Sitting of 26 February 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred to on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Cardiff Gas Bill; Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill; Epsom and Ewell Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; London and India Docks and Millwall Dock Companies Bill; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill; Merthyr Tydfil Gas Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Bill; Metropolitan Railway Bill; Midland Railway Bill; Millwall Dock Bill; North Metropolitan Tramways Bill; North West London Railway Bill; South Metropolitan Gas Bill; South Suburban Gas Bill; Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas Bill; South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill; Watford Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof. Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—City of London Electric Lighting

  759
  Bill; Dowlais Gas Bill; St. John's (Westminster) Improvement Bill; Twickenham and Teddington Electric Supply Bill; West London Electric Undertakers' Association Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Bacup Corporation Bill, read a second time, and committed.
  Carlisle Corporation Bill; Corporation of London (Blackfriars and other Bridges) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Kettering Water Bill, read a second time, and committed.
  London County Council (Electric Supply) Bill, to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  Metropolitan Water Board Bill, read a second time and committed.
  New Mills Urban District Council Bill, Thornton Urban District Gas Bill, Todmorden Corporation Bill, read a second time, and committed.
  Wigan and Heysham Railway Bill, ead a second time, and committed.

  POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding eleven members, to be called the Police and Sanitary Committee, to whom shall be committed all private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to police or sanitary regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 150 and 173A apply to all such Bills.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That four be the quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing
  760
  police and sanitary regulations) are such, as having regard to the terms of reference it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of, and be subject to the instructions which apply to, the undivided Committee, and that three be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

PETITIONS.
  ADMIRALTY (DISABLED SAILORS AND MARINES).
  Petition from Carlisle, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report and Accounts of the Governors for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Copy presented, of Fourteenth Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Inspection Committee for the year ended 20th

  761
  November, 1905, with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 57.]

  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Account presented, of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845, to the 5th January, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 58.]

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copies presented, of Treasury Minutes granting a retired allowance to each of the following, viz.:—
  William Walter Kellaway, late Engineer (1st Class), Engineer in Chief's Department, Post Office.
  Walter Robert Hoyles, Principal Foreman, Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, War Office.
  Lewis Robert Ambrose, Claudius Robert Brock, Harry Clarke, Henry Eden, Henry Haley, James William Jater, William James Jater, William Samuel Priest, William Taylor, Overseers and Senior Telegraphists, Central Telegraph Office, Post Office [by Act]; to lie upon the Table

  SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1858 AND 1876.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 26th February, 1906, declaring Hanoi, Tonquin, French Indo-China, to be an unhealthy place within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1876 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1905–6).
  Copy presented, of Estimate of the Farther Amount required during the year ending 31st March, 1906, beyond the sum already provided in the Grant for Navy Services for the year [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 59.]

  FACTORY AXD WORKSHOP (DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home De-
  762
  partment by G. A. Bonner, esquire, Barrister-at-Law, on the Draft Regulations proposed to be made for the processes of spinning and weaving Flax and Tow, and the processes incidental thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copies presented, of Orders made by the Council of the Borough of Southport, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy, Vol. I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
  Copy presented, of Regulations made by the Local Government Board under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NEWCASTLE CHAPTER ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th February, 1906, establishing two residentiary Canonries in the Cathedral Church of Newcastle in addition to the two established by Order in Council of 26th November, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the table.
  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th February, 1906, exempting certain mixtures of Picric Acid from all restrictions under the Explosives Act, 1875, when kept and conveyed in manner specified [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th February, 1906, entitled "The Southern Nigerian Protectorate Order in Council, 1906," [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ROUMANIA (NEW CUSTOMS TARIFF) (INTERIM STATEMENT).
  Copy presented, of Translation of the New Customs Tariff of Roumania as

  763
  modified by Commercial Treaties with the United Kingdom and Germany; together with a summary of the New Law relating to tare on goods dutiable by weight [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
  Copy presented, of the Telegraphs (Inland Written Telegraph) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations, 1906, dated 1st January, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.

  CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
  Copy of Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the Account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland for the year ended 31st March, 1905 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 60.]
  Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Taxes on Food and Drink.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of Exchequer, whether he is aware that the amount of revenue received for taxes on food and drink, both Excise and Customs, during the last twenty years amounts approximately to £800,000,000; and whether he would consider the advisability of reducing the taxes on food by inaugurating a system of taxation, averaging 5 per cent., ad valorem, on imports, as introduced into India by a Liberal Government; if not, whether he would consider the question of a 5 per cent. tax on manufactured goods in place of the present taxes on cocoa and some other articles of general consumption.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am aware that the revenue from taxes on food and drink has amounted during the last twenty years to approximately the amount mentioned by the hon. Member.
    764
    By far the greater part of that revenue has been derived from taxes on alcohol in various forms. The hon. Member will not expect me to deal with specific proposals for altering taxation in anticipation of the Budget statement.

    Land Disturbances at Barhane—Case of John Padden.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether John Padden, who was denounced as a grabber at a meeting at Barhane, near Belmullet, county Mayo, on 3rd October, 1905, arising out of which Mr. John O'Dowd, M.P., and Mr. Conor O'Kelly, M.P., with Mr. James Mills, J.P., were indicted for alleged conspiracy, is still the occupier of the farm formerly rented by an evicted tenant, named Augustus Loftus; and whether John Padden has claimed and received, or is now receiving, police protection.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) John Padden is still in occupation of the farm in question. He has made no application for police protection, but the police are aware of the facts and are taking such steps as they think needed.

    Rents on Colonel Smythe's Estate at Collinstown.
    MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the amount of the rents charged to tenants of Colonel Smythe of Collinstown, Westmeath, which have only been paid in obedience to writs and out of moneys received from America and other extraneous sources; is he aware that the landlord wrote on the 23rd January last an offer, to remain open for a month, to sell at prices based upon those rents; that the proposed sale broke down owing to the landlord's refusal to consider the reinstatement of two evicted tenants whose former holdings are untenanted; and that on the 5th February, before the month for consideration had run half its course, Colonel Smythe had again served some of the tenants with writs for the hanging gale, there being no more due; and whether, seeing that such duress is extensively practised, and a danger to

    765
    social peace and to the security of the State for the payment of annuities so contracted, His Majesty's Government propose to check or counteract in any way such conduct.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) No originating application or request as to the sale of this estate has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners, and they have no knowledge of the statements of fact alleged in the Question. I have no means of making a satisfactory inquiry as to the facts, and, even supposing them to be as stated, His Majesty's Government would have no power to interfere.

    Improvement of Clifden Harbour County, Galway.
    MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under the Marine Works (Ireland) Act a sum of money was allotted for the improvement of the Clifden harbour, county Galway, and that such improvement has not yet been carried out, although the last two Chief Secretaries repeatedly promised that no delay should occur in prosecuting the work; and whether he will state when the proposed work will commence.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In March, 1903, the late Government announced to the Galway County Council its intention to allocate from funds provided under the Marine Works Act a sum of £4,000 on works at Kinvarra, Salt Hill, or Clifden, as might be arranged; but I am informed that no promise was made as to works at Clifden in particular. Of the amount mentioned, a sum of £1,100 was eventually allocated to Kinvarra. A difficulty arose in regard to Clifden by reason of the fact that the estimated necessary expenditure at that place amounts to some £9,000, that is to say, at, least three times the amount available. I have now received a resolution of the Clifden Board of Guardians urging the necessity of the works, and I will take a convenient opportunity of looking into the matter. I may remind the hon. Member that, in adition to Kinvarra, a sum of over £8,500 has been allocated for works under the Marine Acts at Cleggan, Roundstone, and Kilronan, in county Galway.

    River Shannon Fisheries Return.
    MR. JOYCE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will grant the Return on to-day's Paper relating to the River Shannon Fisheries.
    Appended is the Return referred to:—
    Return of the amount of money received by the Shannon Navigation Commissioners and the Board of Works as rents or compensation for redundant waters supplied for mills or other purposes under the provisions of the Act 2nd and 3rd of Victoria, chapter 61; the amount of money received by the said Commissioners or the Board of Works in rents for mills, lands, fisheries, or other property, acquired under the said Act, from the year 1839 to the end of the year 1905; the quantity of property so acquired which has been leased or sold; the name of such places; the names of the lessees or purchasers of such places; the dates on which such leases were given and such purchases effected; the number of years for which such leases or purchases have been arranged in each ease.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have already explained by letter to the hon. Member that I am unable to grant this Return.

    Retirement of Mr. McConkey, Irish Board of Works.
    MR. JOYCE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Robert McConkey, an official of the Irish Board of Works, who, after forty-six years service in various parts of Ireland, has been called upon to resign, without any charge, that he knows of, being brought against him, and who, after all those years of service, has been offered the sum of £41 as compensation; and whether he will inquire into this man's case, with a view to granting him a pension.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) This officer was retired in the ordinary course, on the ground of age and infirmity. The appointment which he held (overseer of the Shannon Navigation) did not entitle him to a pension on retirement, and he was treated in accordance with

    767
    the usual practice, under which gratuities have been awarded to officers holding like appointments in the past.

    Action of Dublin Police against Mr. Leech.
    MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the recent proceedings before the police magistrate in Dublin in the case of Mr. Peter Leech, a member of the licensed trade; whether he is aware that the charge against Mr. Leech was made by a police sergeant named McElroy, whose sworn testimony the magistrate refused to believe, and whose action in the case he stated that he would report to the Commissioner of Police before he had heard the evidence for the accused or the statement of his legal representative; and will he say whether such a report has been received, and what action is the Government going to take.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In this case the magistrate dismissed the complaint against Mr. Leech with a caution. In the course of the hearing the magistrate characterised the sergeant's evidence, relating to the production of a notebook, as contradictory and inaccurate, but did not say that he disbelieved the sergeant's evidence upon the main issue. The Chief Commissioner suitably admonished the sergeant for his carelessness, but was satisfied that he made no wilful misstatement.

    Sub-Land Commissioner M Elligott.
    MR. J. P. Farrell: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the language used by Sub-Commissioner M'Elligott when valuing tenants' holdings in county Longford; and whether he will direct an inquiry into the fitness of this gentleman to give an impartial decision as between landlord and tenant in the fixing of fair rents in Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission are not aware of any complaint as to language used by Mr. M'Elligot when valuing tenants' holdings. Any complaints on the subject should be brought to the knowledge of the Land
    768
    Commission. As regards the question of impartiality, I may point out that the decisions of the Sub-Commission Court are subject to appeal.

    Compulsory Sale of Irish Estates.
    MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners contemplate taking any action in regard to those landlords in the West of Ireland and elsewhere who, under any condition or at any price, refuse to sell to their tenants under the Land Act of 1903.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge, other than that which may be gained from the public Press, that there are any landlords in the West of Ireland or elsewhere, to whom the terms of the Question apply. If there be any such, the Commissioners have no power to interfere.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants—Cases of Margaret Fraser and Thomas Kent at Mitchelstown.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Estates Commissioners have yet considered the applications for reinstatement of Margaret Fraser and Thomas Kent, evicted tenants on the estate of the Countess of Kingston, Michelstown, as promised when this estate has been inspected.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estate Commissioners will consider the applications of these evicted tenants when the estate is being inspected, which will probably be about the end of next month.

    Legal Advertisements in Dublin.
    MR. CONDON: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the officials of some of the Chancery Courts in Dublin require the solicitors to advertise legal notices in connection with cases pending in these courts in the General Advertiser newspaper, Dublin; and whether, in view of the circulation of that newspaper compared with that of the other Dublin newspapers, he will explain why that

    769
    particular newspaper is selected, and will he announce that in future the other Dublin newspapers shall be capable of selection by the solicitor having carriage of the case.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) This is not a matter which in any way comes within my jurisdiction. The judges of the Chancery Division in Ireland have entire control of the advertising in their own courts, but I have made inquiries from their offices and I am informed that in the Lord Chancellor's Chambers and the Land Judge's Court the newspapers for advertisements are, as a rule, selected by the solicitors in the proceedings, and that advertisements are rarely published in the General Advertiser. The practice in the Chambers of the Master of the Rolls and Mr. Justice Barton is to require one advertisement in the General Advertiser, the reason for this rule being that it is considered desirable to have one newspaper in which parties may be sure of seeing all advertisements, and the General Advertiser is considered the most suitable for the purpose.

