender of the one special case of the settlers and not equally tender with regard to our obligation in honour towards the natives? The Under-Secretary had said nothing about the reservations as to the natives except these ominous words, "We could not do more; we could not do less." No, he thought they could not do less after all the promises that were made, after all the boasts that were made, after all those contracts that were drawn between ourselves and the Boers and past Governments. The right hon. Gentleman opposite held up these reservations as provisions which could not be enforced, but he and his friends put them all in the case of Natal. These two documents were precisely the same as those granted on all previous occasions, and the right hon. Gentleman said they were inconsistent with responsible government. Lord Kimberley refused to grant complete self-government to Natal, because there were only 1,000 white people there. The Government then granted the same reservations as there were in this case in the teeth of the arguments used to-night. The right hon. Gentleman suggested there were special and exceptional reservations in this instance as regarded natives, British Indians, and Chinese. But there was no reservation with regard to natives, and he could not find a reservation with regard to British Indians, other than those which had been invariable and had become matters of mere form. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that to put such a reservation in this document would incite the Colonies to remonstrate with us. The only subject of the kind that had ever incited the Colonies against us was Chinese labour. When it was suggested that the present Government had come into conflict with the Government of Natal by desiring to interfere with the self-government of the Colony, on that occasion, one of the last acts of Mr. Seddon was to repudiate, in the most indignant terms, that suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman had specially referred to the repeal of the Labour Importation Ordinance. He for one had always believed that the permanent native question was more deserving of our real attention than the Chinese

  1093
  question, which was temporary in its nature. He would rather have doubted, as a matter of constitutional practice, the power of the Crown to repeal this Ordinance by Letters Patent. They could repeal by statute of the Imperial Parliament. But he did not believe in the popularity of Chinese labour in South Africa, or that anybody was going to make a struggle for it. There was that in the document which did not in the least correspond with this impression of what was likely to be the action of the Government. "Every white male" was taken as the foundation of the future Constitution. That was a grave and new departure for Parliament to take. There was any amount of precedent for our allowing Colonies to do things we would not do ourselves. But this Constitution contained an absolute colour bar in the sharpest form in which it had ever appeared in the English language, and one which obviously would lead to odious inquiries—for instance, such as those which led to a great law case in the Cape not long ago—in the case of coloured British subjects, many of them electors in other parts of the Empire, who might settle in South Africa. It was contrary to the usage of great self-governing Colonies within the Empire; there was no such colour bar against the Maoris in New Zealand, or the Red Indians in Canada, the descendants of whom were among the most valued members of society, and occupied a distinguished position in the aristocracy of the Dominion, if that phrase were permissible in a democracy. In the Cape, of course, there was a native franchise, and Dr. Jameson had declared that the Cape would never cousent to come into the federation on the surrender of her native franchise. By setting up this special and limited franchise the Government were putting a bar to federation in the future. The form of words on page 7 of the document that "the Governor shall reserve" was, he believed, taken from the Rhodesia Order in Council of 1891. There was a certain vagueness and ambiguity about the powers reserved to the Governor. There was a case the other day in Natal in which a letter was written from Government House stating that a law had not been reserved although it was ap-
  1094
  parently one which ought to have been reserved under the terms of instructions. It had not been reserved, however, because the Government had received the advice of the law officers of the Crown that it need not be reserved. On that he asked the Under-Secretary whether the Governor in interpreting these instructions was guided by the advice of the local government and the local law officers. He found that generally—and it appeared to be provided here in the latter part of the instructions—that the Governor in a very grave or exceptional case was expected to act on his own judgment, although the contrary was stated in the letter referred to from Government House in Natal. He applied to those who well knew the practice whether it was not as stated in the letter, and therefore it was a question whether we were reserving anything at all, because we were trusting to the local Governor to say what should or should not be reserved. He was much inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the narrow limitation of the word "servile." At page 39 of the document there was a certain conflict with the words used at page 7. It was stated at page 7—
  "It is Our will and pleasure that all persons within Our Dominions shall be free from any conditions of employment or residence of a servile character."
  That had no enactive force at all, but was merely a platonic declaration of goodwill. At page 39 the words were much stronger—
  "No law sanctioning any condition of service or residence of a servile character will be assented to."
  There the words were not limited to introduction from outside so far as he understood, but in the other place they were. In the passage read by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—
  "The Governor shall reserve any law providing for the introduction under contract of labourers into the Colony from places outside South Africa."
  He agreed entirely in his criticism on this point. But in the instructions the words—
  "No law sanctioning any condition of service or residence of a servile character"
  were not limited to the introduction of labour from outside. These were very difficult matters to construe. Lord

  1095
  Carnarvon used the word "servile" of the very practice which was now going on in South Africa, of consigning the prisoners to work as slaves in mines in other Colonies. He held that that was "servile," and that the words in the document should cover it. But it was not so held to-day, because there was a similar instruction to the Government of Natal, which had not been held to cover action of that kind. All the country south of Zambesi was South Africa. Therefore places outside South Africa did not include the countries from which the Kaffir labour came, and it made it the more necessary that these words should be carefully scrutinised by the House, and explained by the Government. Why from outside South Africa?Why should not the words, if meant to have any meaning at all, cover the people from Natal, Swaziland, and Basutoland, and especially convicts leased to mine-owners? On page 10 there were two or three paragraphs to which he wished to call the attention of the House. They were headed "Native Administration." The first paragraph had no importance and meant nothing at all. It provided—
  "The Governor shall continue to exercise over all chiefs and natives in the Colony all power and authority now vested in him as paramount chief."
  That was what he did in Natal and all other Colonies where there were natives. The second paragraph was a feeble and partial acceptance of the principal recommendation of the Native Affairs Commission of 1905. One of their chief recommendations was that there should be assemblies of chiefs to which considerable powers should be granted. Some attempt had been made to give effect to this recommendation, but it was very partial and feeble indeed. Would that assembly of chiefs be able to approach the Crown otherwise than through the Governor on the advice of the Colonial Minister? Was this a form quite different from that adopted in the case of Basutoland, where they approached the Crown direct? Would the chiefs really be allowed to approach the Crown? If they were only to be allowed to do so through the Governor on the advice of his Ministers, that would be no real approach at all. There had been a tendency to seize the
  1096
  Crown lands of the natives in the past. He feared it would increase in the future, and lead to considerable difficulties. There could be no doubt that the recent trouble in Natal was largely caused by interference with the natives on Crown lands. The trouble which might come upon them through disregarding this danger might be gathered from what occurred in Basutoland, where this practice of seizing Crown lands led to horrible wars and practically to the bankruptcy of the colony of Natal. That practice had been spreading into the other colonies, and must be guarded against. It should not be forgotten that the white population of the Transvaal was confined to half the colony, the other half being still native land; and he thought the way to avoid trouble in the future was to constitute large native reserves. The Native Affairs Commission reported in the strongest terms on this subject; they found that the natives had distinct rights, that there was no justification for the assumption that they were mere tenants at will of the Crown, and that it was a gross breach of faith to allow them to be turned out of those lands. Hon. Members only needed to look at paragraph 3 dealing with native administration to see that the security given was illusory. Again, there was no special protection for British Asiatic subjects in the Transvaal. That was a most dangerous form in which to leave matters. The prestige of this country must suffer in India if it could not enforce protection for its own subjects even within the Empire. The labour in the country must always be coloured. It was also labour of a nature that could not be protected by labour associations. Therefore, they were setting up a condition of things in which the labour of the country would have no voice. The native labour question was of far greater importance than the question of Chinese labour, for, while the latter was only temporary, the former was permanent. It had been said that they could never make peace by leaving the coloured population in the position they were in before the war, but, as a matter of fact, they were going to leave them in a much worse position. There were great dangers to be apprehended in the future from this state of things. The increase of native taxation had been

  1097
  glanced at in the speech of the Under-Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite had mentioned the poll tax. In Natal they knew that the poll tax, which was nominally the same for white and black, in practice was very different, because in the case of the blacks it was collected by methods which were not applied in the case of the whites. One or two fresh dangers were crossing the Natal border, and compulsory labour had invaded the Transvaal. He was aware that this was denied, but it had come in to some extent. The Native Affairs Commission were of opinion that compulsory labour was economically unjust, unsound, and intensely distasteful to the natives. That system of compulsory labour was spreading to the Transvaal, and it had been allowed under the late Government. Another dangerous feature was the hostility of the whites of the Government officials to what was called the Ethiopian Church. Its buildings were pulled down where they were found on Crown lands. The only objection urged against the Church was that it was self-governing, and lay outside European direction and control. If they weakly yielded to a small number of people who wished to have their own way in the Colony, then dangers which would only have been avoided for a time would have to be faced later on. The House must remember that it was not those people who would have to fight; we would have to fight. [An Hon. Member: What about Natal?]He was not speaking of Natal whose case was exceptional, though even there we had been asked to send troops. There could be no doubt that over the enormous distances in the Transvaal, if fighting had ever to be done, this country would have to go into it. We should have to undertake the federation of South Africa and to be responsible for the treatment of South Africa as a whole. It was impossible, therefore, merely to take the line of least resistance in the Transvaal, and shut our eyes to the enormous problems which the federation of the whole of South Africa must present. Of course, the Band would grumble at everything we did, but the Rand would do what they found they had got to do. This House must impress on the Rand that it had something larger than the Rand to look
  1098
  to—not only the future of South Africa as a whole, but also the position of the Empire as a whole—a great Empire, which was largely dependent on the affections of the people of India, and which could not be permanently based on the principle of giving all power to the white man. The view of the great self-governing colonies had been referred to, but those great colonies knew very well that Natal, for example, with an overwhelming native population, was in a wholly different position from Canada, or the Commonwealth, or New Zealand. Here they were dealing with a country in which the black nations always must be predominant, and it was impossible to think that the problems which were bound up in the question of future federation were solved hay settling this question on an absolutely white basis.
  *MR. WALKERsaid it was representative government which led to the rebellion in Upper Canada to which Lord Durham referred, and we had always considered that a representative constitution was something that would not work. It had no power for the appointment of Ministers or for initiating expenditure of public money or proposals for taxation. He believed there would be friction, not so much between English and Dutch as between the Legislature representing English and Dutch on the one side and the Ministers of the Crown on the other. He therefore thanked the Government for having gone straight for responsible government. He would like to point out that responsible government was given in Canada even sooner after the rebellion than it was being given to South Africa after the war. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had spoken of Chinese labour being among the reservations. One thing struck him as very strange in that right hon. Gentleman's speech, and that was that he went on the assumption that the people of the Transvaal were in favour of Chinese labour, and that therefore they were quite certain to try to keep it in the future. There was no reason for believing that the Transvaal was in favour of Chinese labour. He maintained that the cause of the whole trouble about

  1099
  Chinese labour was that the Government had interfered in the past in introducing it without taking the vote of the people of the Colony. Lord Milner had said that he wished he had consulted the other Colonies in regard to the introduction, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had said that he intended to consult them about the settlement. He wished he had consulted those other Colonies. It was very doubtful if then there would have been Chinese labour at all. Although they were not consulted, the Colonies had made it quite clear by resolutions they had passed, not only in Australia and New Zealand, but also in the neighbouring Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, that they desired to keep the Chinese out of South Africa. He was grateful to the Government for having included the Orange River Colony in the grant of self-government. He believed the loyalty and honour of the Dutch had been proved. He believed they would stick to the terms they had made and would think it a dreadful thing to transgress the treaty. In the treaty of peace no distinction was made between the two Colonies. He believed our Dutch fellow subjects in South Africa would think it a breach of faith if the Government excluded the Orange River Colony solely on the ground of Dutch predominance in the matter of population. They had heard in the debate a good deal about British ascendancy. It was Lord Elgin, the father of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, who dealt a blow at the idea of a British ascendancy in Canada. In 1849 the Canadian Legislature passed a Rebellion Losses Bill, and an extreme section asked Lord Elgin to veto the Bill. He stood firm and refused to veto the measure, and from that day they might date the real commencement of self-government in Canada, which had led to the happiest results between the French and English people in Canada. That Lord Elgin was the real originator of self-government in Canada, and he thought the Liberal Party could congratulate themselves that it had fallen to the lot of the present Lord Elgin to start what he hoped would be an era of prosperity and happiness in another part of the British Empire.
  *MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he regretted that on such an important occasion they had not the benefit of the experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He of all others would have been able to assist them in coming to a wise conclusion. His objection to this proposed constitution was not so much to its details, but as regarded the whole policy of the Government. The details followed in most respects the Constitutions granted to the other self-governing Colonies, but what he complained of was that it was too soon to grant a Constitution to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. It was only four years since the population of these Colonies were waging war against this country, and time had not been given to them to settle down. In the Canadian insurrection, to which the hon. Member who had just sat down had referred, the rebels were scattered unorganised over a large extent of territory, but in South Africa the Boers had powerful organisations which were determined, judiciously, to undermine British sovereignty. To introduce this Constitution when things were so unsettled was a very rash and unwise proceeding. It must be remembered that matters were improving during the last four years. That had been admitted by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies; and he thought that that was a good argument indeed for allowing things to remain for some time as they were, rather than introduce self-government, which would lead to Party government, and excite racial feeling. Instead of bringing the races together the action of the Government would separate them. He could not pretend to know whether the Government were acting on their own responsibility, or whether they had taken the advice of the Ridgeway Commission. He would like to know whether the Report of the Ridgeway Commission recommended the immediate granting of a Constitution. He had the strongest suspicion that that Report advised the Government to delay granting self-government to the Transvaal, and that this was why they persistently refused to publish it. In the next place, the whole policy of the

  1101
  Government had been to give a premium to disloyalty, They frequently telegraphed for their official information to man who were pro-Boers, and there was no inducement on the part of those who wished to remain loyal to the British connection to do so. He had been told by a friend who had been lately travelling through the Transvaal, of a Boer, well-disposed to the British, who had pointed out the uselessness of being loyal and taking the British side when the Home Government were always seeking the advice of pro-Boers. The practical advantage, the Boer argued, was always on the side of disloyalty.
  To come to particulars, he desired to comment especially on two of the reservations for the decision of the Imperial Government made in those Constitutions—first, as regarded Chinese labour, and secondly, as regarded land settlement. As to Chinese labour, he supposed it would be generally admitted that the supply of unskilled labour in South Africa was all important, but he feared that the whole question had been largely sacrificed to reckless electioneering pledges—what the Under-Secretary had called "terminological inexactitudes"—or, to paraphrase the expression, statements by enthusiasts who had an impediment in their veracity. The Government had been, therefore, bound to deal with this Chinese labour question, but the matter was really worse than appeared at first sight, for the Government had advanced a great deal beyond their election pledges in this Constitution. On 21st December last year, just before the general election, Lord Elgin telegraphed a despatch to Lord Selborne, that His Majesty's Government considered that the experiment of the introduction of Chinese labourers into the Transvaal should not be extended further until they could learn the opinion of the Colony through an elected and really representative Legislature. The intention of the Government was evidently to stop all action in regard to Chinese labour until the representative elected Legislature should be established, and had expressed an opinion on the question. But inch by inch, owing to the pressure of their extreme supporters like the hon. Member for North Salford and the hon.
  1102
  Member for the Newbury Division of Berkshire, the Government had changed their position, and the House now learned that no contracts for Chinese labour were to be entered into or renewed from the 6th of December, 1906, and that the Ordinance of 1904 was to be cancelled one year from the date when the new Legislature assembled, though many Chinese were under contract to remain till 1909. The result would be complete chaos, unless the new Legislature at once took in hand this most contentious question, aggravated by the Home Government's muddling, and subject to their interference at the end of it, for fear of servile conditions. He thought that that was an insult to the Colony, and surely the Government did not show that trust in the Colony of which they had spoken so much? It could do nothing but produce confusion. One remark more, in this connection. The Government had been encouraging Kaffir labour rather than Chinese labour; but he asked what was the difference? Kaffir labour was African, but this was immaterial for the present purpose. The Chinese were really more healthy on the Rand than the Kaffirs, who were now necessarily recruited from the tropics, because few others were obtainable, and died, it was stated, to the extent of 40 per cent. There had been a very unsavoury debate in the House on the immorality of the Chinese, but he believed, from what he had been reliably informed, that the immorality of the Chinese was not a bit worse than that of the Kaffirs. It would have been far better for the Government if they had left the decision of this question to those on the spot who were familiar with the circumstances and conditions. As to land settlement, he was thankful to the Government that, they had dealt with it to some extent. He, however, could not help suspecting that, but for the pressure of public opinion outside, the Land. Settlement Board would not have been established. But the inadequacy of the provision was great. The Land Settlement Board should have been established for more than five years, and he thought that more money than that provided in the Constitution should have been granted to the Board. After all, the amount, such as it was, and it was comparatively very

  1103
  little, would only come in from the repayments of loans by settlers, and nearly all the money available now was already invested inland or advanced to the settlers. He gathered from the text of the Letters Patent that the £500,000, which was the unexpended balance of the sum devoted to land settlement, was not to be allocated to the Land Settlement Board. He regretted that the Government were not going to encourage new settlers to come upon the land. He would have thought that one of the greatest advantages for the future of the country would have been that settlers from Great Britain should be encouraged to come, but apparently the Government had withdrawn any encouragement of the kind. They left it to the Land Settlement Board during a short term of years to do what they could, but who was likely to go and settle on the land which in five years time might come under the control of an unfriendly Government? So far from encouraging British settlers, His Majesty's Government seemed to be discouraging such settlement, although it would be a great safeguard to the peace and prosperity of the country. There was no doubt about the Afrikander attitude in regard to new settlers, and their inclination would be to discourage them. He did not want, however, to be entirely critical in his remarks, and he would like to mention one of the rare and few advantages which could be gleaned from the proposals of the Government to limit the period of land settlement to five years. After all, five years would be something which would enable the mere handful of settlers to establish themselves against a possible hostile State Government, and to secure themselves on their holdings. Settlers in South Africa became owners in fee simple if they paid regular instalments for thirty years, and although it might be difficult for them at the outset to pay regular instalments, in five years he would imagine they would be in a position to pay their instalments regularly from year to year so that they should become owners in fee simple at the end of thirty years, whatever the conduct of the Government might be towards others. He could
  1104
  only deplore that the system of land settlement which had been working so well was now to be stopped, because under it the British and the Dutch had got to understand each other better and to have mutual interests. The Dutch had become friendly and had come cordially to receive new British ideas. From community of interest sprang mutual co-operation, and the general tendency of British settlement in new Colonies had been to create greater friendliness between the races there. Take the examples of 1820 and, in quite recent years, of the British fruit farms in the western provinces of Cape Colony. On this ground greater settlement was desirable in South Africa, and increase of the farming population was necessary to decrease the cost of living. He could only repeat his apprehensions as to the future which he had expressed when this matter was discussed on 31st July. He deeply regretted that the Government had gone beyond the terms of the despatch which Lord Elgin had sent to Lord Selborne, and that they had done so in consequence of pressure from their extreme supporters. Had it not been for that pressure he believed they would have reserved this Constitution till a later date. He thought he had shown the weakness of the Government policy in regard to the future of South Africa, but, as a Party, they on that side disclaimed all responsibility for this early grant to the Transvaal of a Constitution, and he could only trust this premature concession would not prejudice the final goal to which they must all look, viz., the truly British federation of South Africa.
  *MR. BOULTONcongratulated the Government on having so early in their history given full responsible Government to the Transvaal and was not in the least surprised that the comments they had had so far from the Opposition side of the House were mainly couched in the vein of hostile criticism. To his mind it was a remarkable fact in the history of the British Empire that, with the solitary exception of Western Australia, the grant of responsible self-government had in every case been the gift of the Liberal Party, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest

  1105
  of Dean was mistaken in thinking that it was a Conservative Government which gave responsible government to Natal. It was not, therefore, surprising to find hon. Members opposite pursuing the same old course of the Tory Party in order to prevent Colonies from getting responsible government. The right hon. Gentleman the Ex-Secretary for the Colonies had criticised the Constitution on two grounds: First, because representative government did not procede responsible government, and, secondly, because of the reservations in the Constitution. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that in every other case representative government had preceded responsible government, but he did not think it followed that because representative government had been tried and failed both in Upper and Lower Canada and in one or two other places that therefore it should be applied to the Transvaal. In Upper and Lower Canada representative government was a complete failure. Under it the Government was in no way responsible to the House of Representatives and the latter had practically no control over the Government. The Government levied such taxes as they thought fit and the House of Representatives could only criticise; they could not prevent the taxes being imposed. The Government appointed such officials and such Judges as they chose and the House of Representatives had no control over them. Representative government in the Colonies might be illustrated in this way. Assume that the Government had appealed to the country, instead of resigning, and that the present House of Commons had been the result of that appeal. Then if we were living under representative and not responsible Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, having gone to the country and having been defeated by a huge majority, could still continue to administer the affairs of the country, to levy such taxes and pass such laws as he pleased, and this House would not be able to turn him or his friends out of office. That was the case of representative government. It had been tried once upon a time in England, ond it had failed. It had been tried in the Colonies, and it
  1106
  had resulted in failure and civil war. Had it been persisted in in the case of the Australian Colonies the result would have been equally disastrous. The Liberal Party developed the system of responsible government in the Colonies, and if a Liberal Government had not come into power in 1841, and been enabled to give effect to that policy, it was doubtful whether the British Empire as it now existed would ever have been built up. The principal reservation in this Constitution was with regard to Chinese labour. With regard to that a most extraordinary theory had been put forward for the first time by the Party opposite. That theory was that the Imperial Government should no longer have any control over the legislation of self-governing Colonies. If such a theory were accepted there would be no British Empire. It was because this country had a veto which could be, and was, used on important occasions, that the British Empire had a constitutional existence to-day. It was now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we should have no veto over the legislation in these Colonies. What struck one as being curious about the suggestion was that the Liberal Party had been told that they had given independence to the Boers by the Convention of 1881, yet in that Convention there was exactly the same veto as that which was proposed in this Constitution with regard to the limitation of servile labour, and now they were told that what in the case of the Boers was independence was in this case subjection. He submitted that the Imperial Government had a right of veto over the Transvaal Colony in the same way as we had over the South African Republic on the question of servile labour, and the Government would be guilty of a breach of duty if they did not insert this provision. If they looked at this subject from a constitutional point of view the House would see that if the veto over colonial legislation was abandoned our Colonies would become independent States. When the Australian Commonwealth Bill was being discussed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham took a very strong view upon this question in opposition to the Australian Premiers.