    Promotion of Junior Supervisor in the Excise Outdoor Department.
    MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a junior supervisor in the Excise Outdoor Department has been appointed over the heads of 100 of his colleagues without any reasons being assigned for this proceeding; will he say what special qualification this gentleman had which his seniors did not possess, and have any reasons been since given for making this appointment; and will he abolish such a cover for favouritism.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The appointment referred to in the hon. Member's Question was one for which very special qualifications were required. The Board selected the senior officer who appeared to them to possess those qualifications in the requisite degree.

    Alien Immigration Statistics for January.
    MR. LEVY. To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the delay in the issue of the list of alien immigrant
    770
    arrivals from the Continent in January is due to any new form in which it is intended to publish the figures; and whether the Return will state the number of rejections, the reasons for such rejections, and the number of appeals to the Immigration Boards, and their results.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Act under which the information as to alien immigration from the Continent hitherto published was obtained has been repealed by the Aliens Act of last Session. Statistics are being compiled under the new Act with the view of giving in due course all the information possible with regard to the question of alien immigration in this country, but a stage has not yet been reached at which the periods for the publication of these statistics can usefully be settled.

    Loan for Erection of a Dust Destructor at Acton.
    MR. NIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the application by the Acton Urban District Council for sanction to a loan for the erection of a dust destructor on a site next to a now large public elementary school; and whether the Board will decline to give their sanction to a loan for such a purpose, other suitable sites being obtainable.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) have had before me the application referred to. In all the circumstances of the case I do not propose to sanction the loan, and I have so informed the urban district council.

    Postal Facilities at Collins town, County Westmeath.
    MR. GINNELL: TO ask the Postmaster-General, if he is aware that letters for Collinstown postal district, Westmeath, are brought in the morning from Streete Station to Castlepollard and kept there for nearly eight hours, with a loss of a business day to the persons addressed; that the post car could, at a merely nominal cost, go on to Collinstown and rest there instead of at Castlepollard; if he has seen a memorial presented to his predecessor last July praying this to be

    771
    done; and if he will give that memorial favourable consideration now, or requires one more extensively signed.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A memorial on this subject was, as the hon. Member states, presented to my predecessor in July last, and the question was then fully examined. I find that the cost of the whole postal service in the district is already very high compared with the amount of correspondence, and I regret that I should not be justified in incurring further expenditure for the purpose of carrying out the improvement desired.

    The Loishilman Railway.
    MR. HART DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India, what the length of the proposed Loishilman railway is to be; what is the intended terminus of the line, which apparently starts from near Jamrud; whether the line is for strategical or commercial purposes; on what gauge is it to be constructed; and what is the estimated total cost.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The length of the proposed railway is 22½ miles; its terminus is a point on the Kabul river, known as "mile 300"; it is undertaken both for strategic and for commercial purposes; its gauge is 5 feet 6 inches; and the estimated total cost is 50 lakhs of rupees.

    Nationalist and Orange Disturbance at Glasslough, County Monaghan.
    MR. O'HARA: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any report has been received from the county Monaghan police authorities as to a disturbance which took place at Glasslough, county Monaghan; whether he is aware that a police sergeant named Bennett intercepted a Nationalist band and, on their declining to obey his command, an attack was made upon them by an Orange mob headed by two local postmen named Hearst; will he say by what right Bennett prevented the Nationalist band marching along the public road; and whether any official cognizance will be taken of the action of the Messrs. Hearst, who are engaged in the postal service.
    772
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.): I am informed that this incident is the subject of proceedings pending at petty sessions against the police sergeant and others, and, following the invariable practice, I must decline to make any statement in the matter while those proceedings are sub judice.

    Mortuary for Rathmines and Rathgar Districts.
    MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that no morgue has been provided for the urban district of Rathmines and Rathgar, with the result that inquests in that district must frequently be held in public houses, while the dead bodies are kept in stables and outhouses; and whether he will, through the Local Government Board, urge on the District Council of Rathmines to provide such necessaries as a morgue before proceeding with any further schemes for extending the boundaries of their district.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The circumstances mentioned do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Local Government Board; but the Board have ascertained that the Rathmines Urban District Council have decided to include in next year's estimate the necessary provision for the erection of a morgue.

    Trials of Chinese Labourers.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in what respects the trial of Chinese labourers will in future differ from the past, in view of the fact that they will still be tried by the same official, and that the proceedings will still be conducted in the Chinese language; and whether an English interpreter will be present at all trials.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) It is proposed to retain the present system of trial, which gives to the Chinese prisoner the advantage of being tried by a magistrate who understands his language, of being able himself to follow the proceedings, and of being independent of an interpreter. The proceedings will be

    773
    public, and the presence of an English interpreter will, no doubt, be secure when required.

    Norwich Cavalry Barracks.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERTo ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed at an early date to proceed with the new cavalry barracks at Norwich; and, if so, whether the barracks will be built upon the plans submitted by the Director of Barrack Construction and approval by the Army Council.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane. I fully appreciate the patriotic offer of the citizens of Norwich, and am anxious to meet their wishes to retain a cavalry regiment, if this can be done without prejudicing the organisation of the Army in future. Barrack policy must be sub servient to and dependent on genera policy, which I am now carefully con sidering, and I cannot assent to the expenditure of nearly £200,000 on new barracks at Norwich until I am in a position to arrive at a decision on the question of military policy involved.

    Payment of Election Expenses—Salaries to Members of Parliament.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a measure to enable the payment of election expenses and a fair salary for attendance to Members of this House, payable from the Treasury; and whether he can state what is the existing practice and what are the payments in the British Colonies.
    (Answered by Sir Henry-Campbell Bannerman.) The matter is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. The existing practice as to such payments in British Colonies is as follows:—Canada—(a) A session of more than thirty days. $2,500 for the session; (b) A session of thirty days or less. $20 for each day's attendance. 4–5 Edw. 7, c. 43, s. 2. Australia—£400 a year. (Imperial Act.) 63 and 64 Vic, c. 12, s. 48. New Zealand—£300 per annum. 4 Edw. 7, c. 24, s. 2. Tasmania—£100 per annum. 54 Vic, c. 20. West Australia—£200 per annum. 64 Vic, c. 32, s. 2.
    774
    South Australia—£200 per annum. Acts No. 399 of 1887 and No. 476 of 1890. Queensland—£300 per annum. 60 Vic. c. 5, s. 4 (1). New South Wales—£300 per annum. 2 Edw. 7, c. 32, s. 28. Victoria—£300 per annum. Act No. 1,075 of 1890, s. 126. Cape of Good Hope—(a) Members resident within fifteen miles from House of Parliament: One guinea for each day of attendance; (b) More than fifteen miles: One guinea remuneration, and 15s. allowance for personal expenses for every day of absence from home on his Parliamentary duties. Act No. 16 of 1888, ss. 2, 4–5. Natal—£1 daily travelling allowance in the cases of Members who reside three miles or more from the place of assembly. Act No. 2 of 1888, s. 1. See also 19 of 1887 and 14 of 1893, s. 41. Newfoundland—The payments are voted annually. In The Public Service Act, 1905 (c. 23, p. 31) provision is made for $8,300, the salaries of thirty-six members. The Journal of the Assembly for 1902 gives the rates as $300 and $200. The $8,300 is probably made up as follows: eleven Members resident in our parts, at $300, $3,300; twenty-five Members resident in St. John's, at $200, $5,000.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Port Defences.
    Mr. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the mine defences, formerly in charge of the War Department, for the defence of our mercantile ports, such as Liverpool, Hull, and other places, have been removed; and, if so, what system it is intended to adopt for the protection of these ports in their stead.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Answer to the first part of my Lon. friend's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part it is not desirable to make any statement.

    Congo Free State.
    SIR WILLIAM EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign

    775
    Affairs if action is being taken by the British Government to check the slavery and atrocities alleged to be taking place in the Congo Free State and other African territories.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): I can only repeat the Answer given last Wednesday; that Papers will shortly be laid with reference to the Congo State. Inquiry is being made as to when the Commission at Brussels is likely to report as to the best means of carrying out the reform recommended in Congo Administration.

    China and the Tibetan Treaty.
    SIR HENRY COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House of the present condition of the negotiations between the Government of India and the Government of China regarding the confirmation or modification of the agreement concluded in August, 1904, at Lhasa with the Tibetan authorities; and whether he is in a position to lay Papers on the subject before the House.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: As was stated on Thursday last, negotiations are proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government in regard to the terms of a Convention for the adhesion of China to the Convention concluded with Tibet in 1904. No statement can be made and Papers cannot be presented during the progress of the negotiations.

    Old Age Pensions.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state approximately what annual sum would be required to provide a pension of 5s. per week for every person in the United Kingdom over the age of sixty-five years.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH Fifeshire,): The number of persons above sixty-five years of age enumerated in the 1901 Census was 2,018,716. To provide them
    776
    with a pension of 5s. a week would, therefore, require over £26,225,000.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate for the information of Members what has been done in regard to this Question in the Australian Colonies and New Zealand?
    MR. ASQUITH: I will consider that.

    Alcohol for Industrial Purposes.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce at an early date a Bill containing those clauses of the Revenue Bill of last session which were proposed in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the use of alcohol for industrial purposes.
    MR. ASQUITH: The matter is under consideration, and I will make a statement at a later date.

    Grants to Universities.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has undertaken to include in the Estimates for 1906–7 a sum of £20,000 for the building fund of the University College of North Wales, to which fund £61,000 have been subscribed locally; if so, whether any conditions have been attached to the proposed grant; and whether he will make provision in the Estimates for similar grants to the Universities and University Colleges of England in the same proportion to the local subscriptions.
    MR. ASQUITH: I have undertaken to ask Parliament to make a grant of £20,000 to the building fund of the College when the money is actually required for the scheme and subject to the condition that a similar sum has first been spent upon it from other sources. No part of this grant will have to be provided in the Estimates for 1906–7. Similar grants have already been made to the two other Welsh Colleges of like character. No such grants have in the past been made to University Colleges in England,

    777
    and, as the annual grants to these institutions were largely increased—as I think most properly increased—by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am not, as at present advised, prepared to recommend a change of policy.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not in the least complain of the grant the right hon. Gentleman makes to Wales, Tout I shall call attention to the subject on the Estimates in order to secure an equivalent grant for English colleges.

    Exchequer Bonds.
    MR. ASHTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Exchequer bonds to be paid off on 18th April next were drawn on 6th February, but that notice of the numbers of the bonds so drawn was not published for about a week thereafter, and in face of the obvious inconvenience of this course, he can see his way to arrange that the numbers when drawn shall be at once published.
    MR. ASQUITH: In accordance with the Regulations published in the London Gazette of the 18th August last, the bonds were drawn in the presence of the Comptroller-General of the National Debt the Deputy-Governor of the Bank, and a representative of the Treasury. The list was sent to these gentlemen to be certified before being published in the Gazette. I agree that the drawn numbers should be published without any delay, and I will take steps to have this done in future, issuing a special Gazette if necessary for the purpose.

    Joint Stock Banks and Bank of England Notes.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that joint stock banks in Great Britain are entitled to refuse to negotiate notes of the Bank of England; and whether, in view of frequent inconvenience to the public, he proposes to introduce legislation to deal with it.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I am aware that the joint stock banks are not under legal obligation to cash notes of the Bank of England, and I do not think it would be possible to impose such an obligation upon them. A Bank of England note is legal tender, but it would be impossible to require a joint stock bank to keep a cash reserve to change all the Bank of England notes that might be presented to it.