  1107
  He took the view that we must exercise a right of veto, if not through Parliament, at any rate, through the Privy Council. This Empire depended for its constitutional existence upon two principles, first, that the Colonial Office should have a right, in the interest of the whole Empire, to veto the legislation of a particular Colony when it adversely affected the interests of the Empire outside that Colony, and, secondly, that the Privy Council should have a right to reverse the legal decisions of the Colonies when those decisions were ultra vires or were inimicable to the Empire as a whole. The Liberal Party as the authors of responsible Government were the exponents of their own policy. They were the Party who had enabled through their actions in the past the Empire to come into being, and if a Colony transgressed by passing laws which injuriously affected the interest of the Empire outside the Colony we were bound to veto such legislation. If the Transvaal did pass a law by which servile labour was introduced again into the Colony it would be the duty of this country to prevent such legislation being effective. He also believed we ought to retain the right of veto in the Privy Council. That was the second of those safeguards by which this Empire was carried on and which enabled the Imperial Government to reconcile the varied systems and nationalities and weld them into one harmonious whole.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEjoined in congratulating the Government upon the action they had taken in granting self-government to the Orange River Colony as well as the Transvaal. He thought it would have been a mistake if they had done anything else. From some of the speeches to which he had listened one would assume that it was a crime to have consulted the Boers who had been loyal to their country and had fought for it, but he thought in so doing the Government had taken a wise and proper course. He was glad that the introduction of more Chinese labourers had been vetoed by the new Constitution. The assumption, however, that white men would be profitably employed in the gold mines of the Transvaal was about
  1108
  the most erroneous that could be put forward. The argument seemed to be that because there was black labour in the Transvaal therefore there could not be white labour. He contended, however, that there was no need for black labour. By means of pneumatic drills the employment of white men at decent wages could be assured. There was no necessity for the importation of another race, or for oppressive conditions being put upon the black man to drive him off the land, where it was natural for him to work, into the mines where it was not. The Under-Secretary of State had spoken of Mr. Steyn, the late President of the Orange Free State, as being one of the most avowed enemies of this country.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he did not think he used those words, but what he meant was that Mr. Steyn had been one of the most contentious asserters of the rights of the Boers against this country.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid President Steyn was the one man before the war who had done his best to prevent its breaking out, and if afterwards he threw in his lot with the Boers tint was to his credit. He wished to know whether the Constitution to be given to the Orange River Colony was to follow in the main that already provided for the Transvaal. Was a white male vote to be inserted in the Orange River Colony Constitution? It had been stated that to enfranchise women in the Transvaal would have necessarily given the preponderance of weight of votes to the Boer population, but there was no necessity for such niceties of adjustment in the Orange River Colony. That being so, he asked why it was that when the Boer had demanded the vote, and the male population had backed up that demand, women should be excluded from the franchise in the Orange River Colony. The Constitution now being granted to the Transvaal, and which was presumably to be given to the Orange River Colony, could not be altered by the Parliaments of these two Colonies, and it was therefore all the more important that there should be no barriers put in the way of women exercising the franchise. Further, in the Constitution now

  1109
  granted to the Transvaal provision was made for a Second Chamber, and they had been told this afternoon that the same model was to be followed when the Orange River Colony Constitution was granted. It appeared to him to be an exceedingly bad beginning for a campaign against the House of Lords in this country to set up a House of Lords in each of our new Colonies. It mattered nothing whether it was hereditary or not provided it was based upon a property qualification. Would the Colonial Office insist that the franchise for the Second Chamber should be as broad and free and democratic as that for the First Chamber? If it was to be elected on a property qualification then he hoped it would not receive the assent of the Liberal Party, because it would be a violation of the conditions of free government. He regretted that the method by which agreement was to be come to between the two Chambers was to be by a joint meeting. In the case of the Transvaal, assuming for a moment that the Second Chamber was elected on the basis of a property qualification, the anticipation was that the Chamber when elected would be fairly evenly divided, the mine-owners on the one side and the Boer farmers on the other. If a sharp division took place between the Upper and Lower Chambers on some question, and finally a joint conference was agreed upon to settle the matter in dispute, it would follow almost inevitably that the members of the Upper Chamber elected on a property vote would side with the property owners of the Rand and against the farming population and the rest of the Transvaal. It seemed a thousand pities that the method adopted was not that suggested by the Radical Party for this country, namely, that when a Bill was rejected by the Second House and was passed a second time by the Lower House it should ipso facto become law. He next came to an important point—the native question. The land set aside for native occupation could not be alienated since no law could be passed in respect of the natives which did not equally apply to white men. Let them test that by what was now transpiring in Natal. One of the principal reasons for the rising in Natal was a fear of
  1110
  this very alienation of land set aside for native reservations. How was it proposed to be done? A special tax was imposed upon land that was not occupied. Occupation meant occupation by white settlers. If there was one European settler upon an extent of land to which he had any title the tax did not fall. If there was no European settler the land might be the property of the natives, but unless the natives were to settle upon it the land could be taken from them, and so the question became one of very serious gravity. The position in Natal illustrated this very clearly. The coloured population of Natal was being gradually but surely reduced to a condition in which it would be difficult to occupy properly even land set apart for their use. To take one illustration of how the equal laws theory worked in practice, the law of poaching, as to which there had been a strong memorial from a member of the Legislature to the Colonial Office protesting against it because of its effect on the natives. As no native could obtain a licence the consequence was that native prosecutions for poaching were numerous. According to official returns 4,000 natives were prosecuted every month for offences against the law. One-twentieth part of the native population of Natal were being made criminal and demoralised by prison for the most trivial offences. It was not sufficient to say that laws must be equal for black and white. As the right hon. Baronet had shown, a poll tax proved a severe burden upon the coloured community. He maintained that all laws which were likely to interfere directly or indirectly with the natives should be reserved. This country in the final resort was reponsible for the welfare of the natives, and we could not divert ourselves of that responsibility. Experience had shown that where there was a small white population and a large native population, and where the lands of the native population were rich either in minerals or pasture, there was a natural tendency on the part of the whites to obtain possession of those lands. He was casting no reflection upon them, but that being so, the whites, being able to exercise power without restraint, were likely to use that power for their own advancement.

  1111
  For that reason all questions affecting the natives should be reserved, and he hoped even yet it was not too late to ensure that the serious danger which was being created in South Africa by reason of the treatment of the natives might be obviated. The natives should be allowed to live under the tribal laws within the lands set apart for their use, and nothing should be permitted to be imposed upon them from outside, in the interest either of the mine-owners of the Rand or of the settlers desiring possession of the land, and if that were done what was called the black peril of South Africa might never be heard of, and much anxiety spared to those responsible for the Government.
  *MR. ASHLEYsaid that in his opinion this road was open to be travelled by the House of Commons ever since the last general election, because then use was made of the Chinese labour question in such an unscrupulous way by so many hon. Members on the Ministerial side that a feeling was aroused amongst men and women of English extraction in South Africa, and the only possible way out of the difficulty to avoid the friction set up was that responsible government should be given as soon as possible. He would have infinitely preferred that the Lyttelton Constitution should have been in operation a few more years in order that the Colony might have felt its feet, and then in three or four years time he would have been only too glad to grant the fullest measure of responsible government to the Transvaal. Therefore, as far as this Constitution affected the Transvaal, he was entirely with granting responsible government as soon as possible. But what were they asked to do by passing these Letters Patent. They were asked to reserve the introduction of labour into the Colony from places outside South Africa, they were asked to reserve any law affecting persons not of European descent, and they were also asked for a short time to reserve the question of land settlement for the Home Government. He would like to know why they had not reserved power in regard to the native questions as well. The natives were our fellow-subjects and the Chinese were not, and he could not
  1112
  see why if we were going to protect the we Chinamen should not also protect the native African. The only reason he could imagine was that the Chinaman had so many powerful advocates on the Government side, who were anxious to redeem their election pledges. The native Indian also had a very strong body of public opinion behind him, and land settlement had found many powerful advocates for reservation, not only on the Opposition side, but also on the Ministerial side of the House. He supposed the reason why the African was left out of consideration was because he had nobody to speak for him. Personally, he did not think it very much mattered what they reserved or what they did not reserve, because, with the exception of matters affecting our foreign relations, in practice it would be found that the home Government would not interfere with a self-governing Colony when once they had granted it self-government. He presumed the Government thought these reservations were of some value or they would not have put them into the Letters Patent. He protested against the native question not being mentioned at all in these reservations. If they looked back at the treatment of the natives by the Dutch before the late war they would see that there was considerable danger of the natives not being treated as they would like to see them treated if the Dutch got a majority. In 1899 there was a Pass Law adopted by the Transvaal Legislature under President Kruger, under which any native found without pass could be detained in the guard room until his master came for him, and if after six days his master did not claim him he was forced to select another employer. If that native failed to select a master, he might be imprisoned for eight months and receive twenty-five lashes. He did not suggest that such a law as that was likely to pass under the Government which was now proposed, but it showed at any rate that in 1899 the Dutch idea of the treatment of natives in South Africa was not such as would commend itself to the majority of this House. He was absolutely opposed to the reservation which had been adopted by the home Government in regard to Chinese labour, because that was a matter which ought

  1113
  to be left entirely to the Transvaal. Let the Government consider for a moment what troubles they were laying up for themselves by reserving this question. Supposing the Transvaal Government decided to continue Chinese labour, the present Government would either have to flout the opinion of the self-governing Colony or else face the music of honourable Gentlemen below the gangway. In either case they would be in a very awkward and unpleasant position, and he did not see how they would be able to get out of it with any dignity to themselves. Had the Government considered what would happen to the Transvaal if the Chinamen were sent away? They knew that the Transvaal just about paid its way, but if they hampered the gold mining industry they would seriously diminish the revenue of the Transvaal Government, and they would have to supplement the labour in the mines by some labour other than Chinese. The only labour they could have was Kaffir abour, and how were they going to get it? They could only get it by increasing the hut tax and poll tax upon the natives, and in either case they would be forcing those men to work against their will. Why were they not making the representation of the Transvaal fair to all parties? It was j said that the arrangement of the constituencies and the number of members was a compromise, but he had always thought that a compromise meant that they took away some of the demands of both sides and tried to be fair all round. Was the representation they were now proposing to give to the Transvaal fair to the British? As far as he could ascertain it was not. There would be 92,000 voters and of those at least 51,000 would be non-Boers. They were arranging that neither side should have much of a majority, and that things should be evenly balanced. Was that being fair to the Outlanders? The Government were asking the House to accept this as a fair distribution of electoral power. With reference to the question of federation, there would be an overwhelming majority of Dutch representatives in the Orange River Colony and very likely a Dutch majority in the Transvaal and in the Cape Colony, Therefore they would
  1114
  have the backbone of Africa covered by the Dutch, and the only British influence would be in Natal and Rhodesia. He could understand why they must give responsible Government at once to the Transvaal, but he did not see why it should be given to the Orange River Colony as well. There was in the Transvaal a solid British element to hold the balance, but he did not believe it would be possible for the British element to return one single member to the new Parliament for the Orange River Colony, because the Dutch there preponderated in the proportion of six or seven to one in the towns and fifteen to one in the country. Within four years of the end of a long and bitter war they were going to hand over the government of a Colony to the people who fought against us so bitterly, although he must admit bravely. He did not think they were behaving fairly to the British settlers, who fought for this country during the war, who had every right to claim protection, and who had settled in those Colonies under the belief that they would be protected by the British flag. Now the Government were going to throw them over as Mr. Gladstone threw them over in 1880. What guarantee had they that the promises in the treaty of Vereeniging would be better kept than the promises of President Kruger when he promised equal treatment to all white men in the Transvaal? In the year before the war he (Mr. Ashley) happened to be travelling from Kimberley to Bloemfontein. He halted for a night at a Dutch farm where he was hospitably treated, and although the house arrangements were not so tidy in some respects as they might have been, he found that the Mauser rifles belonging to the farmer and his son were well looked after. The Boers fought bravely and with fatal effect against us with Mauser rifles, and low, four years after the end of the war, after having taken away the rifles, the Government proposed to give to the Boers in the ballot box a much more efficacious weapon against British supremacy than the Mauser rifle could ever be. He regarded the grant of responsible government to the Orange River Colony, where there would be an overwhelming, if not an entirely Boer representation in the Legislature, four years after the

  1115
  close of the war, as an act of political insanity.
  *MR. MOLTENOcongratulated the Government on the course they had taken, as he held it would have been serious evidence of mistrust had they made a distinction between the two Colonies. He thought the reservation in regard to the land settlers was unnecessary. The introduction of those settlers was one of the greatest injustices perpetrated by us after the war. It was unjust because at a time when everything had been destroyed and property was non-existent, we, at the expense of the population, introduced new settlers in the country. What was the condition of the country on which we imposed a liability of £3,000,000 to bring in fresh settlers? Lord Milner stated to the correspondent of the Standard—
  "The people have lost everything except the land."
  In the despatch in the Blue-book (Cd. 903–135) he said—
  "I need not repeat that we began working with the country absolutely denuded of everything."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in a speech at Bloemfontein, stated—
  "The destruction of property has been greater than I anticipated, greater, I believe, than has been known at home."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, the then Colonial Secretary, stated—
  "The Transvaal had been left a wilderness, that all buildings, farm produce, and stock had been destroyed."
  The Report of the Central Judicial Commission contained the following:—
  "Speaking generally, the producing and commercial industries both of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony had been destroyed by the prolonged war. It was not merely the suspension of industry and the interruption of the routine of commerce, but the capital upon which both industry and commerce depended was largely lost."
  That was the condition of the population which was to be burdened with the cost of bringing in fresh settlers, but not to assist the population. It might be said that we were assisting them under the repatriation commission. To some
  1116
  extent we were, but when it was found that of the £16,000,000 due to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies, only £2,900,000 had been paid, and when it was found also that the burghers who were protected by the proclamation of Lord Roberts had received dividends of only 10s. in the pound, he thought it was particularly hard that these people should be called upon to supply funds to bring in new settlers. There was another reason why the condition of the people was more unfortunate than in almost any country where war had been waged. The British Army paid for everything it took up to a certain period of the war, but an order was issued that no more payments were to be made in cash. The result was that the property of non-combatants was taken and not paid for, and this left the people in extreme destitution. The military receipts were not discharged for some years afterwards. We had failed to pay our own debts, and yet we had put tins burden of £3,000,000 on the new Colonies under the circumstances which he had described. The Government admitted that something tad to be done. They proposed to raise £1,200,000 to meet hard cases. He thought it was quite clear that this matter of compensation could not be dismissed so lightly. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies had stated that £350,000 per annum, representing the interest on the £35,000,000 loan, might be used in the discharge of claims for compensation. That did not mean the discharge of our obligations. The Cape Colony had time after time to take up the question of compensation. Only in the last session of the Cape Parliament there was a reopening of the question and a final discharge made of the claims left unpaid by His Majesty's Government. As to the question of the natives in the two new colonies, he thought serious injustice might be done. The new Constitution appeared to afford no adequate protection be the natives against injustice such as the expropriation of the Crown lands by the act of the Executive. In answering a question to-day the Under-Secretary had given the House an excellent illustration of what might happen. There were 180,000 natives, or one-fifth of the whole native population, located on the Crown

  1117
  lands. Regulations had been issued by the Executive which, in his opinion, infringed the rights of the natives. He would ask the Under Secretary whether the obligations which had been imposed on the native of rendering compulsory labour could be imposed on any white man. The Crown lands occupied by natives were declared liable to be allotted to settlers under lease or licence. Another injustice was that natives who had rights of water, pasture and gardening might be deprived of those rights by the executive act of the Government. That seemed to him in the highest degree unjust and impolitic. This question was dealt with by the Commission that reported on South African Native Affairs. It pointed out the serious injustice of displacement of the natives from the Crown lands, and reported that—
  "As these lands are disposed of, the natives in occupation are left to make the best terms they can with the owners, and are generally permitted to remain upon condition of paying rent, furnishing labour, or both as the case may be. No doubt it has been made profitable by land speculators to purchase Crown or other land and let it to native tenants at high rates. Such occupation is pernicious to both races, encouraging the far-reaching evil of absentee landlordism on the one side, and on the other barring the progress of the natives by insecurity of tenure."
  He would ask the Under-Secretary whether there were any means for preventing the continuance of that system of imposing disabilities by executive acts even under the new Constitution? The clause of the Constitution referring to native lands said—
  "No lands which had been, or may hereafter be, set aside for the occupation of natives shall be alienated, or in any way diverted from the purposes for which they are set apart, otherwise than in accordance with a law passed by the Legislature."
  He believed that there were now unalienated areas of Crown lands, and he asked whether they should not be delimited before that clause of the Constitution came into operation. The necessity of protecting the natives was shewn by what had happened to them in the Transvaal since we went into that country. The natives were subjected to very severe pass laws, and these had been modified so far as flogging was concerned by the right hon. Member
  1118
  for West Birmingham, who had declared after his return from South Africa that the treatment of the natives had not been very bad. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in a speech in the House of Commons on 19th March, 1903, said—
  "There is one thing I am bound to say in justice to our late opponents. I was led to believe that the treatment of the natives by the Boers was very bad. Now the war itself is evidence that this charge against the Boer was exaggerated. I freely make that admission.…The Boers did in hundreds and thousands of cased leave their wives and children and property to the care of the few natives they had previously on their farms.…Of real brutality, violent misconduct, or ill-treatment, they must be absolved. They have not been regarded, on the whole, as hard or severe masters by the natives."
  They had been subjected to extremely complicated and harsh laws since our occupation of the Transvaal. On an average eighty-nine natives in the Transvaal were convicted every day under the pass laws, many of them having broken these laws without intention. Those pass laws the Attorney-General of the Transvaal said needed revision, and the fact that we had disarmed the natives gave them an additional claim to protection. Complaints were made by some of the chiefs that the treatment of the natives was worse now than under the Boer Republic. Then again, there was class legislation, and the limiting of the natives as to how and where and fat what wage they should work. Further, the natives were subjected to enormous taxation. He had been surprised to find that the natives were paying more in direct taxation than the whole taxation levied on the profits of the gold mines of the Transvaal. In 1904–5 the poll tax amounted to £407,680, and other taxes, including passes, certificates, and dog tax amounted to £245,898—a total of £653,678 or 50 per cent. more than the taxes of £414,000 on the whole of these great gold mines. And what did the natives get out of taxation? Only £5,000 a year was spent upon them. In the Cape Colony the total taxation of the natives amounted in 1904 to £124,446 although they numbered 1,500,000; and the amount spent upon them in that colony reached £66,000 as compared with £5,000 in the Transvaal. That

  1119
  showed clearly that the natives were being exploited for the sake of other sections in the country. Sir Arthur Lawley had said that in his opinion if the present burthen of taxation of the natives was increased as it had been by the regulations above referred to it would mean serious unrest and trouble, and would result in a large number of the natives leaving the Transvaal and going elsewhere. The condition of the natives in the Transvaal was really becoming intolerable and deserved the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government. In regard to the want of labour, the alternative was that more inducements should be held out to the natives, and that they should be paid fairly for their labour. After the war their wages had been reduced to half what they were before the war, and though again increased they had never yet been raised to the level of 1897. The Commissioner of Native Affairs had stated that the conditions of labour imposed on the natives had last year driven 19,932 natives out of the Transvaal. Then, the death rate after the war was appalling. He would suggest that the native system in Cape Colony should be adopted in the Transvaal. There was no difficulty in inducing the natives to come forward in the former Colony to work on railways and other public works, and diamond mines, because the wages paid were fair, and the death rate was low. Under the exiting régime all interests were dissatisfied. The British Indians had complained that they were worse of than before the war, as had also the natives, and the Boers who had had their property destroyed and had not had their receipts honoured were certainly worse off. The whites as a whole were worse off, because although there was more gold there was less work. Crown Colony rule had brought about, again the same evils that it had entailed in the past. The relations of the Transvaal with the other Colonies were becoming increasingly strained under the existing regime, and had already resulted in Natal and the Cape being robbed through Delagoa Bay. Questions had arisen which were pressing for a solution, and which could only be settled by the concession of a large measure of self-government to the Transvaal and
  1120
  Orange River Colony.
  The new Constitution substantially placed the affairs of the Colony in the hands of the people, and so would enable them to redress these grievances. It had been said there was grave danger in giving this Constitution now, but it had been the consistent policy of the British Government to give self-government to those who were able to govern themselves. Even if it had not been so the main lines of this Constitution were settled at Vereeniging. If it were only a question of the time when it should be given he would point out that such evils as these were only accentuated by delay. We must trust all in all or not at all. The concession of abundant freedom had always been successful, the limitations had not. He had been unable to follow the arguments of the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, with regard to federation, because if there was one thing more clear than another it was that federation could not possibly take place until these two Colonies had self-government, and had had it for some time. There could not be federation between self-governing Colonies and Colonies under Crown Colony rule. Our great hope in the future lay in federation. In that lay the solution of the difficulties in dealing with the native population. Those difficulties would not then be treated with the frantic esprit de corps with which they would be treated by those who lived just on the border. They would become only one of the many questions dealt with under federation in which other influences would be brought to bear. And the success of the native policy of Cape Colony was sufficient to demonstrate that native affairs would then be conducted with liberality and success. Those who depended on the introduction of Chinese labour for success fought against the principles of human nature itself which render it impossible to erect a permanent fabric of prosperity on a foundation of injustice and cruelty. They forgot that industry herself is the common offspring of knowledge and liberty. This liberty would be conferred by the Constitution just granted to the white inhabitants of the new Colonies. He trusted it might be the unceasing care of His Majesty's Government that it might be soon so extended as to transcend the bounds of