    Political Refugees—Aliens Act.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. RAMSEY MACDONALD) I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the ease of Alexander Ouix, a Russian non-commissioned officer and social democrat, who was refused permission under The Aliens Act, 1905, to land at Harwich on the 12th instant, because he was not considered to have proved that he sought admission to this country solely to avoid prosecution on political grounds, although two companions gave evidence to his escape from Russia for these reasons; and whether, in view of this and similar cases, he will consider the amendment of the Act so that the right of political asylum may be maintained.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): I have caused special inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of this case. I am informed that the immigrant had only one companion, that they came by ship from Denmark, and that no statement to the effect suggested in the question was made to the immigration officer or the interpreter. In the written statements of particulars signed by the immigrants the occupation of both was given as "workers," and the last permanent place of abode of the immigrant whose name was given as Ouix was stated to be Copenhagen. Ouix did not appeal to the Board, but returned at once to Denmark. I am confident that the immigration officials are doing their utmost to administer the Act in accordance with the intentions of Parliament as regards political refugees.
    MR. CROOKS: Was this immigrant aware that he had a right of appeal?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: That fact appears on the papers.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: And is it not laid down in the regulations that both the immigrants and the masters of ships shall be informed that they have a right of appeal?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Yes.
    MR. CROOKS: In what language?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: In the British language.
    MR. CROOKS: Oh! that accounts for it.

    Pentonville Prison—Governor's Salary.
    MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances was Major O. Davies, a half-pay Army officer, appointed the new Governor of Model Prison, Pentonville; what amount does he receive from the Army, and what is his salary as governor of this prison; and whether he will consider the desirability of appointing civilians to such posts.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Major Davies was appointed Governor of Pentonville Prison in the ordinary course of promotion, having been appointed to the Prison service in 1894, and having served with credit as Deputy Governor of Pentonville and Governor of four smaller prisons successively. He is on the retired list and draws an Army pension of £200, and his salary as Governor, which is reduced on account of his Army pension, is £624 16s. It is the practice already to "consider the desirability" of appointing civilians to the Prison service, and at present there are forty-one civilians in charge of prisons, and only twenty-nine naval or military officers.

    Laundry Workers.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
    780
    Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories in which it is stated that 144,038 women and girls are working in laundries not regulated by the Factory Acts; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy their condition.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I have had before me the Report to which the hon. Member refers. I must point out, however, that it is not quite correct to say that 144,038 women and girls are working in "unregulated laundries." The heading in the census returns from which the figure in the question is obtained is "laundry and washing service" and out of the 122,463 women in England and Wales alone who are engaged in this service but are not under the Factory Act over 73,000 are returned as "working at home." The question of legislation for unregulated laundries, i.e., laundries where not more than two persons from outside are employed, will have my careful consideration.
    MR. H. J. TENNANTasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give a Return showing the number of persons engaged in regulated and unregulated laundries.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEasked for notice.

    Lambeth Hairdressers and Early Closing.
    MR. S. COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet issued the Early Closing Order applied for by the Lambeth Borough Council applying to the hairdressers' trade in the borough of Lambeth; if not, will he state when it is his intention to do so.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I have been in communication with the Borough Council in this matter and have communicated to the Town Clerk my provisional approval of a draft Order applying to the hairdressers' trade; but the Order as finally made has not yet been submitted to me for confirmation.

    The New Russian Tariff.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a new Russian tariff about to be enforced increasing still further the duties against British goods, now averaging some 131 per cent. ad valorem; and if His Majesty's Government proposes to take any action in the matter.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon): Representations as to the probable effect of the new Russian tariff on British export trade have been addressed to the Russian Government.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the case that the new Russian tariff will fall not merely on British goods but on the goods of all foreign countries?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I believe that is so.

    The Flax Industry.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of persons employed in the flax industry in the United Kingdom for the year 1900 and subsequent years.
    The hon. Member had also the following Questions on the Paper:—
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the decrease per cent. in the number of flax-spinning factories and the number of spindles in the United Kingdom since the year 1870; what has been the increase per cent. of the importation of flax yarns into the United Kingdom from abroad during the same period; and what has been the loss of employment to British and Irish workpeople involved in these changes.
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in England the flax spinning industry has become nearly extinct, that in Scotland it has been reduced more than one-half during the past thirty years, and that in Ireland 200,000 spindles have been stopped
    782
    since 1870; whether he has any official information showing that this decline is due to the high tariffs on British goods imposed by foreign countries; and whether he proposes to take any steps to arrest the further decay of this industry?
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the United States the duty on plain linens imported is 35 per cent., while on manufactured and finished handkerchiefs the duty is 60 per cent., and if embroidered, 70 to 80 per cent.; whether he is aware that the effect of this discrimination has been to transfer works for hemstitching and finishing handkerchiefs from the North of Ireland to the United States; whether he is able to state the extent to which Irish labour has been displaced through the operation of these duties; and whether he has any remedy to suggest for this loss of an industry?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In 1901 there were 96,788 persons employed in flax factories in the United Kingdom. No figures are available for later years or for 1900. Since 1870 the number of flax spinning factories has fallen from 283 to 127 and the total spindles from 1,549,547 to 1,075,855. A Report issued by the Board of Trade in 1898 (Cd. 8794) indicates that Yorkshire was formerly an important seat of the flax industry, which has now been displaced largely owing to the growing demand or labour in better paid industries, such as woollen, worsted, and mining. In Scotland the number of spindles in the flax trade has declined by nearly one half since 1870, its place being taken by jute. The number of flax and jute spindles in Scotland has increased by 5 per cent. since 1870. In Ireland the decline of spindles in the flax trade since 1870 was only one quarter of that stated in the Question. Concurrently with the decline in flax spinning there has been in increase in the better paid trade of linen weaving, the number of power looms in the United Kingdom having increased since 1870 from 35,301 to 54,440. The change from spinning to weaving has been accompanied by a great increase in the imports of flax

    783
    yarns (mainly coarse) which have risen in value from £54,000 in 1870 to £769,000 in 1905. The value of our exports, however (which consist of the finer yarns) amounted to £928,070 in 1905, and their level has been practically maintained for the last twenty years. There seems no reason to believe that the operation of foreign tariffs on yarns has been the principal cause of the changes which have taken place in this industry. The United States duties on linen manufactures are not correctly stated in the Question, but it is a fact that the difference between the American duties on plain linens and on finished and embroidered handkerchiefs has operated adversely to our export of the latter articles. Our total exports of linen manufactures have, however, been fully maintained during the past twenty years. No estimate of the effect on British and Irish labour of the importation of flax yarns or the operation of the American tariff on particular classes of manufactures would be of any value which did not take into account the broad changes which have taken place both in the industry as a whole and also in kindred trades.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cultivation of flax in the north of Ireland has decreased by 75 per cent. in about thirty years?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE. I believe that is the case.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the fact that no Protectionist countries have succeeded in gaining any reduction in the American linen duties?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is so, I believe.

    Foreign Ships in British Ports—Life Saving Regulations.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if Foreign ships in British ports are exempt from any of the regulations in force as regards British ships for the safety of life; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take any steps to deprive Foreign vessels of this preference in British waters.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The question to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was dealt with by a Select Committee last Session; and a Bill is being prepared to carry into effect, among other matters, the recommendation of that Committee.

    Coupling Accidents to Railway Servants.
    BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents, respectively, which occurred to railwaymen engaged in coupling or uncoupling operations during the year 1905.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: So far as can be stated at present, there were, during 1905, twelve fatal and 523 non-fatal accidents to railway servants while engaged in coupling or uncoupling operations. These figures may be subject to some slight alterations before the Returns are published, but are substantially correct.
    MR. H. J. TENNANT: Are any experiments being made with regard to automatic couplings and what progress has been made?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes; the matter is being gone into at the present moment.

    Use of Shunting Poles on Railways.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents, respectively, which occurred to railway-men due to using or carrying about shunting poles not actually engaged in coupling or uncoupling operations during the year 1905.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In addition to ten cases of accident to railway servants through the improper use of coupling poles as brakesticks, there appear to have been during the year 1905, twenty-one accidents, fortunately none of them fatal, due to the fact that a coupling pole was being used or carried, apart from accidents occurring in the actual operation of coupling or uncoupling.

    Foreigners and Pilotage Certificates.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of foreign subjects who hold pilotage certificates enabling them to pilot their vessels in or out of British ports, and the nationality of the holders of such certificates; and whether foreigners to whom such certificates are granted are subjected to the condition imposed upon British subjects in the London pilotage district, viz., that they shall furnish proof that they are well affected towards His Majesty the King and His Government.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On the 31st March last, certificates enabling their holders to pilot in British compulsory pilotage waters the vessels of which they were masters or mates, were held by eighty-five foreign subjects, viz., two Belgians, three Danes, forty-one Dutchmen, thirteen Frenchmen, ten Germans, three Russians and thirteen Swedes. Of these eighty-five certificates, seventy-one had been issued by the Trinity House, who are the pilotage authority for the London district, and I am informed by them that the condition referred to by the hon. Member is not imposed upon either British or foreign candidates for such certificates. Of the other fourteen cases I have no definite information. I am informed that the condition referred to is in accordance with long-standing custom, imposed by the Trinity House upon all candidates for pilot's licences, which are quite distinct from the pilotage certificates granted to masters and mates.

    Fees under the Trade Marks Act.
    MR. G. CROYDON MARKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the fees prescribed in the new rules made by the Board of Trade for regulating the practice under the Trade Marks Act, 1905, which comes into operation on the 1st April, are greatly in excess of those charged under the old Act; whether he is aware that under such new rules for a fee of 5s. the Registrar of the Trade Marks Branch of the Patent Office is required to make an examination or
    786
    search of the existing registered trade marks and arrive at a decision as to accepting or rejecting an application to register a new trade mark; yet, if he is asked to state how and why he thus arrived at such a decision, the fee payable is £2, or eight times the amount charged for doing the work involved for enabling the decision to be arrived at; and whether any revision of such scale of fees will be made prior to the 1st April.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The rules to which the hon. Member refers are draft rules, and are subject to alteration. The Board of Trade are in communication with the Chamber of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, and other bodies with a view of obtaining the fullest information as to the opinions of those interested in the proposed rules, and they have arranged that a conference, to which the principal Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute, and other bodies have been invited to send representatives, should shortly take place at the Board of Trade to discuss the rules and schedules of fees before they are finally issued. I must, however, remind the hon. Member that the question of the fees to be charged does not rest wholly with the Board of Trade, as the sanction of the Treasury is required by the Act.

    The Telephone Company's Employees— Conditions of Transfer to Government Service.
    MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state when the Bill is to be introduced which was promised by his predecessor in the last Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Telephone Transfer Committee anent the conditions under which the employees of the present Telephone Company are to be transferred to the service of the Post Office?
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): As the staff of the National Telephone Company will not be taken over by the Post Office until the 1st January, 1912, it is not intended to introduce the necessary Bill at present or until the

    787
    conditions of the transfer of the Company's system, which will require statutory authority, can be more exactly foreseen than at present.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it intended to introduce any Bill embodying these conditions?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I take it it will be necessary to bring in a Bill before 1912 on which this question can be raised.

    Drumlish Postal Arrangements.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of directing that the present mid-day delivery of letters from Longford to Leitrim Crossroads be continued to Drumlish, only two miles further on, by bicycle if necessary.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A report on the subject has been called for, and on its receipt I shall be glad to consider the question of affording the improvement in the service to Drumlish desired by the hon. Member.

    The Bradford Report.
    SIR WILLIAM EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he proposes to carry out forthwith the recommendations of the Bradford Commission.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, Sir. The present Government have no responsibility nor obligation in regard to the Bradford Committee.

    The Select Committee on Post Office Wages.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to include rural sub-postmasters (un-established) and rural postmen in the inquiry to be held into the pay and conditions of service of postal employees.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes, Sir.