  1121
  colour and embrace all His Majesty's subjects in the new Colonies.
  *MR. HILLSsaid the natives of the Colonies had received a very powerful support from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and all who had recently addressed the House had laid great stress on this part of the problem that confronted us. It was a very important question, and one of great difficulty, and he had listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. who had put it more clearly than anybody, from the point of view of contact with the Dutch population of South Africa. It must be admitted that the Dutch view of the native treatment was not the same as ours. General Botha before the Labour Commission said that his view was that the natives should be made to work and the native reservations should be broken up. If we gave these Colonies self-government, he could not see how we could reserve the native question to the British Parliament. So far as we were pledged to the natives, and in so far as land had been set apart for their use with the sanction of the Imperial Government, we must keep our pledges. But the native question was one that must be settled locally, and though we in this country might differ widely from the views held in South Africa we must recognise that those were the views of the people who had to live with the natives, and it was for them to say what action should be taken on all native questions. In this view he was fortified by the fact that we here could not enforce a native policy which was against the wishes of a self-governing colony. The real control of these questions was bound to rest with the people of the country. If they had self-government all our checks were useless. It was indeed not to our advantage that we should have to settle these questions, which involved us in all sorts of responsibilities, otherwise we should be involved in all the dangers of a policy when we could not in the nature of things have any control over its administration. If we said that all laws affecting natives were to be reserved for this House; that the question of Swaziland, and all the native reservations, was to be
  1122
  removed from South Africa and settled here, we should become absolutely responsible in the case of a native war, and derive none of the advantages of such a policy. This question was mixed up with the question of labour. The gold industry was the mainspring of South Africa. The hope of the whole of that country had been based on the expansion of the prosperity of the Transvaal. All the Colonies since the war had largely increased their debts, and that increase of debts had not been for war expenditure but essentially peaceable interests. We saw in South Africa a large expenditure of capital on the faith of that single industry, and we in this country must not prevent, but on the countrary, must, so far as we could, develop that industry and leave it to the people of the country who were spending their money upon it to see that it was carried on. It would be quite unfair for us to say "We have different views of indentured labour, and we will not allow you to work out a solution of the question." It was a matter for the people there, and it was for them to say that that labour should be either Chinese or African or whatever they liked. Nobody liked the idea of Chinese labour, but the fact remained that Chinese labour was there and that the Transvaal had to live. He hoped therefore that nothing would be done in the settlement of that question unless it was in accordance with the judgment of the people of the Transvaal. He had no objection to self-government in itself, but he thought we had given it in this case at the wrong time. Everyone would admit that the Party division in South Africa would be one of race. The rural population in the country would be against the manufacturing population of the town. It was on the result of a contest upon those lines that the whole future of South Africa depended. A time had been chosen to provoke this contest when, in spite of the gold output, the English element in the Transvaal was at its lowest, and the country in the most depressed condition. Since the 1st of January thousands had left the country and come home. Unfortunately, the time chosen for this great experiment was when the supporters of the British deal were at their worst. The contest

  1123
  was bound to come, but in his opinion it should not have been provoked until the conditions were more equal. A few years of a modified form of representative government, during which they could look forward to responsible government, was a very small thing in the life of a nation, but the Government had thought it wise to hurry this matter, and upon the Government must rest the responsibility. He thought the grant of self-government at this time was a great evil. Federation was the great aim of everybody, but how was it to be effected? Would it come as the result of British ideals or would South Africa be driven into it by reason of a feeling of hostility towards England? He feared very much that that was what we were doing. It seemed to him that all through we had slighted the people who were in favour of the British ideal. The Government had listened to those whose ideal of a United South Africa was not the same as ours, and had refused to listen to those who spoke for the British race. He feared therefore that the force which was to bind the two races together in South Africa would not be such as we should wish; and that, in his opinion, was the danger we should have to face in the future.
  *MR. HEMMERDEsaid that, although he was impressed for a moment by the arguments of his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean with regard to the exclusion of the natives from the franchise, that impression was considerably lessened when he considered the wording of the treaty of Vereeniging. He failed to see how the Government who based their action on the faith of the treaty could now tear the treaty up. We had to stick to the words of the treaty, which excluded the black races from the voting lists. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, than whom few in this House spoke with more authority, had alluded to the part that federation must bear in the affairs of South Africa, and the hon. Gentleman's father had taken a great part in bringing forward schemes of federation many years ago before the blunders of statesmen in this country made those schemes futile. Time after time we had acted hastily in connection
  1124
  with South Africa, but that was not entirely the fault of local statesmen. The blunders which undermined all Mr. Molteno's schemes for federation years ago were the blunders of the Home Government. Those schemes might be successful now, but he did not think they would come if the Government paid much attention to the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St George's, Hanover Square. The right hon. Gentleman would not have given the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony the Constitution we were bound to give them until he gave them federation. Would that be fair dealing? If we were going to give federation we ought not to give it until we built it on the solid foundation of trust in the people of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. The Government had now started in a different way. They were not going too fast. Many believed they were not going fast enough, but he would not like to see them going faster. Hon. Members opposite must have unpleasant visions before them of cases in which the predecessors of the Government went too fast. When he said that this Government was going slowly he also said he wished the Government of 1874 had gone slowly, and then we should not have had to face this difficulty. The Government had set out up that intermediate way which was often the path of wisdom. What they had done was not so much to direct as to suggest a way. And by doing what they were doing by this Constitution they were at any rate suggesting a way to the Transvaal. Many of these Chinese labourers would have to go home before the Transvaal Government would obtain a seisin of this question. He believed that under this Constitution 20,000 would have to go home next year, and in that case the Transvaal Government would have time to decide whether they could find native labour. He had always thought the case with regard to the shortage of active labour in South Africa had been exaggerated. There was no more bitter opponent of Chinese labour in this House than himself, but he had never urged with any appreciation from a public audience that Chinese labour in South Africa was slavery. What the British people resented was that after we were said to have

  1125
  gone to war in South Africa to find work for white miners the places were taken by miners of another colour and that under circumstances which struck at the root of all the best principles of labour. That was what the people of this country objected to and tight hold should be kept by the Home Government of this question, because everybody knew there were method which would be used to influence the Transvaal Government to keep the Chinese labourers in South Africa. He had often heard, during the few weeks he had been in this House, suggestions from the other side that the Government should carry out their election pledges and deal with the matter entirely themselves. Now they heard the complaint that they were dealing with it at all. That was not consistent, but perhaps he ought not to look for consistency. He did not at any-rate expect to find it. But on that subject at least he contended there was a good case for reservation, and anyone who followed the history of our Colonial Government would recognise that it was wiser to suggest than to order. He was sure that by going slowly in this matter, progress would be a great deal faster. He suspected the Progressive Party out there to whose tender mercies we were to trust the fate of South Africa. He suspected them when he found their representatives over here standing in the way of every progressive reform. He viewed with grave suspicion the advocates of the Progressive Party in the Transvaal when they declared that they represented Transvaal opinion. Their voices and those of their representatives in the House of Commons were dumb on so many questions on which one would have expected them to speak. Hardly an objection had been raised to a nominated and probably an elected Second Chamber in the near future. We in this country would be glad to get what was given in that Constitution, and he had hopes that the time would come when free institutions might be extended to Great Britain and even Ireland. South Africa had been spoken of as a bankrupt country, or, at any rate, as a country on the verge of a financial crisis, but no word had been raised against its paying its members, which this rich
  1126
  country, we were told, had not money to do. There was another question—that of manhood suffrage. The suggestion had been made before this debate arose that in this country the Liberal Party wished to bring the franchise lower than it was, but not a word had been raised here against the extension of the franchise, and for the reason that manhood suffrage would never bring the franchise lower than it was at present, but would bring into the line of citizenship every man of full age in the country. He supported the constitution of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony for one reason, because it contained the germs of reforms which we should welcome at home, and, for another, because it embraced those principles which had been of such importance to the development of this Empire. Lord Milner, speaking last Friday night, said—
  "I have come to break a lance in favour of that school of thought which holds that the maintenance and consolidation of what we call the British Empire should be the first and highest of all the objects of every subject of the realm."
  He made so bold as to say that if that principle had been the under lying principle of our forefathers the British Empire to-day would be confined practically to these Islands. It was not the maintenance of the British Empire that they had always first in mind, but the prosperity of the particular country that they were dealing with, and it was by looking primarily to that that we built up the organisation called the British Empire. It was not by consciously looking to empire-building, so much as by governing in the spirit of empire. That was where they differed from Lord Milner and his friends in the government of empire. That was the spirit by which alone we could bring these two states within the bounds of the British Empire. They had heard to-night from the Under-Secretary how the old feelings were largely dead that separated the two races. How could we possibly banish still further those feelings except by mutually trusting the people? They cheered that now in the case of South Africa, but would they cheer it next year if similar proposals were made in regard to Ireland? They had heard low intermediate stages of government were generally a failure, but would they

  1127
  hear it next year? This principle of trust was one upon which alone our colonial and domestic politics could be based. He was aware that under it we had to run a certain amount of risk, but it was the same risk that had built the Empire. They always ran a risk in appealing to men's better feelings, and in appealing to their larger and not their local patriotism. He did not, however, think we ran a very serious risk in the Transvaal or the Orange River Colony by trusting the people. The Constitutions they were now conferring upon South Africa were quite in harmony with the best traditions of English empire-building and colonial government, and for those two reasons in particular he heartily supported them. He had heard before such prophesies of ill as had been made in this debate. Those people who prophesied ill to-day, and who said the Government were going forward in a hurry had been indulging in such prophesies for years past. He noticed that an excellent cleric recently culled for his own purposes from the newspapers a number of cases relating to the prophets in sporting papers, and he showed how they had misled the people whom they were really trying to lead. He wondered whether, if somebody took the trouble to collect the number of cases in which they had been told they were going to ruin the Empire by trusting the people, the result would be any less ridiculous than in the case he had mentioned. They had got through those troublous times, and at the end of one of the most active sessions of Parliament, the Government had now put the crown upon their endeavours. They had gone the first step towards pacifying and consolidating South Africa, and as one who opposed the war from the beginning to the end, and thought that the policy now represented by such small numbers on the Opposition Benches was disastrous to the country and to the Empire, he welcomed this step which the Government had taken. It was a great step in empire-building on the old principle of trusting in the people, and not always suspecting that they were going to repay kindness with ingratitude. He welcomed this new development of the old principles of Colonial government, and he felt sure that good would come of it.
  1128
  Only one point in this discussion had been made against the Governments in regard to the natives, and that point was based upon a misapprehension of the terms of the Treaty of Vereeniging. He thought they were doing a wise thing in giving full trust and confidence to the people of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, because they could not be treated as if they had never known what self-government was. Surely the best course to take was to give them a system of government as much like what they had had before as possible. There were many things in the old Transvaal Government not only excellent for that country but which this country would gladly welcome into our system of government. Round the old constitutions of the Transvaal and the Orange Rivet Colony were gathered all the traditions which were dearest to the Boers in those two countries. The people of this country should not forget, now that those two Colonies were our territory, that it would be wise to revive the sweet and not the bitter memories which had gathered round those institutions. He hoped that everything we did would be for the good of those countries, and that it would lead to the burying of all the hatreds and embitterments which the war had caused.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLdid not think the debate ought to close without the intervention of at least one Irishman. He did not expect to hear a better speech than the Under-Secretary's until he heard a Minister of the Crown proposing responsible government for Ireland. He had heard congratulations on both sides of the House in regard to the establishment of what was hoped would be free institutions for South Africa. In those congratulations the Irish Members readily joined. When the South African cause was dark they advocated it with no uncertain sound, and hon. Members from Ireland frequently crossed the sea to vote against every farthing which was spent upon that iniquitous war. He had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with what was a small personal matter as compared with the great issues raised in this debate. Upon that Amendment he would not speak, because

  1129
  he preferred to confine his remarks to the more general aspects of the question. Under the Letters Patent establishing responsible government in South Africa there had been a deviation from the established course of colonial procedure. It would be found, however, from searching history that the course now proposed was justified. He congratulated the Government on coming forward and giving responsible government at once. Ireland had not responsible government at the time of Grittan's Parliament. If there had been responsible government in Ireland, then the Union could never have been carried. When the Union was first proposed in Ireland, at a time when there was responsible government, the proposal was defeated. In Canada they French and English communities were at daggers drawn so long as there was not responsible government. It was proposed to confer responsible government in South Africa on people who only three years ago were fighting against the British, and it was known that they did not bear this country any great love. Could a democratic Parliament which was doing that refuse to the Irish people exactly the same rights which were given to South Africa? The hon. Member for Durham had objected to the reservation of the questions of Chinese labour, Indian labour, and other things. During the debates in Committee on the Home Rule Bill in 1893 the Amendments moved from the Tory benches related to nothing but reservations with respect to the proposed Irish Parliament, but now hon. Members who spoke from the same benches thought that the House must give South Africa everything, and that there should be no reservations at all. They pretended to trust the people. We remembered a great man saying that if they trusted the people at all they should trust them completely. He had listened with great interest to the debate. He thought it had been conducted with great moderation on both sides; and he hoped that they would have the same fair field when the Irish Bill came on next year, and that what was being given to South Africa would not be denied to the Irish people. But whether that should be so or not, it was with satisfaction he remembered that for generations through 106 years, Irish Members
  1130
  had been foremost in upholding the principles of liberty and free government here. It was the Irish members who mainly relieved the West Indies from slavery; who gave to the English working classes the franchise; who endowed Canada, Australia, and South Africa with self-government; and he appealed to the British democracy not to give one law to South Africa, and another law to Ireland, which had done so much for the Empire. He thought he had given a very delightful lesson in constitutional law, and he hoped that in the good time coming next year his friends opposite would apply to Ireland that which they were doing now to the Transvaal, and aid the cause of liberty by the restoration to Ireland of responsible self-government.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that there was little difference between the two sides of the House that day, and perhaps there would be as little difference on the occasion to which the hon. Member had just referred. Such differenceas there had been related to the time and the reservations. He saw an enormous advantage in granting the Constitution as soon as possible after the war. They were all agreed that self-government must be granted sooner or later, and the only question was whether it was to be given now or three or four years hence. No shot had been fired after the conclusion of peace, and the leaders of the Boers, including General Botha and Mr. Smutz, who fought against us so bravely for three years were now our steadfast coadjutors, determined to run this Constitution for the good of South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham knew something of the nature of the problem, and in one of his speeches argued for granting self-government first to the Orange River Colony, and at least there there was no reason for delay. In the reservation in regard to natives the Constitution differed from others in being less than could be found in previous Colonial Constitutions. It was the duty of an Imperial Government to have consideration for the rights of British Indians. In land settlement a compromise had been arrived at, and, having in mind bitter memories of Majuba, it was well to

  1131
  establish the Land Board. For his own part he absolutely trusted the Boers after knowing them well and believed that they would be entirely friendly to us. Of Chinese labour he could say they could see the end. It was well it should be so. Few Members had realised the strong feeling in the Transvaal on the subject. This Constitution showed what we meant. It stated that it was His Majesty's "will and pleasure that all persons within our dominions" should be free from any conditions of employment or residence of a servile character, and that they should not be segregated from their kind. He fully admitted that his friends opposite did not know when they sanctioned the Chinese Ordinance the full consequences which would follow from it. The right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square and his friends must remember that within twenty miles of the Rand there had been outrage, murder, and rapine by the Chinese, and that fathers had to sleep with arms at their side, in order to protect their wives and children from the invasion of these Chinese, who had escaped from the compounds. Therefore, they might well say, "Thank God there is an end to this hateful and evil experiment, and we fully think that these words in the Constitution will prevent its ever reviving again." They felt, as he had said, that men should not be segregated from their kind, and that all who came into British dominions should come free, or not at all. It would not have been necessary to have placed this clause in the Constitution but for the fact that the great principles for which he and his friends stood had for the first time for 100 years been violated. Nothing now remained except for them unanimously to vote that they approved of this Constitution, and to hope that brighter days would dawn for South Africa.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Other important business awaits the attention of the House, and therefore I venture to suggest we may as speedily as possible bring this debate to a close. The debate has roamed over a wide area, and covered the whole expanse of South African affairs. The debate has clearly shown that after long and perilous voyages
  1132
  through very rough weather South African affairs, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, are returning to calmer waters. That is shown by the attitude of the House during the course of the discussion, by the temperate and reasonable speeches which have been made from so many diverse and contrasted points of view, by the fair, dispassionate, and conciliatory attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, and by the discursive and comprehensive, though not too stringently localised, criticisms of my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. There are only a few outstanding points on which it is my duty to give to the House information which has been asked for. But let me first point out to my right hon. friend that he awakened almost terror in my heart when he said it was not possible by Letters Patent to annul or to override an Ordinance which had been passed under Crown Colony Government in the Transvaal. If that were so, the whole key stone of our anti-Chinese policy would be loosened, if not entirely detached; and I am sure no one will be better pleased than my right hon. friend to learn that in regard to any legislation which was passed by Ordinance, Letters Patent are effective for the purpose of nullifying or over-riding. I find that we take special precautions in the Letters Patent to reserve to ourselves the power of dealing with legislation by further direct authority of the Crown whenever its pleasure might be made known. I now pass to the points upon which I was questioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman spoke first of the Ridgeway Report. The Cabinet have decided that that Report should not be published, not because it runs counter to the decisions we have announced, not because as it is suggested, and, I think, scandalously suggested, that it would not sustain the full measure of self-government which we decide to confer on both States. That is not the case. The Report was in its character, from beginning to end written as a confidential document for the information of the Cabinet.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The Chairman did not say so.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am dealing with the Report, not with anything which Sir West Ridgeway may have imparted to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LYTTELTON: It was in a public speech.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I did not understand that it was made in a public speech. But, in any case, His Majesty's Government were the persons who appointed the Commission, and we are the judges of the confidential character of their work. The Report deals in a very capable manner with all sorts of intricate party matters among the parties or groups of South Africa, and although I do not consider that, now that our decision is known, any serious public injury would result from the publication of the Report, I do undoubtedly think that, on the whole, it is better that the confidential character of a confidential document should be preserved in perpetuity. The second point on which the right hon. Gentleman's criticism rested is the reservations contained in the Constitution. The right hon. Baronet with his political acumen has already foreseen the ease with which it would be possible to play him off against the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is quite true that the Government has in this matter taken a middle course, and I venture to think it is the middle course which would be forced upon anyone who occupied the position of Executive responsibility in these most grave and complicated questions of the relations of black men and white men in South Africa. We are not responsible for introducing the principle of a colour bar. We are responsible for fulfilling our treaty obligations, and nothing was more clearly stipulated in the Treaty of Vereeniging than that an extension of the franchise to the native population was not to take place before the grant of responsible government. But I do not at all regard that stipulation as closing the matter permanently. I believe we shall see in the next few years a distinct and powerful forward movement in South Africa in the direction of the admirable system which prevails in the Cape Colony. But the case of the British Indian is the one on which I feel more strongly than on the native, because
  1134
  our Indian fellow subjects are raised an immense step in civilisation above the African savage, and, after all, we cannot forget what use was made of the claims of the British Indian in the days before the war. What will be our policy in regard to any such movement? We shall encourage it and stimulate it by every means in our power. There is no difference between the Government and their supporters on three sides of the House upon the principles which they desire to see prevail in these matters. But in the end South Africa is going to settle this question for herself. We shall endeavour to influence and guide her opinion, and to modify and restrain anything which is considered of a harsh or intolerant character. We shall foster and develop a humane, broad-minded, and liberal native policy, but the people in South Africa are the persons who will be increasingly charged with the effective decision in all these matters. The day will come, perhaps a not very distant day, when South Africa will be confederate, and then there will be a much more stable platform for the transaction of native affairs than exists at present. Then I think the good sense of one part may redress anything in the nature of hasty or excited emotion in another part of the country; and then, increasingly, influence, interference, or suggestion in these matters on the part of the Imperial Government will become weakened, and increasingly the main decision of these affairs will pass to the white inhabitants of South Africa. I pass to the question of the Chinese and the Chinese reservation. The right hon. Gentleman has raised, I hope for the last time, the old question of the employment of Chinese labour on its merits. Our old friend the Guiana Ordinance has been brought forth from its stable and again cantered over the course with much gallantry and energy. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the great and fundamental differences which separate the employment of Chinese labour under existing conditions in South Africa from the conditions of labour importation under the Guiana Ordinance, where the labourer comes in with his wife and family if he wishes—and a high percentage did bring their women folk—where he lives in his villages

  1135
  just as he would in his own country, and Where at the expiration of his contract he remains to dwell in the land. I will not this evening attempt to re-open such a controversy as that, except to say that I believe all the apprehensions and prejudices which have been felt in this country, and felt intensely among the poorer people whose lot it is to labour with their hands, have been fully justified by everything that has happened in regard to Chinese labour. When I read in the newspapers of proposals that are being made to import Chinese into European countries for the purpose of reaping a harvest, or in other ways of competing with white people who live in these countries, I think the attitude of the working classes of this country was only another instance of the shrewdness of the instincts of persons when the very sources of their livelihood are assailed. In regard to Chinese labour we have scrupulously kept our promises to the House of Commons, but I do not think we have been guilty of breaking contracts or pursuing a course which must lead to breach of contracts. The conditions under which the Chinamen came into Africa were very peculiar; any man may make a contract with another man, but the contract which the Chinese labourers made with their employers required a special Ordinance to make it wholly effective. The contract and the Ordinance must be taken together. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, the Ordinance is entirely within the discretion of this Government while we are responsible for South African affairs. It will hereafter be entirely in the discretion of the local government. It is obvious that the Ordinance can be amended and altered, and it is also evident that the fulfilment of the contract depends on the existence of the Ordinance; and therefore, in making alterations of the Ordinance, or in annulling or suspending it, we are not, I hold, breaking the contracts between the Chinamen and the employers, but merely refusing to enforce contracts which, no doubt, exist by methods which we do not consider in accordance with public interests and policy. The other question of importance that had been raised was the question of the Robinson group. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the special preference which the Govern-
  1136
  ment have given to M. J. B. Robinson. It was not our desire to give any preference to Mr. Robinson or to any other gentleman connected with South African goldmining industries; but we could not view without anxiety the concentration of the whole black labour supply in the hands of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association—that powerful body which exerts such immense influence on local politics, and which in a hundred ways has woven itself into all the apparatus of economic and social life in Johannesburg. This body, which has a tremendous and sinister control over the local Press, and whose influence may sometimes be traced by the perspicacious student even in the columns of some of our leading newspapers—this body was given by the Chamber of Mines the power of turning off or on, as a tap, the supply of native labour. It is very curious that when it was necessary to establish a case for Chinese importation the supply of native labour shrank, and now that competition is threatened the supply of native labour collected by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association has marvellously expanded. All we have said is that the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association is a voluntary body, mad that when a respectable and responsible firm or body of mineowners desire to secede from it we are not prepared to refuse their request provided they give proof of their substance and responsibility. In order to procure that, we have embarked on negotiations with the Portuguese Government which are now reaching, if they have not already reached, a satisfactory conclusion; and I have every reason to believe that the special agreement which has been made between the Portuguese Government and the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association will shortly be denounced in the usual manner.
  MR. LYTTELTONasked how it was the Government allowed only Mr. Robinson to recruit.
  MR. CHURCHILL: We should be quite prepared to consider the application of any other firm of equal status and responsibility. But these inquiries take time, and persons who desire

  1137
  facilities should pause before they break with the Native Labour Association until they have satisfied the Government of their status and responsibility, for otherwise they might find themselves in the awkward position in which they have endeavoured to place Mr. Robinson of being unable to get natives themselves or to draw from the supplies of the Native Labour Association. I hope I have not imported any unnecessary controversy into the debate on the Transvaal Constitution. It is the earnest desire of the Government to steer colonial affairs out of English party politics, not only in the interest of the proper conduct of those affairs, but in order to clear the arena at home for the introduction of measures which affect the masses of the people. We have tried in South Africa to deal fairly between man and man, to adjust conflicting interests and overlapping claims. We have tried so far as possible to effect a broad-bottomed settlement of the question which should command the assent of people even beyond the great party groupings which support us. We do not ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to share our responsibility. All we ask of the Opposition is not to add to our difficulties, but to give the policy which has been determined on as good a chance as possible of success. The responsibilities of the Government are heavy. They now pass in a large measure to the members of the new Parliaments. Other liberties besides their own will be enshrined in those Parliaments. The people of these Colonies, and, in a special measure, the Boers, will become the trustees of freedom all over the world. We have tried to act with fairness and good feeling. If by any chance our counsels of reconciliation should come to nothing, if our policy should end in mocking disaster, then the resulting evil would not be confined to South Africa. Our unfortunate experience would be trumpeted forth all over the world
  1138
  wherever despotism wanted a good argument for bayonets, whenever an arbitrary Government wished to deny or curtail the liberties of imprisoned nationalities. But if, on the other hand, as we hope and profoundly believe, better days are in store for South Africa, if the long lane which it has been travelling has reached its turning at last, if the words of President Brand, "All shall come right," are at length to be fulfilled, and if the near future should unfold to our eyes a tranquil, prosperous, consolidated Afrikander nation under the protecting ægis of the British crown, then, I say, the good as well as the evil will not be confined to South Africa; then, I say, the cause of the poor and the weak all over the world will have been sustained; and everywhere small peoples will get more room to breathe, and everywhere great empires will be encouraged by our example to step forward—and it only needs a step—into the sunshine of a more gentle and a more generous age.
  *MR. CREMERasked if the Under-Secretary for the Colonies would enlighten the House on one of two points which, notwithstanding his able and lucid speech, had not been made, at least to him, quite clear. He understood that of the two bodies set up in South Africa one was to be elected and one nominated, and they were to exist for five years. But he did not quite understand what was to happen at the end of five years; was it quite certain the nominated body would from that time cease to exist as a nominated body and forthwith become an elected body, if so by whom was it to be elected, and who was to decide these questions? In Norway he thought the solution of a second chamber had been found. In that country there was one simple suffrage and one vote, and as soon as a new Parliament was elected the first thing done by the members was to select one

  1139
  fourth of their number to constitute a Chamber of Revision or Upper House. The same provision was made for avoiding a deadlock as that contained in the projected Transvaal constitution which they were now discussing; but was the same method to be adopted in the election of the two bodies in the Transvaal? If the two chambers disagree and there is a deadlock the two bodies meet and the majority decided the question at issue. On these two points he could not quite follow the hon. Gentleman, and he thought it would be well that they should not be left in the dark.
  Resolved, That this House approves the Grant of Constitutions conferring responsible Government upon the peoples of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies.—(Mr. Churchill.)

TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendment, in page 1, line 18, after the word "attend," to insert the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner." read a second time.
*SIR JOHN WALTONin moving that the House disagree with this Amendment reminded the House that, while the words quoted appeared in the Bill as originally framed, they were after consideration deliberately omitted by the House because of the impossibility of defining "reasonable manner," No standard which should be universally applicable and recognised as to the conduct of those engaged in the operation of picketing could be arrived at beforehand so that those who proposed to exercise the right could know whether they would come within the
1140
clause or not. The words would be of no practical advantage, and would be apt to lead to violation of the law. For those reasons he hoped the House would consider that the Government were justified in inviting them to disregard this Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir John Walton.)
LORD R. CECILthought the House was in rather a strange position because these were, after all, the words originally placed in the Bill as it was read a first and a second time and as it passed through Committee. These very words had been strenuously advocated by the Attorney-General as necessary and desirable for the proper working of the Act, and for the defence of the rights of the various persons who would be affected. But when they came to the Report stage of the Bill the Attorney-General took an entirely different view, and said that if they inserted "peacefully" later on there would be no object in inserting "peaceably and in a reasonable manner." At that time the Attorney-General said that on the whole the words he proposed were the least liable to misconstruction. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman declared that the insertion of the words would be a serious danger and ought to be excluded. It was a very unfortunate thing that the principal legal adviser of the Government should have taken two if not three different views upon this point. He did not think that the difference between the words which the Government inserted on Report and those which the House of Lords had inserted was a very serious matter, and he did not care

1141
very much whether the House accepted or rejected the Amendment.
MR. BOWLESdid not think the Attorney General had touched the real point. The question was whether or not the picketing to be allowed should be done peaceably and in a reasonably manner. What was the reason which the hon. Gentleman had given why this House should decline to insist that these operations should be done in a reasonable manner.? He said they should leave out the word "reasonable" because it was impossible of definition. That very point was urged against the Government by Gentlemen below the gangway. The Attorney-General, in defending his original proposal, said that—
"While it was possible that the word 'reasonable' might raise some difficulty in application he could not conceive any expression more appropriate or more likely to do justice on the whole to all the parties concerned."
That was the opinion of the Attorney-General upon a dry point of law and interpretation, and it was a little unfortunate that the House should have been placed in such a position in this matter.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: After making that speech, I entirely recast the clause.
MR. BOWLESsaid that although the new clause substituted "peacefully" for "peaceably" it did not alter the validity of the argument he had used in respect to the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner." The picketing was not now to be done in a reasonable manner. This was an important matter, and if the Motion was pressed to a division he should vote against it.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that as one who thought this Bill was a very bad one, he might be allowe to state to the House why he accepted the proposal of the Attorney-General. He did not think it would be the wish of the House that he should attempt to follow the Government in the tedious and conflicting arguments which they had laid before the Committee and the House upon this point. The reason why he should adopt the proposal of the Attorney-General was that, after giving the best consideration to the clause as originally drafted and to the clause as it was subsequently redrafted, he had formed the opinion that the House now possessed as valuable a security for preventing legal excesses on the part of trade unions and picketing as they had in the clause in its original shape. He supposed that they would all be agreed that Courts of law should be in a position to deal with those who had committed these illegal acts. He did not think that hon. Members below the gangway would consent to the redrafted clause of the Attorney-General or dissent from the Amendment based upon that which had been made by the House of Lords, because they had stated over and over again that their object was to keep themselves away from the arbitrary decisions of magistrates. It was because he believed that the clause as redrafted by the Attorney-General left trade unionists more in the hands of juries as to the construing of their action that he supported the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
Lords Amendment, "in page 2, line 12, to leave out from the word 'nine' to the

1143
end of the clause, and insert the words 'Provided that the said trustees shall not be made liable in any action for any tortious act committed for or on behalf of the union where such tortious act does not touch or concern the property, right, or claim to property of the trade union,"the next Amendment, read a second time.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid it was with regret he moved that the House disagree with this Amendment because he would have been glad to have proposed agreement with the insertion of the words if he had been able to come to the conclusion that they would accomplish the object for which they were inserted, and that they did not expose the Bill to misconstruction. The House would recollect that when they discussed this matter it was pointed out by some learned Members that the application of certain dicta of an eminent Judge in a well-known case made a trade union liable for acts which did not directly or immediately or even indirectly, arise in furtherance of a trade dispute. It was necessary in consequence to modify the clause in order to avert that danger. He confessed he could not conceive of an act which should be done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which touched or concerned the property of the union, because acts done in furtherance of a trade dispute were not acts done by the use directly, at all events, of the union property. Certainly the real property of a union could scarcely be employed in furtherance of a trade dispute. On the whole, it did not appear to him that the adoption of these words would in practice, and possibly not even on a strict construction of the language create an immunity for which the trade unions did not ask, and which it was not
1144
sought by this legislation to confer upon them. On the other hand, if the words were not omitted, there would be considerable danger that they would paralyse trade unions in all their proceedings in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir John Walton.)
*MR. CAVEthought the clause in the Bill, which conferred the immunity of the trustees to acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, was in that respect better than the proviso sent don by the House of Lords.
Question put, and greed to.
Lords Amendment, "in page 2, line 24, after the word 'dispute' to insert the words 'between employers and workmen, servants, or persons employed in any trade or industry whether in such employer's employment or not,'" the next Amendment, read a second time.
*SIR JOHN WALTONmoved to amend the Lords' Amendment by leaving out from the word "workmen" to the end of the Amendment in order to insert "or between workmen and workmen," and to add words defining the word "workman" as including all persons employed in trade or industry, whether employed by the employer concerned in the dispute or not. He said that the clause as he proposed to amend it would cover the case of the sympathetic strike by destroying the construction which had been placed on the words "employer" and "workman" us they were used in Section 3 of the Act of 1875. For

1145
those reasons he begged to move to amend the Lords' Amendment by leaving out on page 2, line 34, from the word "workman" to the end of the Amendment, in order to insert "or between workmen and workmen."
Motion made, and Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Amendment," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
MR. F. E. SMITHthought the Amendment framed by the Attorney-General carried out more effectually what was aimed at by the House of Lords, and he hoped that the House would assent to it.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he had some misgiving as to whether the Amendment would cover a case which not unfrequently arose where the dispute was not between the employer and his workman but between the employer and a trade union official. He was quite sure there was no intention of excluding such a case from the purview of the Bill.
LORD R. CECILsaid he must honestly admit that the Amendments proposed both in the other House and that drafted by the hon. and learned Attorney-General were so complicated that he did not feel absolutely certain what they really meant, and whether they would exclude cases which he feared might arise in Ireland.
MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid he did not share the doubts of the hon. member for East Marylebone. The Amendment had been very carefully considered,
1146
so as to cover every possible case and to remove any reasonable apprehension.
Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
A consequential Amendment made to the Bill.
Committee appointed to draw up reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Whitely.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—(Sir John Walton.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OR TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs)said that most of the Amendments were drafting Amendments, and he proposed that the House should agree with them with one exception.
Lords Amendment, in page 20, line 35, after "therein" insert as a new subsection—
"(2) It is hereby declared that where the registry of a ship is considered as closed under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the principal Act as amended by this

1147
section, or under sub-section (10) of Section 44 of that Act, on account of a transfer to persons not qualified to be owners of British ships, any unsatisfied registered mortgage (including mortgages made under a certificate of mortgage) may, if the ship comes within the jurisdiction of any British court which has jurisdiction to enforce the mortgage, or would have had such jurisdiction if the transfer had not been made, be enforced by that court notwithstanding the transfer, without prejudice, in cases where the ship has been sold under a judgment of a court, to the effect of that judgment," the next Amendment, read a second time.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to amend the new sub-section by substituting for the words "British court" the words "Court in His Majesty's Dominions."
Amendment agreed to.
Lords' Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Subsequent Lords' Amendments, read a second time, and agreed to.

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND BILL.
As amended, considered.
MR. MORTONasked why the Amendments to this Bill had not been reprinted for the Report stage. It was the usual practice to reprint a Bill in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of seeing whether they were satisfied with the Amendments which had been made to it. They were told that Scotland would get some money by this Bill, but he did not think it would be much. At all events, it would
1148
not be what was due to Scotland in regard to this and other measures. He objected to the Bill because it was unworthy of the people of Scotland, and be contended that before they spent money on bricks and mortar in Edinburgh, something should be done for the crofting counties and otherwise for the benefit of the country. In respect of the promises which had been made of legislation for Scotland, it was understood that she would have to wait, which was very hard seeing that Scotland had consistently supported the Liberal Government. The latter, however, offered them this little Bill instead of doing something to assist the people.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Burials Bill, with Amendments.
BURIALS BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—(Sir John Walton.)
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
Adjourned at eight minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Falkirk and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

EDINBURGH SUBURBAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the Lord Chairman, who is interested in this Bill, is unable to be present until later in the evening, and, at his request, I beg leave to have the Bill considered at the close of to-day's business.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I would make an appeal to the noble Lord to postpone the Bill until to-morrow. It only came up to your Lordships' House on Friday, and no opportunity has been given under the Standing Orders to put down Amendments. I would ask the noble Lord, in the circumstances, to postpone the Bill until to-morrow in order to enable us to give notice of Amendments.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon): I think the request of my noble friend, is a reasonable one. The Bill cannot be taken in the absence of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, because, of course, his opinion upon the subject would be a very valuable one. If the noble Lord objects to the Bill being taken later to-night my noble friend in charge of it will be willing to put it off till to-morrow.
Third Reading put off till tomorrow.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition against; of inhabitants of parish of Hampstead; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE.
  Annual Statement of the Trade of United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions, 1905. Supplement to Volumes I and II Abstract and detailed tables showing countries of consignment of imports and countries of ultimate destination of exports, with a prefatory memorandum.
  Sixty-eighth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Marriages, and Deaths in England and Wales (1905).
  "OPTIONS" AND "FUTURES" IN FOODSTUFFS (LEGISLATION).
  Reports from the Canadian Government and His Majesty's representatives abroad on legislative measures respecting gambling in "option" and "future" contracts as regards food-stuffs (in continuation of [Cd. 1756.] of 1904).
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire into and report upon the subject of small holdings in Great Britain, with minutes appointing the Committee; Minutes of evidence, with appendices and index.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS, 1906.
  Vol. XLI, Part I. Average and live stock returns of Great Britain, with summaries for the United Kingdom.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS.
  Additional regulation relative to the uniform worn by prison officers; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Fourth Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered to-morrow. (No. 249.)

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Order of the day for the consideration of the Commons' reason for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the Commons' reason for disagreeing with the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before your Lordships proceed to consider the Motion which has just been made I think it may be desirable that I should offer a few observations in regard to the peculiar position in which we find ourselves in consequence of the message which is on the Table. That message is of an entirely unprecedented character. I doubt whether the most diligent search of our Parliamentary records would reveal the existence of any communication made by one House of Parliament to the other bearing the slightest resemblance to this most momentous and extraordinary communication.
  My Lords, we can scarcely weigh the full significance of that message without recurring to the circumstances in which the Education Bill passed through this House and went to the other House of Parliament. I have had a somewhat lengthened experience of the House of Lords, and I can remember no measure which has attracted so much close and earnest attention as this measure has attracted. I never remember so large an attendance of your Lordships. The discussion was the more remarkable on account of the number of Members of this House who took part in it, and who took part in it, having a right to express their opinion, I might almost say, as experts with regard to the questions of local administration and of education.
  The discussion, which lasted, I think, sixteen nights in Committee, besides two nights on Report, was certainly not one of the tone of which anyone could possibly complain. It was thoroughgoing and in all respects temperate and reasonable. No one can say that this House arrived with headlong haste at its decision upon the measure. Your Lordships will remember that, in more than one
  916
  case, Amendments which met with a very large amount of support from various parts of the House and from this Bench were not pressed to a division because we had reason to suppose that they went somewhat beyond what the more moderate body of opinion of your Lordships would have been disposed to approve. Again, on the Report stage at least two Amendments of first-rate importance were removed from the Bill because your Lordships desired that our Amendments should not be pushed too far. All the Amendments that were in the Bill when it left this House were discussed deliberately and at full length, and in a manner which I venture to think was in marked contrast to the discussion elsewhere, where strong measures were taken to limit and curtail the progress of discussion.
  Well, my Lords, our Amendments went to the House of Commons, and how were they received? We receive in return for them the message of half-a-dozen lines which lies upon the Table. I hope I do not do an injustice to those who framed it when I say that to the ordinary reader it appears to be curt in its language and almost contemptuous in its tone. That message is all that we have before us. Now what can we extract from it? We are told that our Amendments taken as a whole are inconsistent with the character and destructive of the principle of the Bill. We are not told the points on which these Amendments are opposed to the principle of the Bill. No guidance is given to us in ascertaining where it is that we have traversed the limits within which His Majesty's Ministers desired to confine our suggestions. We certainly shall not be told that the Amendments inserted by the noble Earl opposite were inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and yet I am assured by someone who has taken the pains to measure the total volume of the Amendments put in by this House that out of about 100 Amendments fifty-two were inserted by noble Lords opposite and only forty-eight on this side of the House. I presume we may claim for the fifty-two Amendments inserted by noble Lords opposite that they were of that character which has been described as "good as gold," and that we are not likely to hear

  917
  any proposal to remove those from the Bill.
  When noble Lords opposite speak to us about the principle of the Bill they generally give us to understand that the main principle of the Bill is that we should uphold public control over public elementary schools. We have heard lately that our local education authorities have become infected by a lofty ambition, and that it is their great desire to be masters in their own house. Now, I ask your Lordships where are the points at which we have really denied to these local authorities the right of acting as masters in their own house. So far as secular instruction is concerned that mastery remains complete in spite of your Lordships' Amendments. The squire and the parson have been dethroned, and on the day on which this Bill becomes law, so far as secular instruction is concerned, every voluntary school will be unreservedly under the control of the local authorities. So far as religious instruction is concerned, we have claimed and we continue to claim, that the control of the local authorities shall be tempered by some regard to the wishes of the parents; and we have further contended that, so far as it is possible without detriment to the efficiency of the schools, there should be an attempt to safeguard the rights of minorities. Both those principles were already admitted to some extent in the Bill of His Majesty's Government, and if we have gone further than they have, we are, at any rate, surely not open to the complaint that in that respect we have departed from the principle of the Bill.
  It is remarkable that within the last few days we have been told that the most conspicuous invasion of public control is to be found in the Amendment which your Lordships inserted in the first clause. We have been told that the effect of that Amendment is to open all the council schools of the country to facilities. My Lords, there never was a more extraordinary misconception. The Amendment, far from having that effect, merely stipulates that in every one of these schools the school hours shall be so arranged that religious instruction should not at the very outset be excluded by want of time. That is all. There is no
  918
  attempt to introduce facilities, no denial of popular control.
  May I be allowed to remark that this confidence which His Majesty's Ministers place so implicitly in the local education authorities seems to be exercised by them in a somewhat fitful and intermittent manner? They attach the greatest importance to it, but only, if I may say so, when it suits their book. When it suits our boot the tale is quite different. Let me mention two instances. My noble friend behind me has been taken to task for the Amendment which he inserted in the third clause; but, after all, what that Amendment does is merely to give the local authority a dispensing power which the local authority can exercise or not as it pleases. That is the intention of the Amendment; if it can be better carried out in different language we are quite ready to consider any proposals that may be made to us. Again there is an Amendment, which I had the honour of recommending to the House, and which has been made the subject of similar criticism. When we came to consider the Bill on Report we found it was so drafted that the absence of alternative accommodation for half a dozen children, or even for one child, was sufficient to prevent extended facilities being granted to a school in all other respects qualified to obtain such facilities. What did we do? We merely proposed that the local authority should be given a dispensing power which would enable them in certain special cases to relax the hard conditions which the clause as it stood imposed upon them. I mention that because I wish to show that in both those cases the basis on which we were proceeding was a desire to make the local authority master in its own house.
  What are the reasons for which we are given to understand, not in this message but in the statements that have been made outside the House, that it was necessary to reject the Lords' Amendments in globo?I have considered with all the attention that I could give them the reasons which have been suggested. I am bound to say that they seem to me to be obstacles of a kind which seem insurmountable only to those who have no great desire to surmount

  919
  them. We have heard it said that if the Lords' Amendments had been discussed seriatim something like eighty questions would have had to be separately disposed of. I noticed that a few hours later the eighty questions fell to forty, which I think shows that the quotation was a somewhat vague one. But, my Lords, I think the best answer to the statement that it was physically impossible to deal with our Amendments elsewhere is to be found in the fact which is a matter of common knowledge, that on Thursday last week an arrangement had been come to by the gentlemen who manage the business of the House for both sides and I presume may be considered experts upon the subject of the disposal of Parliamentary time, under which it had actually been decided that our Amendments should be taken seriatim and that four days should be set apart for the purpose. We can only conjecture as to the reasons which led to the abandonment of that plan. What actually happened was that a debate took place, in the course of which various vague hints and various somewhat indefinite hopes were held out to us that some of our most material Amendments might yet find favour with His Majesty's Government. As to that I feel that we are confronted with a very serious dilemma. If it be indeed true that the concessions which His Majesty's Ministers have in their minds are material concessions, then I ask what becomes of the charge that the whole of the Lords' Amendments are subversive of the principle of the Bill, and what again becomes of another statement which was made by a colleague of the noble Earl opposite, that if our Amendments had been discussed seriatim in the House of Commons, the result would have been exactly the same, because they were all inadmissible? Then to turn to the other horn of the dilemma. If the concessions are to be only trivial concessions, how can noble Lords opposite expect to find us ready to come to terms with them upon the basis of such concessions?
  Well, my Lords, how are we to deal with this extraordinary and unprecedented message? The noble Earl opposite the other day at the close of an interesting
  920
  speech on this subject counselled us to exercise forbearance in dealing with these questions. The treatment of our Amendments in the House of Commons is not a very striking example of forbearance. I suppose we may say that even in this House there is a certain amount of human feeling, and I wonder what the noble Earl and his friends think that any body of Englishmen would say if they were treated in the manner in which we have been treated by His Majesty's Ministers. Docs he know of any body of his fellow-countrymen who would take such treatment as that, to use a familiar expression, "lying down"? I doubt it extremely.
  Now, I beg to be allowed to point out that this is not a question of good manners as between the two Houses or of the dignity or amour propre of your Lordships, either individually or collectively. The constitutional question which arises is a far more serious one than that. It is not too much to say that it involves the future usefulness of this House as part of the constitutional machinery of this kingdom. Your Lordships know, if I may say a word as to myself, that I am not inclined to take a pedantic view of these questions. The advice I ventured to give the House not many days ago as to the manner in which it should deal with the Trade Disputes Bill ought, I think, to prove that I am not one of those who are unable to see both sides of a question of this sort. But I ask your Lordships to consider with what feelings we can look forward to the future of the House of Lords if such treatment as this is to be entirely condoned by your Lordships. Is it not certain that if it be so condoned these tactics will be repeated as time goes on? Is it not certain that when the Government of the day finds that it has an inconvenient question to deal with in the other House, when it is called upon, perhaps, to recommend to supporters who are not entirely unanimous, proposals of a somewhat intricate and embarrassing character, resort will again be had to this simple expedient of ruling out the proposals of this House en bloc and sending them back as these proposals have been sent back to us with a brief intimation that they cannot be entertained?