    Redistribution.
    Mr. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Local
    788
    Government Board whether the Report of the Redistribution Committee appointed by his predecessor last summer is of a confidential nature; and, if not, can he say whether the Committee reported in favour of forming the municipal borough of Merthyr Tydvil into a separate and single member constituency; and will the expenses incurred by the Committee come out of the public purse, and be included in the Supplementary Estimates.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The Committee were appointed to obtain information for the guidance of the late Government in framing a Scheme for the Redistribution of seats at Parliamentary Elections. The Report was confidential, and I am unable to give any information as to its contents. The expenses of the Committee have been defrayed out of the Vote for Temporary Commissions, and will be included in a Supplementary Estimate in respect of that Vote.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: Then what does the British taxpayer get for his money?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: That may transpire on the Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the expediency of calling on those who ordered the inquiry and got the confidential Report to pay the cost?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I think under the circumstances it was reasonable and discreet that the document should be made confidential. Under similar circumstances I should ask that it be so regarded. It was in the public interest.
    MR. CLANCY: How do we know that?

    London University and the School of the Mines.
    SIR WILLIAM COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what action he proposes to take on the Report of the

    789
    Departmental Committee on the Royal College of Science and the School of Mines; and whether any re-organisation of the University of London is contemplated, with a view to the association with it of the Royal College of Science and the School of Mines.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Report of the Departmental Committed is receiving the careful consideration of the Board; they are awaiting a communication from the Senate of London University on the subject. I am afraid I cannot make any more definite statement for the present.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Senate of the University of London will have ample opportunity of expressing their views before a definite decision is arrived at?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am awaiting a communication from the Senate of that body, and it shall have all the attention it deserves.

    The Proposed Hammersmith Exhibition.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances attaching to a long lease of eighty-four acres of land recently granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at Shepherd's Bush for the purpose of an exhibition, and to the absence from the lease of any covenant prohibiting the lessee from applying for a licence to sell beer, wine, or spirits thereon; whether he is aware that licences have been applied for to sell such liquors on forty-four places on the land; And whether he is in a position to give on behalf of the Commissioners, any explanation as to the omission from the lease of any such condition, and an assurance that in future all leases granted by them shall contain cither a restrictive or prohibitive covenant in connection with such applications.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: May I be allowed to answer
    790
    this Question? The facts relating to this letting were given to the hon. Member in answer to his Question on the same matter in May last in the following terms: "The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have agreed to let an area of about eighty-four acres of land at Hammersmith for a long term of years for the purpose of an exhibition similar to that at Earl's Court or at the Crystal Palace. As regards the lands used for exhibition purposes, the Commissioners do not think it practicable to prohibit any application by the lessee for licences for the sale thereon of wine, beer, and spirits in connection with the supply of refreshments. The recent application to the licensing justices to which the Question refers was made by the intending lessee, and the Commissioners had no knowledge that any application was about to be made or as to the number of places in which it would be asked that liquors might be sold." In addition, I am now able to say that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have received notice that a fresh application will be made by the lessee to the licensing magistrates in the present month, and it is the Commissioners' intention to be then represented. The Commissioners are informed that the application will be for a licence in respect of eleven places only within the Exhibition and grounds. With regard to the last part of the Question, it is the policy of the Commissioners to limit the number of licences on their building estates in accordance with the real needs of the neighbourhoods, but within that limit they deal with any application of their lessees for permission to acquire a licence as they deem most reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

    Illegal Trawling in the Firth of Forth.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to complaints made to the Fishery Board for Scotland of the recent presence of certain trawling vessels within the prohibited area of the Firth of Forth oil the Anstruther and Cellardyke coasts; and if he can give an assurance that preventive measures will promptly be taken against any

    791
    infraction of the bye-laws of the Fishery Board.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): Instructions have been given that every effort should be made to put a stop to the illegal trawling complained of by the hon. Member.

    Local Taxation in Scotland.
    MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Local Government Board to make inquiry into the incidence of local taxation in Harris, North and South Uist, and Barra, has been received; if it is to be published, and what the Government proposes to do to relieve those parishes of the excessive taxation they bear.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Report referred to by the hon. Member is at present under consideration, and it has been thought expedient to extend the inquiry to the Lews, where the financial conditions are analagous. Until that inquiry is concluded the question of publication, as well as of the necessity for Government relief, cannot be decided.

    Edinburgh School Board, and the Training of Teachers.
    MR. A. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution adopted by the Edinburgh School Board disapproving of the Draft Resolutions recently issued by the Scottish Education Department for the training of teachers in Scotland in respect that the said Draft Resolutions propose to create a new method of training under non-representative authorities without full security that candidates will receive adequate practical training, and that the children of parents in humble circumstances will have obstacles placed in their way to the teaching profession; whether he can state when the Draft Resolutions are likely to be considered by the Department; and whether an opportunity will be given to the House, and in particular to the Scottish Members, for a full discussion of the subject before the Draft is definitely
    792
    put into a Minute and laid upon the Table.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the resolution adopted by the Edinburgh School Board. I am also aware that equally important educational authorities such as the School Boards of Glasgow and Govan have approved of the Draft Regulations. The Draft Regulations will be further considered by the Department when the reports of the Provincial Committees have been received. But representations received from other educational bodies will also be considered, and in order that full opportunity may be given to School Boards and others to make themselves acquainted with the scope of the proposals, the Draft Regulations have been put on sale. No announcement as to subsequent action can be made till the Regulations have been considered by the Department in the light of the reports of the Provincial Committees and of other representations received.

    Scottish Fishery Board.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the Fishery Board for Scotland, recently re-appointed by him, only one representative out of seven belongs to the West of Scotland; whether he is aware that the fish trade of Glasgow and the fishermen of the West of Scotland are unanimous that they should have further representation on the Board; and whether, under such circumstances, he is prepared to increase the number on the Board so as to give Glasgow and the West of Scotland further representation there.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Strictly speaking, the representative element upon the Fishery Board consists of four members; excluding the Chairman, the legal member, and the scientific member, in regard to whose appointment local representative qualifications cannot be the governing consideration. It is the case that of those four members, only one belongs to the West of Scotland, and he belongs to the Clyde. Representations did reach me not only in favour of more than one candidate for membership of the Fishery Board as qualified to

    793
    represent the Clyde, but also in favour of candidates qualified to represent other districts of Scotland, and I greatly regret that it was not possible for me in re-appointing the Fishery Board to meet their views. The number of members forming the Board is fixed by statute, and can only be altered by legislation. The wide distribution of the fishing population in Scotland makes it impossible that all the fishery districts shall be directly represented upon the Board.

    Granard Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of the Granard, County Longford, estate, which has been sold under the Ashbourne Act to the tenants, four tenants have been deprived of turbary, to which on the face of their vesting orders they were entitled; and whether he will call the attention of the Estates Commissioners to these cases with a view to securing proper treatment for them.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The Granard estates were sold under the Land Purchase Acts of 1885 and 1891, not under the Act of 1903. Some of the tenants were given by their vesting orders a right to cut turf for consumption, but not for sale, on parts of certain bogs in the possession of the vendor In other cases, certain bogs were conveyed to trustees by trust deeds, to which the Land Commission were not parties, for the purpose of providing turbary for the tenant purchasers therein named, and these deeds conferred on the trustees very ample powers for making rules and regulations as to these turbary rights. I am not aware that any of the tenant purchasers have been deprived of any turbary rights to which they were entitled either under their vesting orders or these turbary deeds. In reply to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I beg to say that I have called the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the matter, and I am informed by them that they have no power to intervene in the matter as suggested. Any tenant purchaser who is deprived of
    794
    his rights can obtain redress by action either against the owner of the bog or the trustees under the turbary deeds.

    Flax Cultivation in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that during the five years 1900–4 the average acreage under flax in Ireland was only 48,000, and the estimated produce was returned at 10,533 tons, whereas in 1880–4 the average acreage was 121,000 and the estimated produce 21,688 tons; and what measures are being adopted by the Department of Agriculture to encourage the cultivation of flax, particularly in Ulster, where the conditions are the most suitable for the growth of this crop.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The figures are as stated, but it should be observed that they indicate an increased production per acre. In the period 1880–4 the average yield of flax per acre was 28¾ stones, while in the later period it was 34¾ stones. Since 1901 the Department, with the assistance of an Ulster Advisory Committee, have adopted a scheme for encouraging improved cultivation of flax. The means taken to achieve this end include experiments in the manuring and manipulation of flax, and with different varieties of seed; the offering of prizes for well scutched flax and for growing flax; assistance in the formation of co-operative flax growing and scutching societies; the dissemination of information as to the quality of Dutch and Russian flax seed available each year for sowing; instruction in improved methods of dealing with the crop; measures for bringing the Irish flax grower into direct contact with the methods of their competitors in Belgium; improvement of marketing facilities; and other measures.
    MR. LONSDALEasked if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the expediency of offering a small bonus to cultivators in the North of Ireland.
    MR. BRYCE: That Question raises large issues. Of course any suggestion made with a view of encouraging the cultivator will have careful consideration.

    Irish School Grants.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the reduction in the amount of the school grants paid to teachers under the intermediate education system, Ireland, for the year 1905; is he aware that the grants paid for each pass in junior grade fell from £8 3s. 6d. per pupil to £5 14s., in middle grade from £16 7s. to £11 8s., and in senior from £24 10s. 6d. to £17 2s., and showed proportionate reductions in each grade for passes with honour; and whether, in view of the promised increase in the Exchequer grants in aid of secondary education in England, steps will be taken for securing the interests of teachers connected with secondary education in Ireland.
    MR. BRYCE: The facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. The reduction in the amount of the grants was due mainly to the increase in the numbers of students in the pass and honours lists, and in a less degree to a decrease in the amount received by the Intermediate Education Board from the Local Taxation Account. The matter referred to in the last part of the Question will not escape my attention, and I may add that the entire system upon which grants for Intermediate Education are made in Ireland appears to me to require serious consideration.

    Irish Fisheries
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) has been again called to the damage done to the mackerel fisheries of the south and south-west coasts of Ireland by fleets of boats engaged in fishing for herrings during such season as involves the capture of quantities of immature mackerel; and, in view of the inquiry of 1892, and the report of the fishery inspectors in 1893, which recommended, for the protection of the mackerel fishery, that a close season for herrings should be established from Poer Head to Mizen Head from 1st April to 16th May in each year, will the Department take steps to
    796
    preserve a great Irish industry from extinction.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department held an inquiry into this matter at Kinsale in October last, and, as a result, a bye law intended to be of an experimental character was prepared, providing a close time for the taking of herrings in the district of Kinsale. The bye-law has not been proceeded with, because amongst other reasons, the question of extending the sphere of its operations eastward, towards Queenstown and Bally-cotton, has been raised; and the Department intend to hold inquiries at those places during the month of May next, whereupon a decision upon the whole case will be arrived at.

    Dromagh Evicted Tenants.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have any further communication to make in regard to the evicted tenants J. Fitzpatrick and Mrs. Mary Cronin, on the estate of Mr. N. N. Leader, Rosnalee, Dromagh, county Cork; and whether, as the originating application, which included these tenants with the sanction of the landlord, was served in July, 1905, immediate steps will be taken to reinstate them in readiness for spring agricultural work; and further, if Mr. Leader, who has a quantity of untenanted land in his possession, expresses his willingness to sell the same, or a portion thereof, to the Commissioners at a reasonable price, will that body inquire into the question of purchase at an early opportunity with a view to resale of the lands to other evicted tenants of the neighbourhood, to deserving labourers and others entitled under the Land Act of 1903.
    MR. BRYCE: In the Originating Application in respect of the sale of this estate, which was lodged in June, 1905, the former holding of J. Fitzpatrick is set out as untenanted land which the vendor contemplates selling as parcels; and the former holding of Mary Cronin is set out as part of the vendor's demesne, and other land which he proposes to sell to, and repurchase from, the Commissioners. The Commissioners hope soon

    797
    to be able to make inquiries into the case of these and other evicted tenants in the county Cork.