  921
  It has been said, and I have no doubt that my noble friend will say it again to-night, that there was no intention of showing disrespect to this House. I am quite sure that the noble Earl opposite would not willingly lend himself to any course which would denote disrespect to this House; but I say that it requires an extraordinary amount of self-deception to imagine that such a course as that which has been adopted can be adopted without the appearance of grave disrespect to this House. The ability and tactfulness with which the noble Earl opposite has piloted this Bill through your Lordships' House mark him as one who in years to come cannot fail to take a most distinguished part in our councils; and I do venture to appeal to him to see to it that something is done to mitigate, at all events, the effect of the course which has been adopted by the House of Commons in regard to this Bill.
  We have, then, to ask ourselves what is the proper manner for this House to deal with the message from the Commons. In ordinary circumstances one answer and one answer only could be returned to that message, and that would be an announcement that your Lordships intended to insist upon your Amendments and require their retention in the Bill; I cannot conceal from myself that it may be necessary for us eventually to return that answer. But I humbly suggest to your Lordships that that answer should not be sent until it becomes clear that no other answer is possible. Among those who sit behind me are some who would, I dare say, not be very sorry if this Bill were to disappear and, so far as this session is concerned, to be heard of no more. I am afraid I do not entirely agree with those who cheered that statement. I am one of those who would give a great deal to see a truce to, if not a termination of, the bitter and regrettable struggle which has so long been going on in this country around this question. It is bad for education, it is bad for religion, and it is bad in its effect upon public life in this country.
  It is, of course, also true that the judgment arrived at within the last few days by this House sitting judicially adds to the reasons why we should desire
  922
  a termination of this controversy. Therefore, if any means can be found, not of extricating this House from the difficulty in which it is placed, but of extricating His Majesty's Government from the situation in which they find themselves, I would say let us respectfully examine any proposals to that effect. I do not intend to suggest for a moment that the colleagues of the noble Earl should appear at the bar of this House in white sheets in order to profess penitence for what they have done; but I do ask that His Majesty's Government should not only tell us here in this House, that they do not desire to treat us with disrespect, but to make good their words and to tell us, in language plainer than any hitherto used, what are the proposals which they make to us with the object of saving this Bill.
  The next move lies with them. I hope that will be understood. But let me add this observation that to my mind it would be idle to attempt to find such an exit from the impasse unless His Majesty's Ministers are prepared to offer us not one or two trivial sops, not one or two concessions on small points, but concessions which will effectually recognise the most material of the objects for which we have contended throughout these debates. If they will do this, if they will make us proposals of that kind, I for one should rejoice if it were found possible, on the basis of such proposals, either in this House or by private discussion outside this House, to arrive at a solution which might be acceptable to both sides. Those are the feelings I venture to entertain; and I do not think I can do better in order to focus the observations I have made than to embody them in a Motion which I will now lay before the House, and which I presume might be taken as an Amendment to the Motion which the noble Earl has made. I propose that your Lordships should agree to a Resolution running as follows—
  "That this House, first, records its protest against the innovation in constitutional procedure by which the Commons have rejected the whole of the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill including those proposed by His Majesty's Ministers, without assigning in any case specific reasons for the rejection of those Amendments; and, secondly, that this House adjourns the consideration of the Commons'

  923
  Amendments to the Lords' Amendments in order to afford His Majesty's Government an opportunity of making a definite statement in this House as to the course which His Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend to the House of Commons in regard to each material Amendment in the Bill.''
  Your Lordships will observe that that Resolution contains two separate limbs. In the first place, your Lordships are invited to record on the journals of this House your protest against the manner in which you have been treated. We propose, in the second place, that the further consideration of the message be adjourned until the noble Earl opposite has had an opportunity of laying before us in full detail the proposals which he desires to offer. I can only express my sincere hope that the noble Earl will think fit to avail himself of the opportunity we place within his reach, if not at once, perhaps after fuller consideration. We have no desire to press him unduly or to add to his difficulties. On the contrary, we look to him to co-operate with us to the best of his ability in bringing about a satisfactory solution of a situation which must be full of difficulty for himself, and which is regarded with the greatest concern by noble Lords who sit near me. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out all the words after 'That' for the purpose of inserting the following Resolution, viz.—("this House (1) records its protest against the innovation in constitutional procedure by which the Commons have rejected the whole of the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill, including those proposed by His Majesty's Ministers, without assigning, in any case, specific reasons for the rejection of those Amendments; and (2) adjourns the consideration of the Commons message in order to afford His Majesty's Government an opportunity of making a definite statement to the House as to the course which His Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend to the House of Commons with regard to each material Amendment to the Bill)."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe): My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that I rise to address the House on this occasion with a feeling of most unusual responsibility, and it is by no means
  924
  diminished by the appeal which the noble Marquess opposite made to myself personally, couched, as is usual with him, in such kindly terms towards myself. Now, my Lords, two distinct questions arise out of the original Motion and out of the Motion and speech of the noble Marquess. There is in the first place the question of the Bill, of its Amendments, and possible modifications of those Amendments. In the second place, there the constitutional question arising between the two Houses out of the manner in which your Lordships' Amendments have been received in another place. Let me deal first with the constitutional question.
  The noble Marquess has dealt with this constitutional issue in a speech which was on the whole marked by moderation of tone, although he made a more free use of adjectives and adverbs than is customary with him; so it becomes my duty to represent to the House circumstances which may possibly induce some of your Lordships to modify the conclusions at which the noble Marquess arrived. In the first place let me point out that this constitutional grievance is not all on one side. I think it is true to say that each House considers that it has been somewhat cavalierly treated by the other in this matter of the Education Bill. I will endeavour to show why in my opinion it is that the House of Commons thinks so, no less than your Lordships do. In doing this it is necessary to refer to the general position which now obtains between the two Houses—the general state of affairs with regard to the rejection or modification by your Lordships of Bills upon which the House of Commons has expressed a definite opinion.
  The aspect of this question has somewhat changed of late years, and this fact is due in a large measure to the change both in the views and in the practice of the Conservative Party which holds sway over your Lordships' House. The old Tory Party professed to be the guardians of the ancient institutions of the country, and, in the main, I think, carried out its raison ďêtre by safeguarding them. It was also distinguished by a warm

  925
  interest in the humane or benevolent side of social reform. When the Tory Party thus existed, the House of Lords acted as a check upon the only people—the Radicals of the day—who proposed novel schemes of legislation, and in so doing it un doubtedly caused from time to time considerable annoyance to those who wanted to go fast; but the position was in the main accepted.
  Now an entirely different state of things obtains. Conservative or Unionist Governments make themselves responsible for schemes of legislation as large and as drastic as those which any Liberal Government ever proposed; and I cannot give a better instance of that fact than the last education measure, the Education Act of 1902. It was, if there ever was one, a Radical measure in its strictest sense—it effected a root and branch change in our system of national education. Whether that measure was demanded by the country will never be known; but your Lordships never asked the question whether it was so demanded or not. It passed through this House with very little amendment, and such amendment as there was was in the direction of further enforcing the views of the Party majority of that time. If there was to be a real reciprocity in this matter, that Bill of 1902 ought to have passed through the ordeal of a second Chamber containing a working Liberal majority of at least 150—such as that which your Lordships are able to bring to bear on the consideration of this Bill.
  People tolerably patient under coercion will rebel against unfairness; and it is this absolutely one-sided element, the essential unfairness of the state of things which I have described, which explains to a very great extent the impatience which is felt over the dealing by your Lordships with such a measure as this Education Bill which we have now once more before us. The contrast between 1902 and 1906 is almost dramatic, and it is by no means only frenzied partisans who take this view of the matter. I can call to witness the noble Lord opposite, Lord Newton, whose speeches always introduce so much ozone into the sometimes rather stagnant atmosphere of our debates. Lord Newton, in an article in the National Review for this month, says that your
  926
  Lordships' House would stand in a stronger position in this matter if you had ever amended one Conservative measure. I really believe that there are many of your Lordships who do not keep closely in touch with another place, and who do not realise the extreme soreness created in the minds even of moderate men by the very drastic treatment which this Education Bill has received.
  I am not going to repeat what I said on the occasion of the Third Reading of the Bill with regard to the nature of the changes which your Lordships have made or how far, in the judgment of those who sit on this side of the House, they entirely altered its character; but I confess I felt when the Bill was passing through this House that your Lordships seemed altogether to ignore the fact that the Bill had passed through another place with quite exceptional majorities. For all the consideration that the Bill received here, though I personally received so much, it might have been a measure originated by some private Peer to whom the subject was of personal interest. I must remind your Lordships that you can hardly mention a measure of the first class that has reached you backed by so tremendous a majority. The Irish Church Bill of 1869 offers a close parallel to this Bill in one respect, in that it was the primary measure brought in by a Government just returned by a great majority in the country. In 1869 the Irish Church Bill reached this House after a Third Reading majority of 133. By 1872 the majority of the Government, as happens to all Governments, had begun considerably to diminish. The Ballot Bill reached your Lordships by a majority of fifty-eight only; and yet both those measures were accepted in this substantial form by your Lordships' House. Now this Education Bill came before you with a majority of 192 on Third Reading, and in spite of that fact it has been altered in a great many most material respects.
  I pass to the treatment which your Lordships' Amendments have received in the House of Commons. I can only assure the noble Marquess and the House, on behalf of His Majesty's Government—and not only on behalf of those Members of it who sit in this House, but also of

  927
  those in the other House—that we had not the slightest intention of inflicting any slight upon this House or of derogating from, the proper claims of the House of Lords. Before it is assumed that any slight was intended or committed it rests upon noble Lords to show that there was really some other less abrupt course which could have been taken consistently with carrying out this task as a matter of business, and with keeping the Bill alive as we desired to do. When the noble Marquess says that these are tactics of which he fears a repetition, I can only assure him that there was no question of tactics in the matter. We simply took the course which we thought most reasonable in the circumstances.
  Now, my Lords, what courses were open to His Majesty's Government in another place? So far as I am able to judge from the precedents, it is clear that, considering the character and extent of the changes made in the Bill and the time of the year at which we have arrived all precedents would have made us immediately reject your Lordships' Amendment by moving that they be considered this day three or six months. When the Bribery at Elections Bill of 1834 was very materially altered by this House, and when it went back to the other House, Lord John Russell moved that the Lords' Amendments should be taken into consideration. But a private Member rose and suggested that, considering it was near the close of the session, and the sweeping character of the Amendments, they be considered that time three months, and that was accordingly done without further discussion. That was a course which we desired to avoid, because we wished to keep the Bill alive.
  Then there was the alternative of considering your Lordships' Amendments seriatim. It was understood that only four Parliamentary days could be set aside for that purpose; and it is perfectly true that at one time we were disposed to consider that that course might be taken. But the more we reflected on the matter, the more we became sure that it was impossible to arrive at a real discussion of those Amendments to get at the real heart of the matter and find what were the
  928
  vital points in that time. It would simply have meant, under the most rigid guillotine that could have been devised to deal with this enormous number of Amendments in this brief period, that there would have been a great deal of talk at large on special points which might have commended themselves to this or that shade of opinion, for in the other House as here there is a great diversity of opinion on this subject. We did not believe that it would have been possible within the time to arrive at a really valuable discussion of the vital points of the Bill. Your Lordships will understand that I speak without a tinge of disrespect for your Lordships' House, and that I am only desirous to justify the course taken by His Majesty's Government, when I say that the real reason was that the Bill, as your Lordships returned it, was not a systematic measure. It was amended on no distinct principle. It is perfectly true that the tone of the discussion in this House was everything that could be desired. But the measure was not returned in a sufficiently coherent form to make it possible for the Amendments at that stage to be taken singly.
  The noble Marquess declared that it had been asserted that the whole of the Lords' Amendments were subversive of the principles of the Bill. I do not recognise those words; but to say that the Amendments as a whole were subversive of the principles of the Bill—that is an admirable and accurate description of them. I confess that on this side of the House we did hope that your Lordships would have been prepared, when the Bill came here, with some definite scheme of Amendments. We hoped so all the more because the Bill did not come hurriedly up to this House, but the whole of the autumn recess was at the disposal of noble Lords for considering how they would like to amend the Bill. But as a matter of fact, when we came to the Committee stage—and I defy contradiction—Amendments were inserted singly, without much reference to what had gone before or to what was coming afterwards, and without any attempt to form a really coherent scheme.
  I remember that the most rev. Primate—whom we are all glad to see back again

  929
  —and Lord St. Aldwyn said that it was necessary to do this, because it was impossible otherwise not to run the risk of leaving out something which might ultimately be wanted to form part of a compromise Bill. On 10th December Mr. Balfour spoke of the right of every parent to decide what religion he would, like to be given to his children, and he said—
  "That is the basis on which the House of Lords has worked, as far as I can see, in all the modifications which they have introduced into this Bill."
  It is very natural that Mr. Balfour, who has many other duties, should not have followed entirely the course of discussion in your Lordships' House. But as a matter of fact the contrary is really the case. It is by no means the case that a very considerable part of the Amendments carried were moved, supported, or argued on the ground of the parents' wishes. Many of them were supported on various grounds, and on mixed grounds, but I think your Lordships must remember that a great many of them were advocated, not on the ground that they carried out the wishes of the parents—that is to say, of those who now send their children to school—but they were advocated on the ground of the amount of money that had been spent by pious people in the past in building denominational schools. Those are two entirely separate lines of argument, and you cannot combine them in a single Bill.
  What I call the parents' side, advocated by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in his Motion for general facilities, which carries out the idea of parents' rights to the fullest extent, was not accepted as an Amendment by your Lordships. It was only in the very last stage of the Bill that an Amendment intended to some extent to carry out that principle was inserted on the Motion of Lord Salisbury. But you cannot combine the question of the rights of parents with the question of the historical claims of denominational schools. In other words, if you have all round facilities you cannot have Clause 4, and, very largely because your Lordships' Amendments were bandied about from the one principle to the other without any real care to get them on a defined line in one or the other direction, I think the House of
  930
  Commons found it difficult to deal with your Lordships' Amendments seriatim.
  The fact is, that the House of Commons did not know what the real mind of your Lordships was in making these Amendments. I will go a great deal further than that. I will say that I myself have not the faintest idea what is the real mind of your Lordships in this matter. I have studied your Amendments as much as most poeple in or out of the House, but when I am asked to say what is the total sum of your Lordships' opinion—that is to say, what is the scheme which the whole House would send down as the proper way to amend this Bill—I confess that I am entirely at a loss; and if I, who had the honour of watching your Lordships amending the Bill all these days, am still, as I can most truthfully say, in doubt, I am not surprised that my friends in the House of Commons, who had not that advantage, should have been in a greater difficulty than I am.
  The conclusion I believe to which the House of Commons came is that it is absolutely necessary, before any conclusion can be reached in a matter of this kind, that the issue should be narrowed, and the only people who can narrow the issue, as it appears to them, are your Lordships. That is the reason why the Bill was returned as a whole to your Lordships. It was the mainspring of the Government's desire all through to pass the Bill in a reasonable form, and I think surely it is clear that the arrangement from the very fact which the noble Marquess brought out on the word of some laborious person, namely, that my own Amendments, returned, with just the same want of ceremony, if want of ceremony there is, formed rather more than 50 per cent. of the total Amendments to the Bill.
  As regards the form of the message, I can only say that if this House think that the message was too curt in form, the Government most sincerely regret it. There have been very long messages sent from one House to the other in the past; none, I think, of very recent years; they all date from a more ceremonious, and also, I think, a more long-winded age

  931
  than the present. The noble Marquess said that there was no precedent for so short a message. I think he will find if he looks to 1878, when a Conservative Government was in power, that the House of Commons insisted on its disagreement with the Amendments of noble Lords on the Poor Law (Amendment) Act of that year without giving any reason whatever. Our message may be curt and incomplete, but still that precedent does exist for a Bill being returned to the House without any reason at all being given.
  I have no hesitation in saying, and in saying quite seriously, that if His Majesty's Government had supposed that it was due to this House to return a more elaborate and formal message they would have certainly done so. Whatever may be said of his Majesty's Ministers in another place, it cannot be denied that many of them possess a natural and highly-cultivated literary sense; and no doubt they would have been proud to devote some of their literary skill to the composing of a message couched in terms more satisfactory to your Lordships than the present one. We are anxious seriously to maintain the traditions of courtesy which we all agree ought to govern all transactions between the one House and the other. The Bill has thus been returned, not in a spirit of insult, but simply because it was thought more fitting to remit it in this way than to reject it; and we did so confident in the belief that the majority in both Houses desire to see this Bill passed. I am well aware that there are some in this House who do not even wish to see it pass in the form in which it went back to the other House, like those who followed the noble Duke opposite into the lobby on the Third Reading. I am also well aware that at the other end of the scale, among some valued supporters of ours, there are people who think that the Bill as it came up to your Lordships went too far in the direction of encouraging denominational schools. But I do believe that this House and the other House as a whole would echo the desire of the noble Marquess that if, without compromising our principles, it is possible to arrive at an arrangement, such an arrangement we ought to arrive at.
  932
  The noble Marquess has moved an Amendment to the Motion on the Paper. Its terms are new to us on this side of the House, and consequently I have a certain amount of difficulty in knowing what course would be most likely to meet the views of the majority of your Lordships. I gather that the noble Marquess is rather disposed to think it might be desirable to adjourn the debate with a view to enabling us to tell the House rather more than what my right hon. friend was able to tell the House of Commons with regard to the character of the Amendments which we might possibly be able to accept. In this matter I am very much in the hands of the House, but I do not know whether an adjournment would enable me to state any more than, I may be able to state to the House at this moment. Consequently, in these circumstances, though I think it is exceedingly possible that it might be advisable that your Lordships should agree to adjourn before proceeding to the actual consideration of the Amendments, I propose to say a few words on the subject of the Amendments themselves.
  I have said that it is absolutely necessary to narrow the issue before we could arrive at any kind of conclusion, and the question is—"Can we take this matter in hand and reduce our points of difference to the smallest possible number?" Now, I think it should be made clear at once that we are not prepared to sacrifice the main principles of the Bill or in any way to alter its framework. It is also to be made clear that in anything I have to say it is surely obvious that I cannot pledge the majority of the House of Commons to take the same view of a particular matter which the Government do. All I can do is to state certain modifications dealing with the more important points of the Bill which, in the view of His Majesty's Government, might be agreed upon in existing circumstances in consideration of the Bill's passing, and which, accordingly, we should be prepared to recommend in consideration of the passing of the Bill.
  We have been subjected, and our Bill has been subjected, to a great deal of criticism, but there is one class of criticism which I confess I myself have always