    Kerry County Council and the Irish Land Commissioners.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Kerry County Council a resolution protesting against the unfairness and partiality of many of the present body of Land Commissioners, and asking that competent and impartial men be appointed; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I have received the resolution referred to, but there is no evidence before me to show that, alleged, many of the present body are open to the charge of unfairness and partiality. When appointments come to be made or renewed, the fitness of al candidates will be carefully considered.

    Irish Congested Districts—Compulsory Purchase.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Kerry County Council a resolution appealing to the Government to so amend the Land Act as to give power to the Congested Districts Board to purchase compulsory estates within the congested districts; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I have seen a resolution to the effect stated, which was passed by the Kerry County Council in January, 1905. I am not at present prepared to make any statement on the subject of the resolution.

    Evicted Tenants in South Cork.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that no evicted tenant has yet been reinstated in South Cork, steps will immediately be taken to induce the Estates Commissioners to send down an inspector to that constituency to make inquiries and report on the best means for reinstating the evicted tenants in their former holdings.
    MR. BRYCE: Inquiries as to all the evicted tenants in county Cork are being prosecuted by the Commissioners as rapidly as possible. The Commissioners understand that some sixteen evicted tenants have recently been reinstated and that negotiations for reinstatement are proceeding in other cases.

    Ballykinley Farm, County Cork.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Estates Commissioners will refuse to sanction an advance for the purchase of Ballykinley farm, county Cork (forming the estate of Mr. Palms Spread Morgan, a lunatic), by Captain Jonathan Morgan, remainder man and heir in succession, and will take such steps as may be in their power to bring about the reinstatement of the former tenant, Mr. James J. Greene, evicted in 1889, and who now seeks to become the purchaser of his old holding under the provisions of The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1903.
    MR. BRYCE: An agreement for the purchase of the holding in question by Captain Jonathan Morgan, described as holding under a Court lease, dated December, 1904, was lodged with the Estates Commissioners on the 30th January, 1906. The Commissioners will inquire fully into the circumstances before sanctioning the advance.

    Labourers' Cottages in the Mitchelstown Union.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the reason for the refusal of the Local Government Board to sanction a reduction of the rents of labourers' cottages in Mitchelstown union from 1s. to 9d. per week, having regard to the fact that this reduction was passed unanimously by the rural district council, and that the rents of labourers' cottages in the adjacent union of Fermoy are only 7½d. per week; and whether, in view of the necessities of the labourers in the district, he Local Government Board will re-consider the matter and sanction the reduction.
    MR. BRYCE: The sanction of the Local Government Board is not necessary in this matter. The Mitchelstown No. 1 Rural District Council recently asked the Board to sanction the proposed reduction of the rents from 1s. to 9d. a week, but the Board replied that the council must act on their own responsibility and be prepared to satisfy the auditor as to the propriety of their action. If the council have not carried the proposal into effect, it is probable that they fear they cannot, as trustees of the ratepayers, justify the reduction of the rents hitherto charged, seeing that the cottages already entail a heavy burden on the ratepayers.

    Mr. Mathew J. Byrne.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that Mr. Matthew J. Byrne was recently employed as temporary horticulturist by the County of Waterford Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, but that the Department refused to sanction his further employment; (2) whether, seeing that the curator of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, reported to the Department that he was perfectly satisfied with Mr. Byrne's technical knowledge of the practical details of gardening and horticultural matters about March, 1905, he will explain why Mr. Byrne was subsequently tested again; (3) whether he is aware that Mr. Byrne's experience has been acquired, not only in the Colonies and the United States, but at the Athy Model Farm and Royal Albert Institute, Glasnevin; (4) that the County Waterford Committee, in December, 1905, gave him a testimonial for his energy and attention to his duties during the six months he had been employed by them, and up to the time at which the Department declined to sanction his permanent appointment; (5) whether he is aware that Mr. Byrne was declared to have failed to pass the second test on the ground that he was unaware of the scientific names of three weeds, one of them being ordinary Scotch grass; (6) and will he say whether Sir Horace Plunkett was aware, when this decision was given, that Mr. Byrne had been
    800
    connected with the National Registration Association in South Dublin, in which he was an elector.
    MR. BRYCE: (1) The Answer to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. (2) Mr. Byrne was examined a second time, because the Department had promised the Waterford County Committee to make a second test, and because they were not satisfied that he possessed the necessary qualifications. The examiner in the first test had expressed a qualified opinion as to Mr. Byrne's technical knowledge. (3) The Department do not doubt the statement as to Mr. Byrne's previous experience. (4) The Waterford County Committee, at Mr. Byrne's request, gave him a testimonial as to his attention to work, but it is not recorded that the testimonial contained any reference to his fitness. (5) It is not the case that Mr. Byrne was rejected because of his ignorance of the scientific name of weeds. His experience of Irish horticulture had been gained forty years ago before he went abroad. (6) The Answer to the last inquiry is in the negative.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to transfer the control of the Royal Irish Constabulary to the county councils.
    MR. BRYCE: No, Sir.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Has the matter been under the consideration of the Government?
    MR. BRYCE: My Answer is in the negative.
    MR. DELANY: Better give the police over to the control of the Orange lodges.

    Bellacolla Post Office.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the post office at Ballacolla, Queen's County, is situated on licensed premises; and, if so, is such in accordance with the Post Office Regulations; and what steps he proposes taking in the matter.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The sub-postmaster of Ballacolla, who was appointed in 1887, holds a licence, but the part of the premises used for the post office has a separate entrance, and is completely cut off from the public house. I am informed that the work is carried on in a satisfactory manner. There is a general rule that post offices are not to be situated on licensed premises, but it is sometimes necessary to make exceptions to this rule, and in the circumstances described I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.
    MR. SLOAN: Have any inquiries been made with a view to securing more suitable premises?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have not made any with regard to this particular case.

    Rules of Procedure.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that 493 Members balloted on Wednesday last; and whether as only a small percentage of Bills introduced by unofficial Members can, under present circumstances, receive even a Second Reading discussion, he will bring forward proposals for amending the Rules of Procedure?
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intends to deal this session with an alteration of the Rules of Procedure of the House; and, if so, in what form such alterations will be submitted?
    MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend had intended to give notice to-day that he would move on an early date for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Rules of Procedure, but unfortunately he is confined to the house by a cold.

    Traffic in the Metropolis.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will favourably consider the introduction of a Bill this session to give
    802
    effect to the Report of the Royal Commission, who for the past three years have investigated the question of traffic of the Metropolis; such Bill to provide for the creation of a Traffic Board and other administrative machinery recommended by the Commission?
    MR. ASQUITH: His Majesty's Government has not as yet had time to consider the recommendation contained in this very voluminous Report, and it is quite impossible to give any undertaking as to the introduction of legislation during the present session.

    Colonial Representation in Foreign Courts.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if any clause will be inserted in the Constitution of the Transvaal Colony to prevent the responsible Government from sending accredited representatives direct to Foreign Powers?
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir, there is no need for such a clause. British diplomatic representatives in foreign countries are accredited by His Majesty and not by any Colonial Government.

    Foreign Office Questions.
    EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any announcement to make with regard to the future arrangements for answering Questions dealing with foreign affairs.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Perhaps the House will allow me to make my statement a little general, with regard both to answering Questions and to debate. It does require some adjustment and some indulgence on the part of the House to enable me to combine with attendance in the House the work of the Foreign Office. But I have never felt that it was in the interests of the House itself not to give some latitude of that kind, because I think it is in the interests of the House that it should not accept the doctrine that it is impossible for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to be a Member of the House of Commons. I hope that what I now ask the House to accept will leave to it at least as much freedom of

    803
    effective discussion as it has been the practice for the House to have in recent years. First of all, I would ask the House to bear in mind that both the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister are now in the House of Commons. That, of course, strengthens the House in regard to debate, and as regards debates on Foreign Office questions I shall, of course, so arrange the work of the Office that I shall be always in the House when any foreign question is under discussion. I think it is possible to do that, because debates on foreign affairs are not of excessive frequency, and when they do take place they do not last for more than a day or two days without intermission. With regard to Questions, I do not think it is possible, at any rate without strain and inconvenience, for me to be present in the House on four days every week; and what I would ask the House to accept is an arrangement by which I shall be present on two days in the week. I shall be present in the House, for instance, next Thursday, which, in addition to this day, will be two days this week, and in subsequent weeks I shall be present on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On Mondays and Wednesdays I would ask the House to accept Answers from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, if it is more convenient to Members to put Questions on foreign affairs on those days. As to supplementary Questions, the late Government asked the House to accept at one time a total restriction, and latterly a very considerable restriction, on such Questions. I assume that they did that because inconvenience had arisen owing to the giving of supplementary Answers. I am quite willing to revert to the original practice of not restricting supplementary Questions so far as I am myself concerned; but the House must bear in mind that a certain risk attaches to supplementary Answers, which are received abroad without full understanding of the circumstances under which they are given, and are scrutinised as considered statements with a deliberate intention behind them. I must therefore ask the House for an equal discretion, so far as I am concerned, as to answering these Questions. I hope the House will accept that arrangement,
    804
    and will see that under it the liberty of the House will not be in any way interfered with in regard to Foreign Office questions.
    EARL PERCY: May I express our thanks for the courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet the wishes of the House? The arrangement he now proposes is, I think, the best that could be arrived at under the circumstances. I will only venture to express the hope that the rule as to supplementary Questions not being addressed to the Secretary to the Local Government Board in the absence of the Secretary of State may not be too rigidly adhered to. Something which fell from the Prime Minister the other clay seemed to imply that I quarrelled with the arrangement which enabled the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to continue to sit in this House. That was very far from my intention. What I had in my mind was the arrangement by which, when last a Foreign Secretary sat in this House his Under-Secretary sat here also. No one would regret more than myself the withdrawal of the right hon. Gentleman from this House, and I hope he will long continue to take part in our debates.

  NEW BILLS.
    LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854," presented by Mr. McCrae; supported by Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. John Dewar, and Mr. Robert Wallace; to be read a second time upon Friday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
    SALE OF COKE BILL.
    "To amend the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, respecting the Sale of Coke," presented by Mr. Rose; supported by Mr. Buckmaster, Mr. Beck, and Mr. Montagu; to be read a second time upon Friday, 11th May, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
    WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
    "To continue the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904," presented by Mr. Buxton; supported by Mr. McKenna; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
    LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To give the ratepayers a direct Veto on the Liquor Traffic in their respective areas in Scotland," presented by Mr. Cameron Corbett; supported by Mr. A. W. Black, Mr. Crombie, Mr. John Hope, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. Robert Wallace, and Mr. Eugene Wason; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]
    PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL.
    "To give further facilities for the acquisition of Sites for Places of Worship," presented by Mr. Perks; supported by Mr. McArthur and Mr. Broadhurst; to be read a second time upon Friday, 6th April, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
    TUBEBCULOSIS (ANIMALS) PREVENTION AND COMPENSATION BILL.
    "To provide for the payment of compensation to the owners of animals condemned after slaughter and destroyed by order of a magistrate on account of tuberculosis, and to assist in the provention of tuberculosis," presented by Mr. Field; supported by Mr. Kilbride, Mr. Roche, Mr. Condon, Mr. Rutherford, Sir Carne Rasch, Mr. Jones, Mr. Skackleton, Mr. Schwann, and Mr. MacIver; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

    CLOSURING THE DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to ask a Question about the conduct of the business of the House. In the absence of the Prime Minister, I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the debate on the Address. The Prime Minister has
    given notice to suspend the twelve o'clock rule to-night. At this early period of the session that constitutes a record. I assume it is not intended to keep us up late. On the Address only two Amendments have been dealt with, and there are a number still down on the Paper, some of which are of special importance. I regard as of special importance those standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney and also the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton. I have no idea how long the first Amendment dealing with Indian administration will last, but, supposing with every good will on all sides of the House, we are unable to complete the debate by twelve o'clock, I hope it is not the intention of the Government to close the Address prematurely.
    MR. ASQUITH: It is certainly the intention of the Government to ask the House to come to a conclusion on the Address to-night. The Government, having carefully considered the character of the various Amendments down on the Paper, and the amount of time which might fairly be devoted to each one, have come to the conclusion that every topic will have an opportunity of being adequately discussed, and it is certainly their intention to ask the House to conclude the debate to-night. Under no other conditions can the necessary financial business be completed by March 31st.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: After that statement, we shall oppose both Government Resolutions.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the King's Speech (Motion for an Address), if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Orders (Sittings of the House)."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    The House divided:—Ayes, 343; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 3.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William(Cork, N.E)

    Allen, Percy

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Adkins, W. Ryland

    Ambrose, Robert

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Jenkins, J.

    Baring, Codfrey(Isle of Wight)

    Dewar, John A. (Invernes-sh.)

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

    Barker, John

    Dickinson, WH(St. Pancras, N.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Dilke, Rt. Hyn. Sir Charles

    Jordon, Jeremiah

    Barnard, E. B.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Beale, W. P.

    Duffy, William J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Beauchamp, E.

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

    Kilbride, Denis

    Beaumont, Hubert( Eastbourne

    Dunn, A. Edward, (Camborne)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Beck, A. G.

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

    Bell, Richard

    Elibank, Master of

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Lambert, George

    Belloc, Hiliare Joseph PeterR.

    Erskine, David C.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Benn, W(T'w'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

    Essex, R. W.

    Lea, HughCecil(St. Pancras, E.)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Eve, Harry Trelawny

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

    Blake, Edward

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Levy, Maurice

    Boland, John

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David

    Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lough, Thomas

    Brace, William

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lundon, W.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Branch, James

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs

    Brocklehurst, W. D.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Brooke, Stopford

    Findlay, Alexander

    MacVeagh, Charles(Donegal, E

    Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Callum, John M.

    Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    M'Crae, George

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Killop, W.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Furness, Sir Christopher

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

    Burnyeat, J. D. W.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Ginnell, L.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles

    Gladstone, Rt. HnHerbertJohn

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Cairns, Thomas

    Glover, Thomas

    Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston

    Caldwell, James

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Marnham, F. J.

    Cameron, Robert

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Massie, J.

    Causton, Rt. HnRichardKnight

    Grove, Archibald

    Meehan, Patrick, A.

    Chance, Frederick William

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Menzies, Walter

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Gulland, John W.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Molteno, Percy Alfred

    Cherry, R. R.

    Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza-

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Halpin, J.

    Montagu, E. S.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hammond, John

    Mooney, J. J.

    Clarke, C. Goddard(Peckham)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hardie, J Keir(MerthyrTydvil

    Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

    Clough, W.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Coats, SirT. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morrell, Philip

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morse, L. L.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Moss, Samuel

    Collins, SirWmJ(S. Pancras, W

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Murnaghan, George

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murphy, John

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Myer, Horatio

    Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grin'td

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Napier, T. P.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henry, Charles

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Nicholson, CharlesN(Doncast'r

    Cox, Harold

    Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Norman, Henry

    Cremer, William Randall

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Crombie, John William

    Hogan, Michael

    Nuttall, Harry

    Crooks, William

    Hope, WBateman(S'merset, N.

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

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cullinan, J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

    Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Davis, W. Howell, (Bristol, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Delany, William

    Jackson, R. S.

    O'Dowd, John

    Devlin, CharlesRamsay(G'lw'y

    Jardine, Sir J.

    O'Grady, J.

    808

    809

    O'Hare, Patrick

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Thompson, J.WH(Somerset, E.

    O'Malley, William

    Rowlands, J.

    Tillett, Louis John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Russell, T. W.

    Tomkinson, James

    O'Shee, James John

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Torrance, A. M.

    Partington, Oswald

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Toulmin, George

    Paul, Herbert

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Trevelyan, Charles, Philips

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Schwann, Charles D (Hyde)

    Verney, F. W.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Schwann, C.E. (Manchester, N.)

    Vivian, Henry

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

    Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

    Perks, Robert William

    Sears, J. E.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Philpps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Philipps, J Wynford (Pembroke

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Shaw, Charles, Edw. (Stafford)

    Ward, W.Dudley (S'thampton

    Pollard, Dr.

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

    Wardle, George J.

    Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

    Sheehy, David

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Radford, G. H.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    White, J. D, (Dumbartonshire)

    Reddy, M.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Spicer, Albert

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Rees, J. D.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

    Richards, Thomas(W.M'nm'th

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'tn

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Wilson, J.W(Worcestersh., N.)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Robartes, Hn. T.C.A.(Bodmin)

    Strauss, B. A. (Abingdon)

    Wilson, W.T.(Westhoughton)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Wodehouse, Lord( Norfolk, Mid.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Huddersf'd

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Young, Samuel

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Robertson, SirG. Scott(Bradf'rd

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Robinson, S.

    Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

    George Whiteley and Mr. J.

    Robson, Sir W. Snowdon

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    A. Pease.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

    NOES.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fell, Arthur

    Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Forster, Henry William

    Nield, Herbert

    Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gordon, SirWEvans-(T'r.Ham.

    Percy, Earl

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cave, George

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS, Edm'ds

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Cecil, Lord J. P. J.(Stamford)

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

    Thomson, W. M. (Lanark, N. W

    Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnH

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    Chamberlain, RtHn. J.A(Worc.

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Liddell, Henry

    Younger, George

    Courthope, G. Loyd

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

    Craig, Captain James(Down, E.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Cross, Alexander

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Main Question put, and agreed to.

    KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on main Question [19th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—
    810
    "Most Gracious Sovereign.
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your

    811
    Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Dickinson.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.

    UNREST IN INDIA AND PARTITION OF BENGAL.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he was sure that in bringing his Amendment before the House he would be treated with consideration by the many hon. Members who were new to the House but who had a wide knowledge of Indian affairs. The Amendment drew attention, in the first place, to the widespread dissatisfaction and unrest in India due to the recent policy of the Government, culminating in the partition of Bengal, and went on to set forth the opinion that such modifications should be made in the form of administration in Bengal as would tend to allay the existing discontent. Lastly, it expressed the hope that the Government would consider the reasonable demands of the Indian people for a larger share in the administration of their own affairs. It was not necessary for him to say that this Amendment was not moved in any hostile sense to the present Government. They, on the Ministerial side of the House, had the fullest confidence that his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India and the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged would, as far as practicable, reflect in their Indian policy the great change that had come over this country as revealed by the General Election. They were met with the fact that this dissatisfaction and unrest existed to a wide extent in India at the present moment, and it was felt that a declaration of the policy of His Majesty's Government should be made—not in regard to details, because that would be absolutely impossible, seeing that the Government had been in office for so short a time—but a declaration of the spirit of that policy which they believed would be of great value in India at the present day in allaying the existing tension of the situation. He would deal, in the first place, with the partition of Bengal only in outline, leaving to those who had personal local knowledge of the conditions of the situation to deal with
    812
    the details. By the provisions of the Order for the partition, Bengal was divided into two. Eastern Bengal was added to Assam and a new province was formed under a Lieutenant-Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam. The main ground alleged for this change was that it was necessary because of the increased burdens of administration in Bengal, and the impossibility of maintaining in the circumstances a high standard of efficiency. Now that proposition was not assented to by those who had the largest experience of the facts of the case. But he ventured to make to the House this proposition, that even if it were desirable on administrative grounds to divide Bengal and readjust the boundaries, surely when there was more than one alternative plan, it was unjust that that particular one which aroused discontent and indignation among the whole population connected with it should have been adopted. It should be remembered that this matter had been discussed in India for some years, but only in 1903 were formal proposals made. Definite action, however, was not taken by the Government of India till twelve months afterwards. Immediately the scheme for partition met with the strongest opposition in all parts of the province. Undeterred by this, the Government proceeded with their plans, and in February following the Indian Government sent home a despatch containing their proposals to Mr. Brodrick, then Secretary for India. On June 9th last year a despatch was sent back to India practically sanctioning these proposals. Now, a few days after the late Government had sent the despatch to the Indian Government assenting to their proposals, the annual debate on the Indian Budget took place, and was it not rather strange that, notwithstanding the fact that the agitation against them in India was then at its height, not a single word was said in the debate by the then Secretary for India to indicate that the Home Government had approved of any scheme for the partition of Bengal? Indeed, the House of Commons knew nothing of the scheme officially until the early days of August last, when the announcement of the proclamation bringing the scheme into operation was

    813
    made. On August 9th he moved the Adjournment of the House on the question, and pressed the Government of the day to postpone the operation of the Order until they had further information. During that debate his right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, who was Secretary for India in the last Liberal Administration, pleaded that he was not at that time sufficiently informed on the subject to vote in the pending division, although the right hon. Gentleman indicated what his opinion might possibly be; and then in weighty words he urged Mr. Brodrick to postpone the operation of the Order and to give further Papers. On the undertaking that the operation of the Order would be so postponed he (Mr. Herbert Roberts) withdrew his Motion for the Adjournment of the House. What was his surprise, therefore, some time in September, to find from the papers the announcement that the Order for the partition of Bengal would come into operation on October 16th. He immediately wrote to Mr. Brodrick, protesting against the proposal, and asking him to postpone the operation of the Order until the further Papers promised had been presented to Parliament. Mr. Brodrick was not now in the House of Commons to explain, and he did not desire to say more than to repeat that the impression made on his mind and on others by the undertaking of Mr. Brodrick was that the operation of the Order would be postponed until the House of Commons had had the information desired. He could not understand what object could be served by promising to give further information if at the time it had been definitely decided not to postpone the operation of the Order, knowing as they did what the obvious effect would be in Bengal. It created a sense of injustice, brought forth the fruit of widespread discontent, an alienation of feeling and friction. Every conceivable constitutional device had been adopted for the purpose of bringing before the Government of India the mind of the people of Bengal and their deep-rooted objection to this Order. Petitions had been presented; public meetings had been held in all parts of the country in opposition to it. Another direct consequence of the policy of the
    814
    Government was that it produced retaliation on the part of the people concerned in trade matters by the boycotting of Manchester goods, and the spread and stimulation of the Swadeshi movement for the consumption of home-made goods. He could only say that these were signs which ought not to be passed lightly by Parliament; and he was glad to have the opportunity of bringing this Amendment before the House, in order that anything said here might tend to allay the agitation. Another effect of the Order, much to be regretted, had been the action of the Government in attempting to suppress the agitation. The Statesman, a journal well known for its unswerving loyalty to the Indian Government recently said—
    "The successive Orders issued by Mr. Fuller had been designed to take away the right of public meeting."
    (Mr. Fuller was the Lieutenant-Governor of the Eastern Division of Bengal.)
    "Goorkhas had been quartered upon the people, and a campaign of suppression continued which in any other part of India would have resulted in dangerous rioting."
    He hoped that it would be possible for his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India to say something on this case which would tend to lessen the agitation against the Order. The third and last question which might be asked was, "What was there in this Order to cause such a tempest of feeling?" His right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, in the debate which took place in August last on this question, pointed out how in our own country the greatest excitement very frequently arose over questions relating to the transfer of boundaries in municipalities and in some country districts, and that these rose into grave matters. Might he point out that the case of the partition of Bengal was not one relating to a small municipality or country district? Bengal was the premier province of India. Considerations arose of race, language, intellectual development, historical associations, national aspirations. All those things had combined to create in the mind of the people of Bengal an intense pride in the land of their birth. They were proud of the capital—Calcutta—which was not only the capital of Bengal but the metropolis of India; and they saw in this