  933
  carefully regarded and have always endeavoured to treat with respect. It is the criticism which does not seek to alter the actual structure of the Bill, but which seeks to show that in some respects the facilities which we have proposed to offer in the Bill cannot be taken full advantage of by those for whom they are intended, owing to the existence of other restrictive provisions in the measure. If noble Lords opposite are able to make out a fair case, either that our extreme anxiety to preserve the consciences of the children, or our anxiety to maintain the independence of the teacher, or our wish to safeguard the liberty of the local education authority, has made us in some respects too strict, I can assure noble Lords that we are not too proud to reconsider these points. But in doing so I once more safeguard myself from it being supposed that in any case we can agree to any modification which really affects the principle of the Bill.
  I deal first with the facilities under Clause 3. Those facilities in ordinary circumstances in schools of moderate size we think could quite well be given by an outside teacher, in many cases by the clergyman. We have all through felt bound to impress upon your Lordships that if the school teacher in a small country school was empowered to give this Clause 3 teaching, a great many people would say, and say with justice, that the school was so maintaining its denominational character that the transfer was not worth making at all, and the result would be that in those rural districts a number of children would receive Catechism teaching contrary to the desire of their parents. But we do admit that that argument does not apply in all cases.
  There are, no doubt, a considerable number of large schools, especially urban schools, where it would undoubtedly be exceedingly difficult for the Church of England, or any other religious body, to find volunteers who would be prepared to give the special denominational teaching. We desire not to mix up the head teacher in this matter. We think that the head teacher in the schools, now that these schools become in the main undenominational schools, should be a neutral person, but we do think that
  934
  it would be possible for assistant teachers, of their own accord and by agreement with the local authority, to give this teaching in other than single schools in rural parishes. If it could be shown—and upon that I am not certain, because it would demand the close investigation of figures—that, outside that limitation, there are a considerable number of really large schools at which it would be difficult to have volunteers to give this teaching, it might be possible to extend this privilege to schools outside such areas of really large size.
  There is one other point which markedly affects the schools under Clause 3. It is raised by the new clause inserted at the instance of the Duke of Devonshire. The noble Duke proposed that the taking over of all schools should be subject to an appeal to the Commission, who, if I remember aright, were to be the absolute arbiters in the matter, and were to proceed on common-sense lines as to whether a particular school ought or ought not to betaken over. We have felt compelled to draw a distinction between Clause 3 and Clause 4 schools in the matter of redundancy. We have always agreed that where it was a case of Clause 4 redundancy should not be taken into consideration. There might be many cases where schools which could be shown to be redundant ought to come under Clause 4. But in the case of Clause 3 schools we have taken a somewhat different line. At the same time, without admitting that there ought to be a general obligation to take over redundant schools I think it is quite possible that a half-way house might be reached in this matter. And if the noble Duke would agree, I should be entirely prepared, supposing your Lordships proposed to adjourn the debate, to consult and consider with him as to how that half-way house should be reached. I by no means despair of our arriving at a conclusion which would at any rate go a considerable way to satisfy the desires of the noble Duke and, I think, of the House as a whole, in this matter of not allowing a capricious refusal of schools by the local authority.
  I pass to Clause 4, on which I think my noble friend in another place was more explicit than on the matter to

  935
  which I have just been alluding. We certainly should not be prepared to agree to the Amendment of Lord Lansdowne. We are not prepared to admit single schools in rural areas to the provisions and privileges of Clause 4. We pointed out at the time that whatever the noble Marquess's Amendment might be designed to effect, its actual effect was that in many circumstances village schools in single school parishes might become Clause 4 schools. To that we could not agree, but short of that we should not be found rigid on the question of area. And we should also be prepared at any rate to meet the noble Marquess as far as we could by an Amendmet to make it clear that a very small number of children should not be able to prevent in any case those schools from obtaining the privileges of Clause 4.
  As to the numerical point—that of four-fifths or three-fourths, or two-thirds—we should be compelled to adhere to the principle that the proportion, whatever it is, must be the proportion of all the parents and not of those who vote. That we are obliged to do, because the contrary traverses what we think is one of the main principles of the Bill—namely, that these schools must be regarded as exceptional; and it is only by actual proof that there is a substantial majority that their claim can be shown. But we do admit that adherence to this principle undoubtedly makes it more difficult for the schools to receive those privileges, and we think that fact ought to be taken into account in estimating the number. Consequently we should certainly be prepared to accept, at any rate, a considerably lower number than our original proposal of four-fifths.
  Then we should agree to insist on the Amendment, of which I think I expressed general approval when it was moved by Lord Clifford, giving a prior right of entry to children of a particular denomination; and, although this is a matter which I know has caused heart-burning in influential quarters which we respect, we should, I think, be prepared to recommend that a parents' committee should have a definite consultative voice in the appointment of the teacher. That is as far as we can go, and I think noble Lords opposite will recognise that to attempt to
  936
  give anything like a veto in these circumstances would be too much to expect of us; because, of course, it would be a direct and very large infraction of our principle of no tests for teachers. We should also be prepared to recommend to the House that, where a new Clause 4 school is desired, there should be a right of appeal which was not stated in the original Bill.
  These are the principal points on which I have been trying, I hope with sufficient definiteness, to enlighten the House on the clauses about which the religious controversy has arisen. These concessions are—as I think your Lordships will agree when you have time to consider them—of a very substantial character indeed; and I must repeat that they must only be taken as forming part, so to speak, of an agreed Bill, and that, taken alone, we certainly should not be prepared of our own volition to include them in the measure. Many of those who support us will think that these concessions go much too far. I desire to show how anxious we are to arrive at a compromise on this matter, and I hope that noble Lords I opposite will also be prepared in a substantial degree to sink their own personal preferences and predilections, and see whether we cannot arrive on these lines at, I hope, speaking at any rate in a political sense, some final settlement of this question. If by adjourning your Lordships desire some time to consider the matter, it would seem a most reasonable demand. There is no need for me to reiterate the extreme inconvenience and, to some extent, the real national danger which would follow from the loss of the Bill.
  As regards our attitude towards the House, I can only say that, so far as I am concerned, all my political recollections are connected with this House. I never sat in the other House. I was a candidate, but I succeeded just before the general election in 1885. Consequently all my political past, such as it is, is bound up with your Lordships' House. During all the years I have been in the House, I have sat under five different Liberal leaders, and they have all, from Lord Granville down to my noble friend behind me, given the most ungrudging service

  937
  to the House of Lords, and I think it may be said of all of them that they have shown themselves just as careful and sensitive of the real dignity of the House as noble Lords who sit on the Benches opposite. I repeat that I am very anxious that this Bill should not be lost in a fog of misunderstanding, or be impaled on a point of punctilio. At any rate, let us consider the whole question on its merits. I believe that if we do give cool consideration now to the whole matter in the light of what I have been able to tell your Lordships, it is by no means impossible that we may be able to arrive at some successful conclusion without any real sacrifice of principle on either side.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon):My Lords, as no noble Lord has risen for some moments to continue the debate, I beg to move, in accordance with the suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite, that the debate be now adjourned; but if that is not agreeable to noble Lords opposite I will, of course, withdraw the Motion.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understand the noble Marquess to move the adjournment of the debate.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Yes, until to-morrow.
  Moved, "That the debate be now adjourned until to-morrow."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  LORD STANMORE: Before the Motion for the adjournment is put by the Lord Chancellor I wish to ask whether His Majesty's Government include any concession with regard to the teaching of religion during the course of school hours.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We do not propose to attempt to restore our original Clause 6, which left the attendance voluntary.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I feel very strongly that it is an embarrassing thing for any of us to assent to the adjournment of the debate
  938
  on a mere verbal statement of proposals we ought to see in writing, and of which we do not know the exact terms and the exact scope. I take it, of course, that whatever is not conceded in the speech of my noble friend in charge of this Bill is not conceded in fact, and that therefore the whole range of the concessions is that set forth in the speech. I must say that I feel sure there are many outside this House who have supported the Government throughout this Bill who would not be prepared to support several of the concessions indicated unless those concessions are much more clearly explained and much more strictly limited. For instance, I cannot imagine agreeing to the adjournment sub silentio with the very vague and doubtful suggestion that some private arrangement should be talked over between the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and the noble Duke sitting on the cross benches as to what his been called a "half-way house" between the absolute right of the local authority to use its own judgment in taking over or not taking over schools and some coercive action to be applied to that local authority. I feel that there is no half-way house between the right of the local authority to have regard solely to efficiency of education and economy of the rates and the subjection of the local authority to any external power. Any half-way house which would give any manager of a school a title to claim from any external power the right to be taken over irrespective of what the local authority might consider the general interests of education would be a serious matter. It is all the more serious because it would impose in many cases a very heavy burden on the rates. I can quite understand that redundancy is a matter which does become material in the case of Clause 4 schools; but redundancy is by no means the only ground which would be a reasonable ground of rejection under Clause 3. Every town feels the importance of consolidating the schools, of dealing with them as they think fit, and of combining or rebuilding them if thought desirable. I take it that the willingness to adjourn shown on the other side of the House implies some sort of willingness to consider not unfavourably the compromise suggested; but I think it would be very

  939
  Unfortunate if we were to go for a compromise now without knowing the exact limitations of what we are proposing to give up. There are many things I would be willing to give up for peace and settlement, but I think there are one or two things which certainly will strain the loyalty of Liberals throughout the country even to breaking point.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord Tweedmouth):My Lords, I hope I may appeal to your Lordships not to follow the course adopted by my noble friend behind me. No one is more worthy to express opinions on this subject, which he has made so entirely his own. But I think the House as a whole must feel that we have arrived at a most critical moment when there really is a serious and probable chance of our coming to a sound arrangement. Therefore the least said at the present moment from any quarter of the House, the better it will be. I therefore earnestly hope that the representatives of the different sections of the House will refrain from speaking now, and endeavour to-morrow to come to such an arrangement as will enable us to carry the Bill through the House.
  On Question, debate adjourned until to-morrow.

  THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTIONS.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the Letters Patent of the Transvaal; and to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give information as to the proposed Constitution for the Orange River Colony. I trust that the noble Earl, in outlining the Letters Patent which are on the Table, will go into one or two matters with care and precision and give us a little more exact information. I allude, in particular, to the question of land settlement and to those clauses dealing with the annulling of the Chinese Labour Ordinance. Furthermore, I trust the noble Earl will give full and detailed information with regard to the new Constitution which His Majesty's Government propose to grant to the Orange River Colony. I think at this late hour it would be un-
  940
  becoming on my part to traverse again the ground which the noble Earl and other noble Lords in this House covered at the end of the earlier part of the session in dealing with the new Constitution for the Transvaal. Consequently I confine myself in the most formal manner to putting to the noble Duke the Question which stands in my name.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of Elgin): My Lords, I do not think I have very much new to say with regard to the Letters Patent as a whole. They faithfully carry out the forecast I made to your Lordships in July. That forecast was of necessity a summary, and the full details are now presented to your Lordships. I believe there is substantially no difference in principle between the one and the other. Moreover, the Constitution in its general form, so far, I mean, as it deals with laying down regulations for elections and the transaction of business, follows strictly the precedents that have been established; and it does not seem to me that it is necessary for me to go into a detailed examination of this matter, unless there is some point on which your Lordships specially desire information. I am anxious to insist upon the fact of there being precedents, because I think that has been overlooked in some of the criticisms which have been made. Take, for instance, the question of the reservation of Bills. It has always been the custom to prescribe certain classes of Bills which were to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. but it was usual at one time to give detailed instructions to the Governor in a separate document, and the instructions so given were treated as confidential. I think it was during the time of Mr. Chamberlain that it was first laid down that the instructions, should be published, and we have conformed to that ruling, with which I entirely agree.
  It would appear that some persons are of opinion that the first reservation in Clause 39, which refers to persons not of European birth, is an innovation. That is by no means the case. It is taken, I think, textually from the instructions given to the Governor of

  941
  Natal. It is to be found also in the instructions of the Governor of the Transvaal, of the Orange River Colony, and of the Governors of many other Crown Colonies. I think I cannot do better than draw attention to the words in which my predecessor justified its insertion in the Letters Patent of 1905. Mr. Lyttelton, in his despatch, used these words—
  "His Majesty's Government have been unable, having regard to the terms of peace signed in 1902, to make provision for the representation of any of His Majesty's coloured subjects. As a protection, however, of the interests of those sections of the population which are not directly represented in the Legislature, the Governor will, as now, be required by his instructions to reserve any Bill by which persons not of European birth or descent may be subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European birth are not also subjected."
  I should like also to refer your Lordships to Clause 51, in connection with the pledges on the question of natives which I gave in July. Though I expressly refrained from committing myself with regard to details, I did mention the reservation in some cases of sums of money for their benefit as a subject for consideration. But on looking further into the question we came to the conclusion that this provision had not always been successful in the cases in which it had been used. In West Australia, I think, it gave rise to prolonged conflict, and was at last repealed; in Natal it has not worked altogether satisfactorily. Therefore, it appeared to us that it was right and proper to reserve for Imperial consideration the approval of laws which imposed disabilities. But it is quite another thing to attempt anything in the way of administration from this country. It is to my mind impossible to refuse to the Government, to whom we are deliberately entrusting the administration of the Colony as a whole, our confidence in the control of the natives within their borders, and I have no inclination to do so. We retain the Governor as paramount chief, and it is through him we shall be able to exert such influence as is proper and necessary on behalf of the natives. I believe in this way we shall better secure adequate provision for them and for the wants of the native population as a whole than by attempting to insert in the Constitution
  942
  itself definite sums, the sufficiency of which it is an extremely difficult matter to estimate at such a time as this.
  Personally I regret extremely that the terms of peace have prevented there being any representation of natives in the Legislature. I have sat in a Council where there was native representation, and I am sure the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who was my predecessor in that Council, would, if he were present, corroborate my view that we have gained much by their presence. I hope that at no distant time the Colonies themselves may be willing to fill up this blank. In the meantime we have made what under the circumstances must be scarcely more than a suggestion, but which we think might give some opportunity for natives being heard. It is a suggestion which is founded on the custom of South Africa, and the records of what can be done, for instance, in Basutoland, under the guidance of a sympathetic officer, by holding assemblies of this kind, make me hope that the new Government of the Transvaal may be willing and able to develop on these lines and to use the powers of this clause to set up institutions which may be useful. Swaziland illustrates the point I have been making. It is not strictly within the physical borders of the Transvaal. It can well be administered as a protectorate under the High Commissioner for some time to come, and the Order in Council which is circulated with the other Papers provides for this.
  The noble Duke asked me especially to refer to the clauses which deal with Chinese labour. I frankly admit that the third paragraph of Clause 39 and that Clause 50 are abnormal; but after the discussions which took place earlier in the year I have really nothing to say on the point, except that I consider them justifiable under the circumstances. The circumstances themselves have rendered them necessary, and they simply carry out declarations which were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by myself in the two Houses of Parliament.
  I would, however, venture to demur to the proposition that we have wantonly interfered with contracts. Those who make that accusation must have rather

  943
  short memories. They forget that when we assumed office just a year ago we succeeded to the very troublesome legacy of 16,000 licences, and that in spite of repeated protests from large bodies of our supporters—protests with which we ourselves had much sympathy—we have adhered loyally to the obligations undertaken by our predecessors and we have respected those contracts. The result is that not only were 2,000 additional coolies landed in South Africa last month, but that the total number is now 53,000, as compared with 47,250, in spite of all wastage. I maintain in the same way that in these Letters Patent we go as far as we can to protect contracts. The contracts under the Ordinance are for three years, but there is the power of renewal. We respect them for three years, but we forbid renewals. I should like to point out how that works out. The new Transvaal Government may do one of two things. It may propose a new Ordinance, or it may not. If it does, and acts with reaonable promptitude, I do not think any serious question will arise about renewals. The first shipment that arrived in South Africa did not arrive till June, and, therefore, comparatively few will be affected during the first months of the new Government, while they are considering the Ordinance. If, on the contrary, it decides against the continuance of the system, the absence of renewals will greatly facilitate this operation, and also the withdrawal of the coolies. In that case the withdrawal will be carried out by a gradual process. A gradual process is beyond doubt the one which would be to the advantage of those concerned in the mines, in their endeavour to supply a different form of labour. When this question was last before the House I stated that I felt more and more that this system as a permanency was impossible, and so far as I personally am concerned, I adhere to that opinion.
  Then the noble Duke has asked me to say something about land settlement. I was sorry on the last occasion when this subject was under discussion not to have been able to give an answer more satisfactory to noble Lords interested in this question. It had never seemed to me to be possible to continue a system of land settlement on anything like the scale or
  944
  for the purposes of the scheme initiated by Lord Milner, except by consent. However, we did our best to get the consents to the larger scheme which was foreshadowed in speeches made in July, especially in that of my hon. friend who represents the Colonial Office in the House of Commons. But the inquiries made by the High Commissioner proved to demonstration that practically in no quarter could we rely upon a cordial acceptance of a scheme of that character. Therefore we had no alternative but to fall back upon some more modest proposal.
  What we desire to secure is that time may be given to the new Government to form a fair estimate of the situation. My own view is that it is so important to develop the agriculture of the Colonies that I find it difficult to entertain any doubt that the new Government, when it realises, as it is bound to do, that settlers of some kind would be a valuable addition to the strength of the Colony, will not only wish to retain those there already, but will desire to increase their numbers. But, of course, the terms and conditions upon which any scheme of that kind can be carried out must be for the determination of the Government of the day. It has been so left in the Letters Patent. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that we have added a proviso which would enable the duties of the Land Board to be transferred by agreement to the Government at any time during the five years during which the Land Board is called into existence. There is no compulsion. The Land Board will exist unless agreement is come to. If agreement should be come to it would be highly satisfactory, because it would mean that a good understanding had been arrived at between the settlers and the Government, which, I imagine, is the object of noble Lords opposite, as certainly as it is my own.
  As to the general provisions of the Letters Patent to the Transvaal, I do not think there is much that I need trouble your Lordships with in detail on this occasion. I wish rather to deal now with the second part of the noble Duke's notice by giving information with regard to the Orange River Colony. I personally am glad that this time has arrived. I admit no blame or delay in the matter. It has

  945
  always been our position that the Transvaal must be dealt with first, but all the same I, for one, had a feeling that the history of the Orange River Colony justified their claims upon our attention. I should like to quote from a speech not by any member of His Majesty's Government on that subject—
  "We do not propose that the Constitution of the Orange River Colony should necessarily be the same as the Constitution of the Transvaal Colony, either at starting or in the immediate future. It will be dealt with upon its own merits and dealt with separately, and we think it possible, from the circumstances with which everyone is familiar, that an earlier beginning to greater political liberty may be made in the Orange River Colony than in the Transvaal. That is due to the fact that the Government of the Orange River Colony, previous to the war, was a very good Government, and consequently, speaking generally, we shall find there probably the means of creating a satisfactory administration more quickly than we can do in the case of the Transvaal."
  As I said, that is not from a speech by any member of the present Government. They are the words of Mr Chamberlain.
  I need not dwell upon the difference in the situation of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. In the Transvaal we have not only racial division but industrial and commercial interests which are varied and more or less equally balanced, and the chances of a political contest must remain doubtful. In the Orange River Colony, on the other hand, there is only one interest, the agricultural, and only one race, the Dutch, and the only thing doubtful in the election would, I suppose, be the size of the minority. It is not surprising under these circumstances that there should have been some feeling in favour of the restoration in some form or manner of the previous Government. There was this fatal objection to that—by no manner of means could it be made to secure the settled characteristic of responsible Government, i.e., the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. We must give responsible Government, not only or principally because we have so promised, but because unless we do so we raise up once more the serious obstacle to the ultimate federation of the South African Colonies.
  The best way in which I can state the nature of the proposals we make is to read to the House the telegram
  946
  which I have to-day despatched to the High Commissioner. It is as, follows—
  "His Majesty's Government have throughout been anxious that no unnecessary delay should take place in the accomplishment of the declared purpose of His Majesty to confer responsible government upon the Orange River Colony; and they are now able to announce that the main bases and provisions of the Constitution as granted to the Transvaal shall equally apply in the case of the older sister colony, and they will, therefore, advise. His Majesty to issue Letters Patent for the Orange River Colony following in its substantial features the Transvaal Letters Patent of the 6th inst. Representation will be on voters' basis coupled with manhood suffrage and a residential qualification of six months. The magisterial districts will be retained with their existing boundaries for electoral purposes, and there will be separate representation of towns. The Legislative Assembly will consist of thirty-eight members, comprising twenty-seven district members and eleven town members."
  I have a list of the separate districts. I do not know whether noble Lords desire me to read it.
  LORD LOVAT: May we have the towns?
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: I will give the constituencies and the towns—
  "List of constituencies:—Bloemfontein, Kroonstad, Rouxville, and Winburg, two members each; Bethlehem, Bethulie, Boshof, Edenburg, Ficksburg, Frankfort, Harrismith, Heilbron, Hoopstad, Ladybrand, Lindley, Philippolis, Senekal, Smithfield, Thaba 'Nchu, Vrede, Vredefort, and Wepener, one member each; Fauresmith and Jacobsdal (together), one. Towns:—Bloemfontein, five members; Harrismith, Kroonstad, one each; Bethlehem, Fouriesburg, and Ficksburg (together), one; Jagersfontein and Koffyfontein together), one; Parys, Vredefort, and Heilbron (together), one; Ladybrand and Thaba 'Nchu (together), one. The allocation of seats has been made on the results of the census of 1904, except that five members are allotted to Bloemfontein town to allow for an increase of population. The principle followed is similar to that laid down in the case of the Transvaal in Schedule 3 of the Letters Patent. Provision will be made for automatic redistribution. The Legislative Council will consist of eleven members, and will be constituted in the first instance by nomination as in the case of the Transvaal. The provisions with respect to the Intercolonial Council and land settlement and reservation of laws on certain subjects will be similar to those in the Transvaal Letters Patent."
  As there was not in the Orange River Colony a district which marked itself out, as the Witwatersrand did, as an urban district, it has been necessary