    815
    division of the province a blow at the fame of their city. This question of partition could not be looked upon from one standpoint alone. It must be remembered that it was but the culmination of a series of measures which, say what they liked, were interpreted by the people of India to mean a desire on the part of the Government to repress, curtail, and prevent future agitation. It was thought that that was the motive which underlay this Order. It was the general impression of the people of India that the aim and object of this Order dividing the Province of Bengal was to weaken the political power of that Province. In support of this idea, there was one sentence in the despatch of the Government of India dated April 9th, 1905, which seemed to corroborate that view—
    "It cannot,"
    says the Government of India,
    "be for the lasting good of any country that public opinion, or what passes for public opinion, should be manufactured by a comparatively small number of people at a single centre, and should be disseminated for universal consumption."
    He put it to the House without distinction of Party or nationality that those words clearly conveyed the impression that the underlying motive of the policy carried out by the Partition Order was to do something to weaken the power of Calcutta and Bengal. Another thing to be added to these considerations was the hurried way in which this Order was passed, a fact which was recognised by the dispatch of Mr. Brodrick of July 9th, where it is admitted that the scheme in its complete form had not been laid before the public officials. Lastly, they must remember that in its final form this scheme was never discussed by the House of Commons, and the cumulative evidence of all these facts went far to explain why this widespread and deep-rooted agitation in Bengal and India had arisen against this Partition Order. It may be asked what alternative proposition was to be made? He desired to leave any suggested proposal to be considered by the Government to his hon. friend the Member for East Nottingham, who in this matter, he thought, had almost a unique experience in regard to
    816
    the conditions of the Government of Bengal; but he would like to say, before he left the matter, that he for one recognised to the full that the Order having been passed and the partition having been made, it was essential that in any modification which might be found possible by the House, care should be taken to disturb as little as possible the administrative machinery which had been already formed under the Order. As to the second part of the Amendment, namely, that
    "The reasonable demands of the Indian people for a larger share in the administration of their affairs should receive the consideration of the Government,"
    he thought they were fortunate on this occasion in having those demands outlined for them by the President of the Indian National Congress in his Presidential address in December of last year. They were of a reasonable kind and could be summarised under four heads: (1) that the number of elected members upon the Viceroy's Council should be increased to twelve, out of a total of twenty-five; (2) that the number of elected members on the Legislative Council should be increased; (3) with the appointment of three Indian representatives upon the Secretary of State's Council; and lastly, that advisory Boards for consultative purposes should be established in all districts in India. All that was asked for was that the representative members should be increased; a majority was not asked for. The only representation invited was such as would secure that the Indian point of view should be put forward in the discussion and settlement of matters of local administration. What, briefly, were the steps which had led up to the present demand for further powers of self-government in India? The foundation was to be found in the historic phrase in the Queen's Proclamation of 1858; then twenty years ago there was the founding of the Indian Congress. Then came the Indian Councils Act of 1892—a great step forward in the direction which he was suggesting should be followed at the present time. All that the Amendment really asked for now was that there should be an extension of the principle laid down and conceded by the

    817
    Indian Councils Act of 1892. Since 1892 education had been progressing in India and Western ideas had been more impressed upon the natives. At the same time they recognised that we must proceed slowly step by step and in accordance with the conditions of the case. The present conditions of life in India were the result of fifty years of development and British rule. But there was a matter which must be taken into account, and that was the rise of an Eastern power, which had created a great impression upon the mind and spirit of India. Whatever view hon. Members took of the ultimate goal of our rule in India, let this House recognise facts; let them endeavour to understand the views and wishes of India and let them make it clear that their desire in the future was to win the co-operation and not the hostility of the masses we governed in India. Some people took the view that the extension of the powers of local self-government in India might lead to the loss of India. If that were true, which he emphatically denied, the continuance of the present policy would likewise have the same result. One thing he would suggest to the House was that we required in India to have the same qualities of courage, foresight and statesmanship in order to adapt ourselves to the existing conditions, and work out the problems which now faced us in India, as were required by our forefathers in winning India, and constructing a government in that country which was the pride of the British nation. There was one fine phrase used by Burke on India worth remembering—
    "The situation of the man is the preceptor of his duty."
    They desired to recognise the changes that were taking place in India, and recognising these facts to decide their future policy. His right hon friend the Secretary of State for India many years ago wrote a life of Burke in which there was one sentence which ran—
    "The lesson of the Warren Hastings impeachment had been taught with sufficiently expressive force. It was that Asiatics have rights, Europeans obligations, and that the authority of the English Legislative is not more certainly a trust for the benefit of this country than is the dominion of the English in India a trust for the inhabitants of India."
    818
    Sixty years ago Macaulay said from his place in this House these memorable words—
    "The destinies of our Indian Empire are covered with thick darkness. It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system until it has outgrown our system; that by good government we may educate our subjects with a capacity for better government; that having become instructed in European knowledge they may in some future age demand European institutions. Whether such a day will come I know not, but never will I attempt to avert or retard it. Whenever it comes it will be the proudest day in England's history."
    In conclusion, he expressed his deep conviction that if we proceeded wisely and cautiously in this direction, any step which we took would not be one leading to separation, but would be another link in the chain binding the people of India to the throne and the people of this country. He begged to move.
    Sir H. COTTONseconded the Amendment, and as a new Member craved the indulgence which was always accorded by the House under such circumstances. He had, he said, at least one claim for trespassing so early upon the time of the House in that he had spent many long years of faithful service under the Crown in India, and had acquired an experience in the affairs of that country which entitled him to express an opinion for the consideration of the House. More than that, he had acquired in a degree which was rare, if not as he believed unprecedented, the confidence and trust of the Indian people, who had appointed him in no informal manner their mouthpiece in this House, especially on such occasions as the present, when their interests and matters in which they were vitally concerned were being discussed. Sympathy was the keynote of successful administration in India The people of India were the most grateful people in the world. It had often surprised him to observe how splendidly they had recognised on many occasions the services of Englishmen who had, indeed, done nothing for them beyond their mere duty. When Lord Curzon returned to India after the expiration of the first period of his

    819
    Vice-Royalty, he said to the natives of Bombay—
    "I pray the native community to believe in the good faith and high honour and the integrity of Englishmen."
    The people of India did place implicit trust in this country. There was also no question of the loyalty, absolutely none, of the educated classes of the people of India. With the permission of the House he would recall an incident which lately occurred during the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to India. He noted in this connection the expression in the King's most gracious Speech, in which he said—
    "The reception which the Prince and Princess of Males have met with from all classes has been most gratifying to me, and I trust their visit will tend to strengthen among my subjects in India the feeling of loyalty to the Crown and attachment to this country."
    Those words were true. The result of the visit had been to strengthen that feeling of attachment and loyalty which the people of India felt and have always felt towards England. A gentleman whose name would be unknown to this House, but who had for forty years been one of the leaders of the party of advanced thought—the party which had urged reforms on the Government, had unsparingly criticised men and measures, and was regarded with suspicion by the late administration—was brought into contact with His Royal Highness and, somewhat to his surprise, introduced to him. He fell upon his knees and with folded hands, after the Oriental manner, in faltering accents protested loyalty and devotion to the Crown and this country. That action on the part of one who had been unjustly charged with disloyalty was a very remarkable one, because it was the strongest evidence of the goodwill and loyalty which lay at the heart of the educated Indian people. The Indian people were loyal and were grateful for the education with which they had been endowed, and for the liberty they enjoyed; and they were grateful for their immunity from invasion. But that gratitude was tempered by the feeling that the pledges held out to them by the late Queen Victoria in her Proclamation and by men in exalted positions, had not been fulfilled. The position of India now
    820
    was different from what it was a generation or two previously. The people had acquired aspirations and hoped to take an active and dominant part in the administration and government of their country; they had now reached the parting of the ways. We had given education to the people of India, and it was impossible now to go on indefinitely refusing the concessions they demanded. Year by year we had been turning out from the universities men with the best education we could give, engendering in their minds western habits of thought and kindling in their hearts many aspirations. The duty of administration in India was a comparatively easy one. It was easy to administer the affairs of a docile and subject people. There was no country—and he poke from long experience, having been charged with the administration of a province—more easy to administer than India, because the people were so docile, law-abiding and amenable, but something more than mere administration was wanted now. Instead of merely administering provinces, the Government would have now to raise India, under our sway, into a great Empire, foster and protect the patriotic tendencies of the people, and to exercise that quality of statesmanship which the late John Bright in a memorable speech described as "foreseeing." It was necessary not only to appreciate the changes that had taken place but to prepare for further changes. Lord Ripon was the most benevolent and popular Viceroy that India had ever seen. He justly urged on behalf of a scheme of local self-government that it would be an instalment of political education. The period of Lord Ripon was the golden age of Indian reformers, and he was supported by some of the ablest of English administrators, in particular by Sir Evelyn Baring, now Lord Cromer, who had never wavered from the views he expressed more than twenty years ago on behalf of enlarging the liberties of the Indian people and by the present Clerk of this House. Under Lord Ripon and his able and sympathetic advisers education was encouraged, liberties fostered, and the foundation of Indian nationality firmly laid. They had read in the columns of The Times that we must wearily retrace our steps

    821
    and devote ourselves to educating the Indians in character and common-sense; that then, and not till then, could we admit them into the politecture of self-government; that we must wait until generation after generation of educated Indians had come and gone. This was but the vapouring of reaction; all this was canting sentiment. A system of government which deliberately excluded the people from power was more efficacious in depressing their character than all our laws and school books could be in elevating it. British officials in India had a great and unexampled sphere of work before them. But, however great might be their energy and activity, it counted as dross if they lacked the higher genius of training the people by making them work for themselves, of evoking their powers by affording them opportunities for their exercise, and of raising them from a condition of mere passive subjection to a capacity for the discharge of higher responsibilities. No system of administration could be progressive or beneficial which did not foster the self-reliance of the people and encourage their aspirations to realise their destiny through their own exertions. They had known what it was in England to witness a policy of re-action They had passed through some seventeen years during which many reactionary measures had been forced on a reluctant people. The echo of this reaction had extended to India, and, in the terms of the Amendment, it had excited widespread dissatisfaction and unrest, which was a source of danger in India, and, which could not but be regarded with great apprehension. He would summarise the reactionary tendencies to which he had referred, and which had gone on for the last ten years or more. They had seen legislation designed to curtail the liberty of the Press and speech; they had seen a crusade against so-called sedition, which was wisely allowed to die out; they had witnessed an attempt to abolish trial by jury, which fortunately failed; they had seen blows dealt at local self-government, especially in Calcutta, where, in total disregard of repeated and emphatic expressions of public opinion, a longstanding and successful system of representative municipal administration
    822
    had been swept away. They had witnessed the open declaration of race disqualification for public offices, a general trend of policy to exclude the children of the soil from positions of trust and responsibility, and to deny them the opportunities of acquiring the qualifications necessary in the posts monopolised by Englishmen. They had seen the substitution of nomination for appointments in the place of competitive examinations. They had seen a policy of knitting together still more tightly the bonds of official control over departments of education. These and other similar measures of a reactionary or retrograde tendency had galvanised the people into a condition of dissatisfaction and unrest. But all these measures might not have led to the condition of affairs which now prevailed in India. They had culminated in the measure known as the partition of Bengal. There was an old history attaching to the partition. It began so long ago as 1892, when it was proposed to separate a portion of the province and add it to Assam, on the ground that it was desirable that the whole of the north-east frontier of India should be placed under one administration. Not much came of that at the time, but in 1896, when he was himself at the head of the administration of Assam this question came up again, and on behalf of the province he agreed to the proposal that the control over the wild and savage tribes on the north-east frontier should be transferred from Bengal to Assam, but he gave good reasons for objecting to any transfer of what were called the regulation portions of the Province. His arguments prevailed, and nothing was done so long as he remained in India. But in December, 1903, certain proposals were put forward for dividing the province of Bengal—for annexing a considerable portion of the regulation districts to Assam. As soon as the proposal was put forward it was met with a perfect tornado of opposition. Meetings were held everywhere, memorials were submitted, and the whole country-side was roused. Lord Curzon then visited the affected districts, and made three speeches in different places, in which he endeavoured to subdue the agitation, but at the same time he adumbrated a much larger scheme of