  947
  to make provision for the separate representation of towns in the manner prescribed in the telegram I have quoted—that is, in part, by grouping towns together to make the necessary constituency. When noble Lords compare this telegram with the text of the Letters Patent they will no doubt be able to fill up the particulars readily. But of course the actual drafting of the Letters Patent will be proceeded with without delay on the lines I have now laid down. It will be remembered, however, that in the case of the Transvaal, certain steps had been taken already before we assumed office to provide for a voters' list under the Constitution of 1905. In the Orange River Colony everything has still to be done; but I can undertake to say that no time will be lost; and I hope that by the autumn of next year both Colonies will be fully equipped. I have repudiated already the charges of delay. As a matter of fact, when it was decided to revoke the Letters Patent of 1905, it was seen that some delay was necessary and that the election could not take place till months later. But we publicly announced that; and I might mention one incident that occurred at the time of the revocation of the Letters Patent. I had an interview in the spring with an important official from the Transvaal, and he said—
  "I suppose that you must now be intending to have two more sessions of the present Council, for it would be quite impossible for you to get things ready sooner."
  I replied—
  "That is not my estimate. I hope all will be ready in December,"
  and I have had the pleasure of sending my friend a copy of the Letters Patent. I do not take the credit to myself. If I may claim any credit, I should like to claim it for the Committee who went to South Africa and from whom we got valuable council; for the Governor and the Lieutenant-Governor, who have always been ready ungrudgingly to give his every information; and, above all, for the gentlemen who have unsparingly devoted time and thought to the preparation of this extremely important and Complicated document. In conclusion, I feel that the responsibility of His Majesty's Government in for-
  948
  mulating such a settlement as this has been very great; I feel my responsibility as representing His Majesty's Government to-day is very great. But there is one fact which, I think, offers us some encouragement, and that is that, since these proposals were first made public in July, there has been a general willingness to acknowledge that at any rate an earnest effort has been made to deal in a fair and equitable manner with the different sides of this difficult and complicated question. I venture to assure the House that in this the country has done us no more than justice; and it is in the hope that the House will not refuse to endorse that judgment that I now leave the matter in your Lordships' hands.
  *LORD COURTNEY of PENWITH: My Lords, I do not wish to go at any great length into the discussion of the Constitution of the Transvaal, upon which I had something to say on a previous occasion. But there are two or three questions which I should like to put, with a view to eliciting certain information. The working of this Constitution will, as I believe, depend very largely upon the constitution of the Legislative Council. If the Legislative Council is fairly composed, then, I think, the Parliamentary institutions will work with fair smoothness, and the Transvaal Government may look forward to the future with some degree of confidence. How is the Council to be composed? According to the Letters Patent, the members of the Council are to be summoned by the Governor. I take it that that is the phrase which was inevitable as a matter of form; but I do not suppose (indeed, I think the contrary has been said elsewhere on another occasion) that the members of the Council are absolutely to be selected by the Governor, Lord Selborne. They would be agreed upon, no doubt, after consideration of the advice and recommendations received by Lord Selborne, but would not be exclusively selected by his authority, and though he summoned them to the Council, they would be summoned by him under the authority, with reference to the persons summoned, of the Government at home. I have no doubt that Lord Selborne would choose

  949
  the fifteen members of this Council with the best wish to form a Council which should work fairly with Parliament in the future, but I confess that I do not think the selection of Lord Selborne would give great confidence to the people of the Transvaal if it was supposed that he had the absolute selection of the fifteen members. I confess, for my own part, greatly as I respect the character of Lord Selborne—as indeed all must who have had any degree of intimacy with him—I do not consider that he is the best person to select, on his absolute authority, the members of the Council which is to form such an important part of the future Parliament of the Transvaal. Therefore I should like to have confirmed what was said by the Under-Secretary, I think, on a former occasion—that the members of the Council, although summoned by the Governor on the spot, are to be named, and selected, and approved by the authority of the Government at home.
  There is a singular provision with respect to this Legislative Council which perhaps has not attracted the attention of your Lordships. The Parliament which is to be set on foot—the Legislative Assembly and nominated Council—will have the power of suggesting the mode of, and framing the scheme for, providing the elected Council of the future. The nominated Council will run five years. At the end of four years, Parliament is invited to frame a mode of electing members of the Council for the future, so that we may look forward to an elected Councilto succeed the nominated Council in the future Parliament of the Transvaal. But in the event of no such mode being agreed upon at the end of four years—in the event of a failure to provide means of electing an elected Council in the future—there is a provision that the present nominated Council shall be succeeded by another nominated Council, and that that second nominated Council is to be nominated on the spot by the Governor in Council. Now, nomination by the Governor in Council is a very remarkable way of creating a second Council. It would be very convenient, no doubt, to the incoming Ministry after a new election to recommend how the Second Chamber should be constituted. It would be very agreeable, and it would
  950
  facilitate the transaction of business in this country of ours, if the Second Chamber were nominated on the authority, recommendation, or advice of Ministers of the Crown, by the selection of the Crown at the commencement of every Parliament. Such a state of things would doubtless produce harmony between the two Chambers; but I do not suppose that that is really a serious and valuable contribution to the question of this country's constitution in the future, and I imagine that your Lordships would regard such a proposal with some surprise. But that, as I understand it, is the way in which the Council of the Transvaal is to be supplied in the future in case of a failure on the part of the new Parliament of the Transvaal to devise some means of electing the Council.
  There is another point upon which I should not have spoken at all but for the language of the noble Earl just now in reference to Chinese labour. He spoke of the power of the new Legislature of the Transvaal to pass the new Labour Ordinance, and he seemed to throw it on the unrestricted discretion of the new Legislature of the Transvaal to frame that new Labour Ordinance.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: No.
  *LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: The language which the noble Earl used went, I think, to that length. He said that supposing they did nothing, then such and such things would happen; but supposing they passed a new Labour Ordinance, then the coolies there might remain under that new Labour Ordinance. But I wish to have it emphasised—as I now take it to be emphasised by the noble Earl—that any new Labour Ordinance devised by the new Legislature will be expressly reserved for the sanction of the Government at home, and will not be regarded as a matter of course to be accepted and approved by the Government on the spot. It will have to be a Labour Ordinance differing radically from that at present in existence, if, as I conceive, it is to receive any degree of approbation in this country.
  Two or three questions have occurred to me about the land settlement clause; but I am not sure that it is discreet

  951
  on my part to ask them, although it is merely for information that I wish to have some obscurities of the Ordinance elucidated. The three members of the Board of Land Settlement are to be nominated by the Governor, and to hold office during pleasure. Will they, then, be personally removable by the advice of his Ministers under the new régime which you are going to set up? They hold office during pleasure, being nominated by the Governor. How, office holders during pleasure would be undoubtedly capable of being displaced, and constitutionally would have to be displaced, if the advisers of the Crown recommended that such persons should be removed from office. Would the members of this Board be removed on the recommendation of the new Ministers under the Parliamentary system which we are now establishing if they recommended the Government so to do? Also, the Governor is to declare what salaries these Commissioners should have; but I have not been able to ascertain out of what fund these salaries are to be paid. That is a question which must have a very important bearing on the tenure of their office, apart from the question of their removability, to which I have already referred. I do not see myself how that fund is to be provided for. It is possible that the noble Duke opposite has some information of that kind. The £58,000 to which he referred, and which is entirely unknown to me, may cover some provision in the future which is supposed to be extended towards the salaries, but I really do not know anything about it, and I do not see what provision is made for the payment of the salaries of the members of this Board.
  Lastly, the members of the Board are to receive the present balance of funds allotted for the purpose of settlement, and any further sums which, having the sanction of the Government at home, may be allotted for the purpose by the Inter-Colonial Council. But that Inter-Colonial Council, I observe, depends for its existence on the acquiescence in future of the Government of the Transvaal, and of the Government of the Orange River Colony, each of which would bring the Inter-Colonial Council to an end; so that I have not very much anxiety
  952
  about the power of the Inter-Colonial Council on that point.
  I may perhaps be allowed to make one observation in conclusion, by way of qualification of what has been said by the noble Earl. He has told us that it may well happen that in view of the agricultural capabilities of the Transvaal and of the desirability of adding to the agricultural population, the new Government of the Transvaal may promote a system of land settlement. I should be very much surprised if it did, and I confess that the agricultural outlook of the Transvaal is not, in my estimate, of that inviting character which the noble Earl described. But if any land settlement is carried out such as has been carried out, for instance, in several of the Australian Colonies at different times in their history, and such as has been carried out more recently in New Zealand, it will be, I take it, a land settlement which will not be for the purpose of promoting any political object whatever; it will be a settlement which will be in the best interests of the settlers, be they English or be they Dutch—a settlementwhich will provide good agricultural workers for all the agricultural land which may be suitable for cultivation. I do not think myself that the history of South Africa in the past or the condition of South Africa at present is at all inviting to any agricultural population. If I had a friend who was intending to carry on any agricultural pursuit, the Transvaal is about the last place to which I should recommend him to go. I have no great anxiety about it; but I only wish to suggest that, although the Government of the future will have full power to promote—and if it chooses can promote—any settlement it pleases, it can scarcely be of the same character as that of the land settlement promoted under the auspices of the noble Viscount on a former occasion, which was actuated not so much by the desire to promote the best interests of agriculture as by the desire to promote certain political action within the area of the Transvaal.
  *LORD HARRIS: Unfortunately I was not in the House when the noble Earl,

  953
  Lord Elgin, made his statement upon that portion of the Letters Patent which refers to Chinese Labour. Your Lordships have always been very indulgent whenever I have addressed you on this subject, and I hope I may offer a few more remarks. Of course the dispute is over now. The Government has decided what shall be done, and as regards the arguments for or against what the Transvaal found it necessary to do, I have nothing more to say. We have made our fight, and we have been defeated. But I should like your Lordships to understand what I think will be the effect of the Chinese Labour Clauses (if I may designate them by that term) if the objects of the Government, as I understand them, take effect. I am not going to indulge in excursions into the realms of prophecy as to what is certain to happen; I only propose to suggest to your Lordships what may happen.
  As I understand it, from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Courtney, the intention of the Government is that the Chinese labourers shall complete their existing contracts, and that unless some law is passed affecting their re-engagement, the coolies will leave South Africa at the end of their present engagements. As the noble Lord on the back benches pointed out, any law of the Transvaal upon that subject will, I suppose, have to go through the same procedure that every colonial law has to do—it will require the assent of His Majesty. And I imagine that if the present Government are then in office, and are true to their profession, they will take objection to any law which does not provide that the Chinese shall return to their own country at the end of their engagement. I think it is extremely unlikely that the Transvaal will consent to a law which allows the Chinese to settle in the country. On the other hand, His Majesty's Government was, I understand, faced by the fact that a Chinaman is willing to return to his own country at the end of his contract. That is held by His Majesty's Government to be too servile a condition, and one to which they cannot assent. So that there seems to me to be the gravest probability of a difference of opinion upon that point. If that
  954
  be so, and if the Transvaal are unable to pass such a law as His Majesty's Government will advise His Majesty to assent to, then it seems to me that the effect of the Letters Patent must be this—that by April, 1908, that is to say, some sixteen months from now, as many as 40,000 Chinese, or very nearly that number, will have returned, or will be about to return. That, I should judge from all that has been said by His Majesty's Government and by their followers, is the object at which they aim. Whether that be so or not, I think that they ought to realise that the effect of such repatriation must be the paralysation of the most important industry in South Africa. There have been a great many misleading statements made on the subject of the supply of unskilled labour in South Africa.
  There have been two Commissions, if not three, which have reported on the subject, and the two important ones have reported to the same effect—that owing to the hereditary pursuits of the Kaffir, there is an insufficiency of supply of manual labour in that country. The Kaffir is not a labourer by preference or by training; he is a farmer. He has his piece of land, and he does not undertake labour very readily, and generally only under the urgency of a failure of crops, or because he wishes to improve his position. He leaves his family at home to get in the crops, and he goes and does a certain amount of work for a very limited time—very seldom for more than six months—in order to improve his position at home. The labour in the mines at those great depths is naturally less attractive, and, in addition, is more dangerous, than surface work, and therefore the competition, which is always severe, is further increased by that fact. Surface labour, or labour in a mine like the Premier Diamond Mine, which is practically akin to surface labour, is far more attractive than labour in the deep level gold mines of the Rand. Now, before the war it is estimated—because statistics were very indifferently kept, or never kept at all—that there were about 105,000 Kaffirs working on the mines, and it was known that a very fair proportion of that number were always inefficient,

  955
  owing to the ease with which drink was got in those days, and that they were incapacitated by excess. There are now working on the mines of the Transvaal some 85,000 Kaffirs, and it is beyond dispute that the number of Kaffirs now working in the Transvaal is considerably in excess of the number who were formerly working there. I do not mean to say that the population has decreased, but that the number of Kaffirs working in the Transvaal, employed by various employers besides the mines, is considerably in excess of what it was before the war. That points to the conclusion which I arrived at just now—that competition is always severe, and has been more severe since the war, owing to the demand from other employers of labour, such as municipal employment, Government employment, railway employment, and so on. There are now working on the mines of the Transvaal about 85,000 Kaffirs. If as many as 40,000 Chinese—it is very nearly that—36,000, actually, I think—leave the Transvaal permanently by the end of April, 1908, it is perfectly obvious that the industry will be to a very considerable extent paralysed. I hope sincerely that another inquiry will be held at the earliest possible date into the subject of labour supply. His Majesty's Government have ignored altogether the evidence that has been obtained by previous Commissions, and their reports. I personally, and others, last year, or rather early this year, implored the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into that subject. They refused to do so. I do not say that they have refused to consider the reports of previous Commissions, but they have certainly ignored those reports, and they apparently now contemplate without apprehension the possible paralysis of this industry. The effect of it on the white population employed on the mines must be most serious; that is perfectly obvious, and I do not think that it is right that Answers should be given in another place which lead people to suppose that the employment of whites on the mines is a matter of indifference to the population there. A few weeks ago an Answer was allowed by the noble Earl (Lord Elgin) to be given in another place to this effect: it is reported that the Under-
  956
  Secretary stated on the 30th October, that—
  "1,000 white miners had been dismissed from the Rand during the past six months, and that during the same period the number of Chinese labourers had increased by 3,598. The people of the Witwatersrand were becoming fully alive to the significance of these facts, and would shortly be able to express their views openly through the medium of a representative assembly."
  I think anyone would infer from that reply that the Europeans employed in the mines had materially decreased, as compared with the number of Chinese employed; and I do not think it is a very wide assumption to suppose that people would assume that the European miners referred to were those employed in the mines. Well, now, that is not what had taken place. There had been a decrease of white miners—of European miners—on the mines generally, but that was due to this, that owing to the policy of His Majesty's Government, construction works on the developing mines had been put a stop to. The number of white miners in the mines had actually increased, but the number employed over the whole field had decreased owing to the fact that construction work on the developing mines had been put a stop to. That has been brought about by the apprehensions caused by His Majesty's Government. I have got the actual figures here from Government returns of the miners employed. The number of Europeans at work underground on the last day of September (and that was the month that was taken by the Colonial Office in their reply in another place), was 7,199, while the number in March, 1906, in the producing mines it was 6,999. I might interpolate here that a subsequent reply was given by the Colonial Office—again, I suppose, by the noble Earl's permission—which showed a lamentable ignorance of what was meant by a "producing mine" and a "developing mine," and I took the liberty of correcting that at an early opportunity in The Times. A producing mine, I need hardly say, is a crushing mine, where ore is being crushed for the production of gold, while a developing mine is a mine where the crushing of ore has not yet commenced. In March, 1906, the

  957
  number of Europeans at work underground was 6,999; in September, 7,199. So that there was an actual increase in those months. What had happened was that on the non-producing mines where the men were not necessarily engaged underground, but were probably engaged upon surface work, the numbers had dropped from 570 to 370, a decrease of 200, as compared with an increase of 600 on the producing mines. Those are Government figures up to the end of September, and they were available for the noble Earl if he had chosen to use them. Instead of doing so, he allowed a misleading statement of that kind to be made in Parliament, and naturally people who expect to get correct figures from Government are misled by such statements. I submit that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding in this country arising from mistatements somewhat similar to those.
  Besides this which I have pointed out to your Lordships as regards the possible result of the policy of His Majesty's Government, there is one other matter which I feel bound to refer to again, and that is the policy which His Majesty's Government have deliberately chosen to pursue as regards the Kaffirs from Portuguese territory. About 70 per cent. of the Kaffirs employed on the mines come from Portuguese territory. They are not British subjects; they are the subjects of His Majesty the King of Portugal, and, as I have explained several times to your Lordships, there has been always an arrangement with the mines on the Rand that they should be allowed to recruit in Portuguese East Africa. I believe it was a monopoly for the mines. The Portuguese authorities prefer that they should know where their Kaffirs go to, and, after the war, a co-operative system having been set up, the Portuguese authorities undoubtedly preferred that their Kaffirs should be engaged by the Native Labour Association, because they could lay hands upon them, and knew where they were; they could trace them if they wanted to, and they got rid of all the worst part of the recruiting scheme by doing away with the old touting system. I should like to show your Lordships what His Majesty's Government have been doing as regards this subject. They must
  958
  have known for months what their policy was. Their policy is to get rid of Chinese labour. They have said so over and over again—of course unless the Transvaal is prepared to accept what His Majesty's Government regard as a servile condition. That was the only excepttion, otherwise His Majesty's Government were determined that Chinese labour should be got rid of. They knew that—that has been their policy for months past—and yet they have entered into a confederacy with one of the magnates of the Rand. Your Lordships will know what epithets have been applied to those who are termed "the magnates of the Rand" by the followers of His Majesty's Government. They have been called by every opprobrious epithet that it is possible to apply to them, and yet His Majesty's Government have entered into a confederacy with one of these same magnates. For what purpose? In order to get him out of a difficulty, and that the Chinese should go back. They have endeavoured, so far unsuccessfully, to obtain preference—this from a Government which I should have thought at any rate would have been impartial—to obtain from the Portuguese Government preference for their confederate—the Robinson Group. I do not think that anyone can regard that as a very dignified attitude for his Majesty's Government, having regard to all they have said of the magnates of the Rand. Well, if we are black sheep, I do not suppose even the Robinson Group would claim to be a white sheep amongst the flock. If we are black, the Robinson Group is as black as any other, and yet His Majesty's Government have entered into this confederacy with the Robinson Group solely for the purpose (because it would have been possible for them to have acted impartially towards all the groups at the same time) of obtaining a benefit for this one group. And in order to secure that—there is no question about this; it is perfectly well known—they have been bringing every possible diplomatic weapon they can to bear upon the Ministers concerned. That, I submit, is hardly a dignified attitude for His Majesty's Government to take up in regard to the Portuguese Colony. What the effect of this diplomatic

  959
  pressure will be, we none of us know at present. What we do know is, that His Majesty's Government are still bringing this diplomatic pressure to bear against the wishes of the Colonial Government. The Colonial Government, who, one must assume, know their own business best, are most anxious that this competitive system which His Majesty's Government are trying to introduce should not be adopted. They know the system which the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association have conducted; they know the care that is taken as regards the medical examination of the Kaffirs when they come to the border; they know the care that is taken of them when they are on the way up to the Rand, and the medical care they receive when they arrive there. They are not allowed to be sent down the mines until the doctors pass them as fit for labour. What provision have His Majesty's Government made, I should like to know, that the Robinson Group shall take the same care of the Kaffirs when they are recruited for that body? I have not heard that any steps what ever have been taken through all this diplomatic pressure. I do not understand that any proviso has been put in by His Majesty's Government that precisely the same care shall be taken of the Kaffirs when they are recruited by the Robinson Group as has been taken of them by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association.
  It is impossible to say what is going to be the result of all this dispute that has been going on now for so long, but I have no hesitation in saying that if the result of the clauses in the Letters Patent is what the noble Lord on the back benches wishes, and all the Chinamen are repatriated, it is inevitable that the industry must suffer severely. It may be disputed opposite, but I speak from the statements of everyone out there. If your Lordships ever read the Daily Telegraph, you will see what is the opinion that has been expressed by leaders of every political party out there. They are very small parties, but from every party out there, there is an expression of opinion that if the Chinese are repatriated in such numbers as I have suggested, the industry must suffer
  960
  most materially. That is all I have to say. It is impossible for us to dispute this question any longer. All I hold out now is a warning to His Majesty's Government that that is a possibility, and that if that possibility arises, they cannot expect to find, after six to twelve months, a satisfied Colony.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I must say a few words in answer to the noble Lord opposite. I did not intend to say anything, but as the noble Lord has made so many statements in this House, so many gloomy prophecies, I should wish to make a few remarks if only for the sake of cheering him and encouraging him not to take such a black view of the future of the Transvaal. The noble Lord asks the Government to appoint another Commission—
  *LORD HARRIS: The Colonial Government.
  LORD COLERIDGE: The noble Lord asks the Colonial Government to appoint another Commission in order to discover whether there is or is not a shortage of black labour in South Africa. We know the history of the last Commission upon that subject. We know the views that they entertained with regard to Chinese labour when they were appointed. We know the way in which they ruled out from the evidence all allusion to Chinese labour, and we know the Report which was the result of that Commission. And we now know what the birth and the career was of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association of which at that time we were ignorant. For we now know, what I stated in this House to be the fact, that the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association was an association in the nature of a monopoly for recruiting black labour, and an association which, by reason of that monopoly, was able to produce an artificial scarcity of black labour.
  *LORD HARRIS: No.
  LORD COLERIDGE: They could regulate to a nicety the number of black labourers they should import, and when the time came to make a good case

  961
  for Chinese labour, singularly enough the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association could not find enough black labour in order to supply the demand. Since then, we have known that when that difficulty had been removed, the difficulty they found in recruiting black labour was also removed, and I would encourage the noble Lord to hope—hope springs eternal in his breast, I am sure—that when the necessity arises for producing more black labour owing to the departure of a number of Chinese labourers to their native land, if he will only communicate with the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, they will have no difficulty in supplying the necessary recruits. But the noble Lord's great objection is this—that the monopoly is breaking down, and that the Government, seeing the disadvantage to the Transvaal, and the disadvantage to everybody concerned, of the power of the Chamber of Mines to produce an artificial scarcity of black labour in that country, have been issuing permits to another group of rival mines which no doubt are very objectionable to the noble Lord.
  *LORD HARRIS: He is no rival; Mr. Robinson has been a member of the association the whole time.
  LORD COLERIDGE: Yes, but I undestand that Mr. Robinson has left now. Disliking the methods of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, he has left that association, and is now, being dissatisfied with the amount of labour that is produced under the monopoly restrictions, seeking to obtain native labour for himself. That makes the noble Lord very angry, and I have no doubt that as far as the monopoly is concerned, the granting of a licence to Mr. Robinson to recruit in Portuguese East Africa will have the effect of breaking down the monopoly hitherto maintained by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, and in the breaking down of that monopoly I trace the anger of the noble Lord at the action of His Majesty's Government. So far as we poor people on this side of the ocean are concerned, we do not see any advantage in a monopoly for recruiting black labour in East Africa. No doubt
  962
  there were evils, I do not deny it, following in the train of miscellaneous and promiscuous recruiting, but under certain restrictions we do not see in the least why every effort should not be made to obtain recruiting grounds for persons who are not members of the monopoly under the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. I think myself the noble Lord may take a more cheerful view. He will find that as the necessity arises, the black men will be produced. I have no doubt that the noble Lord's great objection is to the breaking down of the monopoly of the association. He candidly confessed as much the other night by his spokesman in the other House, because he said it would tend to raise the wages of the blacks. If it raises the wages of the blacks, certainly for my part I should look on with perfect indifference.
  LORD LOVAT: You do not farm in South Africa.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I do not see why a monopoly should exist for the purpose of keeping down wages; therefore, I for my part would welcome the breakdown of this monopoly. I hope the noble Lord will forget his jealousy of the rival group of mines, and will aid the Robinson Group in obtaining sufficient blacks to take the place of the 40,000 Chinamen when they go home; and if he does that, I am sure that the noble Lord and his mines will not be any the worse for the abolition of the Chinese.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, in the first place I desire to apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him in his interesting statement, but as I worked for a considerable period upon this subject, I was anxious to get certain information, and I had some anxiety lest the want of elasticity in the rules of the House should not allow the noble Lord to speak again.
  The Question which I should like to ask the noble Lord with regard to the settlers in South Africa is this. On page 11 of the Constitution the question of funds is dealt with. The Imperial Land Board which the noble Earl has created by the Constitution I am sure everyone will welcome, and it will do a great deal to remove the anxiety which has undoubtely been felt among the settlers in South

  963
  Africa. But if there is to be this Land Board, and if it is given no funds to carry out the work, it will be practically a bogus Board, and it will be no advantage to anyone. My anxiety about the funds has been considerable, because obviously if there are good times, and the return of that £2,500,000 is to take place, if times are good, and the money is paid regularly, there will be something with which to carry on the Board's work. But then if times are good, the settlers will not require assistance. On the other hand the times may not be good. There may be a series of droughty years, because it is generally acknowledged that drought is apt to run in a series of years in Australia and in other countries where drought frequently prevails, and both Boer and British agriculturists may then be in a very serious position. In that case no money will be coming back, and, therefore, as far as I can see, there will be no money with which to run the Board. Because, in the case put here, there are two conditions under which money can come to the Board. The first is that they can get a certain portion of the money which has already been appropriated, or rather I should say a certain part of the unexpended portion of the £2,500,000. What, exactly, is that sum? I believe practically the whole of that £2,500,000 is now expended.
  *THE EARL OF ELGIN: I am not sure about that.
  LORD LOVAT: I think the noble Earl will find that of that £2,500,000, £2,340,000 or so had been expended up to last July, and there has been a further grant of £50,000 this year to the Orange River Colony for special objects in connection with the war and one or two other points. That money has been already allocated, and is therefore useless as far as regards the present question. I should like to know how much of that £2,500,000 can be directly taken by the Board.
  Then there is a second purpose for which this money is given to the Board. As I have already said, given a bad year, they have no money to expend at all.
  964
  The next point you have to consider is in (c) of page 11 of the Constitution, which says—
  "Such further sums as may be approved by a Secretary of State out of the moneys hereafter appropriated to the Government by the said council for land purposes."
  This has got to be approved by the Council—that is to say, the Inter-Colonial Council. This taking of the half-million of money which remains for the Land Settlement Grant is to be by the approval of the Inter-Colonial Council. I humbly beg to offer the prophecy that there is very little chance of the Land Settlement Board seeing any of this £500,000, because the Inter-Colonial Council will be practically entirely composed of Boers, as your Lordships will see if you look at its composition. As I understand, it is to be composed—and I hope the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—of seven members from the Transvaal and eight from the Orange River Colony. Now in the Orange River Colony, to take that first, out of the electing places which the noble Lord mentioned in his statement only five Britishers can possibly be returned. I give the statement merely, I am afraid, on my own authority, but it has been given to me so often in the case of my numerous visits to South Africa that I assume it to be so. Under the distribution of elective seats you have five members in the new elective Chamber from the Orange River Colony. Therefore you may anticipate that there will be only a very small proportion of pro-British members—or, if you do not care for the term "pro-British," you will have, at all events, not many of English birth. In the remainder of the Legislative Council, which is made up of the eleven members from the Transvaal, you will no doubt, in your nominated Legislative Council, have a proportion who will have open minds, at all events, on the land settlement question, but a majority, or at all events a large proportion, of those also will be already pledged against land settlement. Therefore I think you may say that it is practically certain that in the Legislative Council there will be a very large majority who have already, being Boer leaders, expressed the attitude they are

  965
  going to take with regard to land settlement, and therefore, with regard to this £500,000 out of the £3,000,000 which has been voted by the British Government to the Colony for definite, specific purposes of land settlement, there is very little chance of seeing that £500,000 go to the purposes for which it was authorised. If you have got a Board, and if, as I think I have shown, there is very little chance of any money coming to that Board to enable it to administer its duties, is it not rather a farce to appoint a Board at all?
  I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me an answer under those two heads—first, as to what is the residue of the £2,500,000 already appropriated and, secondly, if he anticipates there is the least chance of these poor wretched settlers—these men who fought for us in the war—getting the remaining £500,000. I think it will be regarded very unfavourably in the country if this Board is simply an eye-wash, and of no value at all, and the Government will in that case suffer considerable loss of prestige. The noble Duke mentioned £58,000. I do not pretend to know the exact figure; I should have said it was rather less—perhaps about £45,000—which comes from the £2,225,000 to £2,500,000 already expended. But of this £45,000, or thereabouts, which is the annual income of the Board, already a great portion has been definitely allocated to certain business. You have first got the payment of the Board; you have got the whole of the development work which has been undertaken and which must go on; you have got the various dam schemes which are already begun, and others which must come forward; and you have got your Water Board. Does that leave much margin out of which to look after your settlers in the country? I say most distinctly it does not, and I again repeat that if this Board is not given enough money to look after these settlers the thing is a sham and a farce which I can scarcely believe for one moment the Government would set itself to establish.
  There is another question on the subjest of these settlers which I would humbly ask His Majesty's Government, and that is the question of their repre-
  966
  sentation. I pressed the question the other day, and I was told that they were being looked after by the Government. I think those were the words the noble Lord used. The only "looking after" that I can see which the noble Earl Lord Elgin has carried out with regard to the settlers is that their one hope of representation—that is to say, by entering the Legislative Council—is entirely knocked away, because in your Regulations for the Legislative Council you only admit men of over three years standing in the Colony. There are very few Colonists there—the colonising work only began two years ago—and the only place where these poor wretched settlers could possibly have a chance of making their voice heard is cut away from under them. I can hardly believe that that was done on purpose to keep out men who had shown their loyalty to the country, but not one single man can be returned, for any electoral body, nor can they be returned for any legislative body, by this three years rule. I think the demand of these settlers is a very moderate one, and although the noble Lord appears pleased with what he has done for their benefit, I, speaking as one who knows a great many of them, and who has heard their views on the subject of the way in which they are likely to be treated by the Boers, think their condition is indeed dangerous.
  There was one statement to which I should like to take exception, namely, the statement by Lord Elgin that the Government had carried out the principles which were contemplated last July. I venture to offer the opinion that the Government have traversed a great many of the principles which they put forth last July. One of their first principles—I do not confine myself necessarily to the July statement, but I refer to the March and the July statements in another place—was that the principle of land settlement was to be given. Another great principle put forward was that the Chinese were going to be taken away from the Rand. I would prophesy that three years may go by and we shall see uncommonly few Chinese leave that country. But to return to the question of land settlement for a moment (I will deal with the question of the

  967
  Chinese afterwards), in July and in August the question was taken up of the possibility of your £4,000,000 scheme for placing men on the Rand. You say that scheme failed because it met with no approval. I suggest that the reason that it met with no approval was that the scheme itself was radically bad. It was not so much that it was a scheme which the land settlers objected to, but that the scheme put forward was an impossible one. You offered a bribe of, I think, £1,000,000 for compensation. You offered £500,000, or £250,000, for a light railway from Sanna's Post. There was a further £1,000,000 to be given for the Land Bank, and the residue was to go into land settlement. But who was this money going to? £2,000,000 of that money was going to the Board of Interest. There was no chance of getting the men who were going to find the money to vote that. If you had given them a plain issue on the land settlement question do you think you would have had the same answer? I very much doubt it. And again, from the Boer point of view, they thought they were going to be fobbed off with one final £1,000,000 to clear up the whole question. Now, my Lords, if any of you have ever travelled in South Africa, you will bear me out when I say that there is one question which always interests the Boer, and that is the question of the compensation. He will talk about it for hours, and he is determined that whatever else is done or left undone, the Government shall at all events give them the compensation. It is quite obvious, if you mention such a beggarly sum as £1,000,000 for the compensation, no Boer would ever look at such a scheme, and therefore that scheme was foredoomed to failure because the scheme itself was radically bad. You alienated the English on the one hand by giving them a sop, and you alienated the Boers on the other hand by not making that sop sufficiently large.
  On the question of the Chinamen, upon which Lord Coleridge has spoken so eloquently, I think there were one or two facts which were hardly taken into consideration when the question of legislation on this subject was being discussed. When we come to the end of the year, when it will be
  968
  necessary for the Transvaal Government to put forward some suggestions, I think you will find that in a Government in which the majorities will be very close, something of the nature of coalition and compromise must be come to, and that where there are such big sums to be dealt with—for compensation, for schools, for railway development, and so on—both Britons and Boers will be very chary of sacrificing, or lowering the money production of the country, and I think that as they are chary about lowering the one big industry they have got, you will find both Boers and Briton banded against any interference from the Home Government, and that if you postpone any action for the removal of the Chinese until a year after this Constitution has been in operation, the paper might just as well be torn up, as far as regards any good it is going to do in the direction of sending the Chinaman out of the country.
  There are two other points I should like to take up before I sit down. One is the question of miscellaneous recruiting to which Lord Coleridge referred. My Lords, I do trust that there will be no indiscriminate recruiting outside the organised recruiting which is at present carried on. I do not pretend to know about the mines, but I do take an interest in the country from the agricultural point of view, and agriculture there requires so many natives to look after it—so many natives for ploughing, so many natives for general improvements, and so on; and I hope you will not revert to those days n which individuals were wandering about the country trying to bribe your best boys to go off to the Rand. They are not likely to do good to anyone; they are not likely to do good to the Rand, because it will cost more to get natives in that way, and they are likely to do a great deal of harm to the farmers by taking good boys away from the work to which they are accustomed.
  There is a further question, on a matter brought up by Lord Courtney, and that is the question of the Legislative Council. I trust that the answer to the noble Lord will be that Lord Selborne will have the nomination of the nominated Legislative Council as

  969
  it appears in this book which I hold in my hand. Here we have a country the Transvaal, where, out of 92,000 electors, 58,000, according to the latest Return, appear to be British, and where only a minority are Boers; and yet by the gerrymandering of the Constitution, a result has been arrived at b which equality, if not superiority, has been given to the Boer interest. I think, at all events, the British interest should have a chance of being represented by having a nominated Council to control that majority. I think the surely enough has been done for to other side, and that, at all events, as far as the Legislative Council is concerned, the loyalists of South Africa should now have a chance.
  *LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I have only a few words to say, and owing to the lateness of the hour, I propose to mal my remarks even briefer than was m original intention. It is not by way criticism that I wish to say anything. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, right said, the time for criticism has passed, and we are face to face with an accomplished fact, and whatever our opinions may have been of the wisdom or unwisdom of the policy which His Majesty's Government have seen fit to adopt, we must all share the wish expressed in the Letters Patent, by the gracious authority of the Sovereign, that the Constitution which is now bestowed up the Transvaal will result in the peace and contentment of that Colony. This is matter in which everybody, whatever his opinions, must join in the wish that the policy of His Majesty's Government will be successful. The only point which I wish to allude is this. It is regard to Article 39, and in this connection I have to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will be as zealous and as determined in the exercise of the reserved powers in respect to legislation which they have taken in the matter of the disabilities of our Indian fellow-subjects in the Transvaal, and as they undoubtedly be in regard to the imposing of disabilities on British industries that Colony. I hold that there is no question of Imperial policy which is fraught with more important possibilities than that of the treatment of our
  970
  Indian fellow-subjects in the Colonies. I am fully aware of the immense difficulties of the question, and of the fact that hitherto no Government has been able to deal with them satisfactorily, but I feel certain that at least two members of His Majesty's Government—the noble Marquess who leads the House, and the noble Earl who presides over the Colonial Office—will have this great object at heart, to arrive at a solution of the question which will fulfil our honourable obligations to the people of India, and which, at the same time, will meet with the acceptance of our fellow-citizens in the Colonies. That is really all I wish to say. I have necessarily abbreviated my remarks, but I felt bound to say this much, because among the members of your Lordships' House who have in the past been responsible for the Government of India, I am the one who has most recently exercised that responsibility, and I felt, therefore, that it was a duty which I could not neglect to express this hope on behalf of our fellow-subjects in the great dependency of India.
  *THE EARL OF ELGIN: With the permission of the House, I will endeavour to answer some of the questions put to me. In reply to Lord Courtney, I am glad of the opportunity of saying that the intention with regard to the nomination of the Legislative Council is that though the nominations are made through the Governor they should be referred for the approval of His Majesty's Government. That statement is one which I have made before, and that is the method by which we propose to act. With regard to the second nomination of the Legislative Council, I suppose that the noble Lord has not misconstrued the wording of the section. If it did so happen that a fresh Legislative Council might have to be nominated instead of being elected it would be in the power of the Governor in Council, which means the Ministry of the day, to nominate that Council. The whole intention, however, of the clause is that the nominated Council should only endure for the first session, and thereafter it should be an elected Council as in the other colonies. The other point raised with regard to the nominations was on the land settlement clause, and I would

  971
  point out that in that clause the appointments are made expressly by the Governor and not by the Governor in Council. Therefore I imagine that the members of the Board would hold office during the Governor's pleasure.
  I also desire to say that with regard to the new Labour Ordinance I ought perhaps to have brought out that we of course entirely adhere to the provisions of the Letters Patent, by which any fresh ordinance that was to be provided by the new Government of the Transvaal would have to come home as a reserved Bill. I have said before in my speech that in my humble opinion the continuance of the system is impracticable, but that I hope does not mean that if the Transvaal Government was to bring forward an Ordinance and submit it for the approval of His Majesty's Government, and if I still had the honour of holding the office I now hold, I would not give it the most careful consideration which is due to all measures deliberately sent home by any of our responsible governing colonies. In reply to my noble friend, Lord Harris, I quite expected that he would take the view of the probable results of this legislation which he has expressed, and I am not by any means inclined to deny that there are difficulties in the situation. But, my Lords, I have never been able to see that it was possible for any Government to overlook the duties which they deliberately thought they owed to the cause of morality and freedom, and it is on those grounds that we on this side of the House have taken exception to the system at present in force in the Transvaal, and it is for these reasons that we have inserted in the Letters Patent the provisions to which the noble Lord takes exception. With regard to the other matters to which he referred in his speech, I venture to think that they do not directly arise out of the provisions of the Letters Patent themselves. I have spoken more than once in answer to the noble Lord with regard to recruiting in Portuguese East Africa, and I adhere to what I have said before. I do not accept the proposition that we have embarked in this matter in any sense as confederates, but we have endeavoured to hold the scales evenly, and we shall persist in the policy which we have adopted.
  972
  In reply to Lord Lovat I desire to say that we certainly hoped and intended that sufficient funds would be available to carry on the work of the Imperial Board effectively during the five years in which it was to exist. I was not prepared for the question as to the exact balance that remained of money appropriated out of the loan, but whatever balance does remain is to be transferred to them. With regard to the further sums that may be appropriated, after some consideration we agreed that these should be made available for the purposes of the Board under the conditions described in Sub-section (c). The noble Lord objects to these conditions not so much because they would not provide adequately for the purpose, but because he distrusts the agents who may have to deal with the matter in the Inter-Colonial Council. All I can say in that matter is that I cannot agree with him. I cannot admit that the members of the Inter-Colonial Council will not act fairly and honourably in the discharge of their duties, whether they belong to the British or to the Dutch race; I believe that they may be relied upon. The noble Lord seems to me very much to minimise the amount of funds which ought to come into the possession of the Board from the repayment of advances. I do not know whether he overlooks the fact that no new settlers of any kind are to be put upon the land. Under these circumstances any repayments, and some of the settlers must be solvent, will come into the funds of the Board for the purposes of these five years. Remembering, therefore, that the only expenditure so far as I know will be upon improvements on the holdings, such as the water supply, of which the noble Lord spoke, and so on, I should have imagined that the funds would certainly have been sufficient. I will, however, inquire if there is any doubt upon the matter, but as far as my information goes that is the intention with which we undertook this matter and framed this clause, and I should be very much surprised to hear that we had not sufficiently supplied the Board with funds.
  The Constitution of the Orange River Colony, like that of the Transvaal, will be based upon a general

  973
  voters' list, and British settlers will have their votes like any other persons in the colony, but they cannot have more. With regard to the Legislative Council it might be possible that some representation might be given to them, but that I cannot speak of with any certainty at the present time. I do not see on what grounds there can be a claim for a permanent and separate representation for any particular section of His Majesty's subjects. I do not think I can follow the noble Lord into his statement that the provisions of the Letters Patent are not in accordance with statements made in July. In my opinion I think they are in exact accordance with those statements. I have said so before, and I repeat it now. I will not follow him into his criticisms of the scheme which we submitted to those who are qualified to speak on the subject through the High Commissioner. All I can say is that I am sure from the replies which we received that even on land settlement alone there was not that great concurrence of opinion which the noble Lord believed.
  I do not think I need assure my noble friend opposite, who spoke of Indian disabilities, that he only correctly interpreted my view when he said I should be only too willing to do all I could to remove those disabilities. I am sure he also feels with me that this is a matter in which we have to keep control over our sentiments, because there are sentiments in other directions, and other of His Majesty's subjects are concerned. Therefore we are obliged to deal with this matter with great circumspection.

  BURIALS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).

  Clause 1:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 7, after the word 'a' to insert the words 'burial ground or."—(Earl Carrington.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD WARDALEmoved an Amendment dealing with the right of a local
  974
  authority to create a burial ground within 100 yards of a dwelling house. Under the recent decisions difficulties arose in cases of land already appropriated for the purpose of a burial ground, upon which houses had been partially erected. It was consequently desirable to make the law perfectly clear, and he begged leave to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'erected to insert the words 'or is or was erected or completed."—(Lord Weardale.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  Clause 2:—
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid he had intended to move the rejection of the clause. His objection to it was that it substituted "one hundred yards" for "two hundred yards" as the distance from a dwelling-house within which no part of a cemetery might be constructed without the consent of the owner, lessee, and occupier of the house. The object of the clause was apparently to equalise contradictory legislation; that was a very excellent purpose and one which he would have supported if it had been proposed to substitute 200 yards for 100. His contention was that the Bill if it became law would encourage local authorities to do what was exactly opposite to public opinion and scientific experience. The trend of public opinion within the last four years had been to get rid of cemeteries and burial grounds in towns and suburban districts, and he protested against the great experience of sanitary experts being ignored in this matter. His noble friend in charge of the Bill, with his usual courtesy, had told him that the Government had no desire or intention that the Bill should have any connection with Ireland, and consequently he would not press his Motion.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported with Amendments: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having

  975
  been suspended), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  REMOVAL OF OFFENSIVE MATTER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended): Bill read 3a and passed.

  RECORDERS, STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES, AND CLERKS OF THE PEACE BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 14, at the end to add 'That the powers given by this Act shall be in addition to and not in abrogation of any similar power existing under sub-section 4 of Section 83 of the Local Government Act of 1888 or otherwise."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended): Amendment reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I ask the House to proceed only with the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not propose to proceed with the other stages, because the Treasury have a drafting Amendment to introduce in Committee.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow: (The Lord Granard (E. Granard). (No. 248.)
  House Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eight o'clock till to-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.