    823
    partition—one which proposed to divide Bengal in a more decisive manner than had hitherto been contemplated. These proposals, far from palliating, further excited the feeling in the country and protests continued without stint or stay, but no official—no public—utterance was ever made in India intimating to the people of the country what was definitely proposed. All the deliberations that took place were behind the back of the people. It was not till February, 1905, that a despatch was sent to His Majesty's Secretary of State. The people of India had no idea of what was contained in the despatch. He happened to be in India revisiting the country at that time, and he well remembered the fever of excitement which prevailed with regard to the policy which the Government of India intended to follow. In the Legislative Council questions were poured in. No answer was given. Memorials were addressed to the Government, but no reply was received. It was thought by a credulous people that the Government were actually prepared in deference to public opinion to abandon the scheme of partition which had been so injudiciously proposed. Vain hope! This despatch was sent, and after due delay the late Secretary of State for India replied to it on June 9th, and very soon after the arrival of this despatch telegrams appeared in the papers intimating that His Majesty's Ministers had approved of the partition of Bengal. Then all the outbreak burst forth again, There were public meetings—the largest, the most influential, the most enthusiastic, he supposed, that had ever been held in India, to protest against what had been done—done behind the people's backs, in the dark. And then the Government of India published a resolution of July 19th indicating the steps which it had been resolved on to take in regard to the division of Bengal. Further protests went on in India, and it was with reference to this agitation that the debate, which his hon. friend who moved this Amendment referred to, took place in this House. He listened to the debate on that occasion, though not on the floor of this House, and certainly the impression left on his mind was
    824
    the same as that which was shared by his hon. friend, and after hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, he certainly understood that Mr. Brodrick's reply gave a definite pledge that until the House was in possession of the facts of the case, and could consider the question from both sides, no further steps would be taken to press on the partition of Bengal. They all knew that no notice whatever was taken by the late Secretary of State of the debate in this House, and as early as September 1st a proclamation was issued in India stating that all the present arrangements regarding the partition were definitely and finally settled, and that the partition would take place on October 16th, and this was promptly followed by special legislation at Simla—a most unusual step, because legislation at Simla ordinarily took place only when uncontested, uncontentious matter was under consideration. Here was a question which had aroused Indian feeling to a degree unparalleled within his experience of the country, and the Government of India actually proceeded to legislation at Simla when not a single Indian Member was present in Council. He hoped he had given some indication of the strong feeling which prevailed in India. There had been many meetings to protest and many telegrams had been despatched to the Secretary of State for India. These meetings had been held in almost every village of the province, and never in the history of India had there been such evidence of public feeling as there had been in regard to this partition. All classes of the community were represented in these protests. He might be told that the Mahommedans had not joined with the Hindoos. To a partial extent that was true, but the great majority of the Mahommedan community were absolutely at one with the Hindoos in this matter. This was not a matter in which it had been found possible to arouse any sectarian animosity. It was alleged, and he hoped it was not true, that the policy of the Indian Government had been to create and to encourage these differences of opinion between Hindoos and Mahommedans. He could not believe that there was any foundation for such a charge. There were many

    825
    traces of this policy at the present moment, and certainly everything was being done and pressed forward to bring the Mahommedans into evidence as against the Hindoos, but that movement had failed because the great mass of the Mahommedans were at one with the Hindoos. He might point out that this agitation was not confined to the educated classes of the country, but all classes were affected by it. The shopkeepers and the agriculturists alike were affected, and this agitation had found its way into the heart of the nation. There never was a movement so thoroughly popular in India of its character. It was idle to say that it was dying out, because it was not. During the past month the agitation had been stronger than ever. On January 31st last one of the most sober and distinguished of Bengalee gentlemen, who had received the title of Rajah, when he addressed a crowded audience, said—
    "How could we talk of peace when there was no peace?"
    Those words echoed the feelings and sentiments of all present at that meeting, and indeed of the whole of Bengal. What was the reason put forward for this partition? They were always given an administrative reason, and it was that the province of Bengal was too large and possessed too great a population for one man to administer. He admitted that the Government of Bengal was a very heavy and arduous charge. Upon this point he could speak with as much authority and as much knowledge as most people, for although he had not himself held the high dignity of Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, he had been Under-Secretary and Chief Secretary to seven successive Lieutenant-Governors, and he had been more closely associated with the Government of Bengal for a long period than any other officer of his time in India. Consequently he could speak with some authority upon this question of excessive work and excessive responsibility imposed upon the Lieutenant-Governor. He did not hesitate to say that the work of a Lieutenant-Governor at the present time was actually lighter than it was twenty or thirty years ago. The reason of this was that the whole country had changed during those thirty years. It was nearly forty years ago since he first entered the Bengal
    826
    Civil Service, and in those days the difficulties of moving about the country, of getting in touch with the people, of consulting officers and others responsible for the administration in different parts of the country, were almost insup rable. A Lieutenant-Governor had to spend a great deal of time in travelling at great personal discomfort to himself in all parts of the province. Now they had the telegraph and railways in every direction, and they could go in a few hours' time distances which formerly took two, three, or even four days. He thought this was a sufficient explanation by itself as to why the work and responsibility was lighter to-day than it used to be. He admitted that new interests had arisen, and that in other ways there might be more to do for a Lieutenant-Governor, but taken altogether the work was really less. It had never been found that any member of the Bengal Civil Service, who had been promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-Governor—that was to say any member of the service who had had previous service in Bengal—had ever complained of excessive work, and the complaint had always come from members of the Civil Service who had been transferred to Bengal from other parts of India. It had been too much the habit to appoint to the Lieutenant-Governorship officers belonging to other services. That practice did not prevail in other provinces so much, but those men who had been so transferred to Bengal were the only men who complained of being overworked. No doubt they were overworked, and they learned the work at great sacrifice and at the cost of the people. They frittered away their time in petty details and small matters of administration which ought to have been left to their subordinates, but which they found it necessary to take up in order to learn something about the country over whose affairs it was their place to exercise authority. So much for the argument of overwork, but the real reason for the partition of Bengal was, he regretted to say, of a very different character. It was no mere administrative reason that lay at the root of the partition scheme. That scheme was part and parcel of a policy intended to destroy political responsibility and to crush the patriotism of the Indian people. The Bengalee race, with

    827
    all their faults, were the principal section of the community who had inspired the new national patriotism in which was centred the hope and destiny of their country. This partition was designed to weaken the Bengalee ascendancy. The object of the partition was to strike a blow at an intelligence and enterprise which had taken a form which the officials did not approve of. Upon this point he would quote again the words from the despatch of February, 1905, which had been quoted by his hon. friend—
    "It cannot be for the lasting good of any country that public opinion, or what passes as public opinion, should be manufactured by a comparatively small number of people at a single centre and then disseminated for universal consumption."
    These words explained clearly enough the political object which the Government of India had in view. He had heard this partition described by a right hon. Gentleman who was lately the Secretary for India—he alluded to Lord George Hamilton, who personally he much regretted was not still in the House of Commons, and therefore unable to take part in this debate—as a "mere duplication of administrative machinery." There was no foundation whatever for such an assertion. What was a duplication of administrative machinery? What did it mean? In the House of Commons it would mean that they would have two Speakers instead of one, for that would be a duplication of their administrative machinery. But what had been done in Bengal was to create two separate Governments, with separate executive powers, separate legislative power, separate laws, and a separate administration. How they could possibly call that a duplication of administrative machinery passed his comprehension altogether. It had been compared to the division of the Ridings of Yorkshire, where no separate governments on separate administration existed. A more accurate comparison would be the division of Scotland into two parts under separate Viceroys. Imagine what would be the result if any such proposals were put forward! But they have not only been put forward but actually carried into effect in Bengal. The result had been the irritation which he had de-
    828
    scribed. The wish of the people of Bengal was that the old state of things should be restored, and that they might still be placed under one Government. He confessed that he shared the feeling expressed by his hon. friend, that practical considerations would render any such arrangement extremely difficult. It was very difficult indeed to undo what had once been done, and that was an experience which His Majesty's Ministers were having in more than one direction. It was not easy to undo the partition of Bengal, but it was possible to meet the feeling in India by some modification of the existing arrangement which would proceed along the line of least resistance. He hoped the Government would give that proposal their most earnest consideration. Now there was a new Lieutenant-Governor, new commissioners, a new board of revenue, new secretaries, new heads of departments. A great many agreeable appointments had been created, the cancelling of which would be extremely unpleasant to the incumbents. He went so far as to say that it was almost impracticable, all things considered, to abolish the partition of the Province. The proposal he had to make was that Bengal proper should be left alone, that there should be no partition of the Bengali-speaking races of the province, and that in order to provide for the new officials there should be created a new province in the western direction of Bengal, establishing as the capital of that province the ancient city of Patna, and including within that province the whole of Behar and Chota Nagpore. This would comprise an area of 80,000 miles and a population of well over 30,000,000. The whole of this would be practically a Hindustani-speaking area. There was a wide difference between Behar and Bengal. One was Hindustani and the other Bengali. Possibly that definition would convey no impression or meaning to the House. It meant that the people spoke different languages, that they did not intermarry, and that their food and diet were different. The Hindustanis were not a rice-eating people like the inhabitants of Bengal. He urged the Government to leave Bengal alone and undisturbed and that the paraphernalia

    829
    of the new Government should be transferred from Dacca, which was Bengali to the very roots, to Behar. He further suggested that it might be convenient to add to Behar the province and division of Benares, which most closely resembled Behar. In fact there was no difference whatever between the natives of Benares and Behar. In that case the population would be no less than 42,000,000, which would make a new large central province which would be known as Behar. Bengal would consist of the Bengali-speaking people, and to it it would be necessary to add Assam. Assam was the province of which he was chief commissioner for six years, and he thought he could speak with some authority when he said it was desirable that it should go back again to Bengal, to which it formerly belonged. It was separated in 1874, and if the truth was to be told the separation had never been a very great success. In order to meet the special conditions of that province, with its wide frontier and various tribes, which required special knowledge, and in order to deal also with the large tea industry which was in Assam, it was desirable that the commissioner of that province should be vested with special powers—such powers as were to be found working advantageously in other parts of India where somewhat similar conditions existed. He referred particularly to the province of Scinde, where the Governor of Bombay delegated his powers by statute and was relieved practically of direct responsibility for the administration of that province, only the more important and larger questions coming before him for his consideration. That was the proposal he had to make in regard to the new province. He was convinced, however, that the desire in India in favour of the appointment of a Governor and Council for the old province would not be modified by the mere acceptance of the proposals he had put forward. The appointment of a Governor and Council in Bengal had always been contemplated. Under the Statute of 1853 a temporary arrangement was made, which was to prevail only until the Governor and Council should be appointed. He had intended to deal with the reasons why the appointment of a Governor and Council was necessary, but having already trespassed unduly on the time of the
    830
    House, he would not do so now. Perhaps he would have other opportunities of discussing the matter with the representatives of the Government in the India Office. It was a most important question, and he trusted it would receive most careful consideration.
    Amendment moved—
    "At end of the Question to add the words, 'But we humbly beg lo represent to Your Majesty that this House regards with concern the wide-spread dissatisfaction and unrest of India due to the recent policy of the Government, culminating in the partition of Bengal, and is of opinion that such modifications should be made in the form of administration in Bengal as will tend to allay the existing discontent; and we further beg to represent to Your Majesty that the reasonable demands of the Indian people for a larger share in the administration of their affairs should receive the consideration of the Government.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
    Question proposed—"That those words be there added."
    SIR J. JARDINEsaid I he had no intention of referring to the matters relating to Bengal, having little official or local knowledge of the questions connected with the partition of the province. He would deal chiefly with the second part of the Amendment, and in doing so he would endeavour to say nothing which would embarrass a sympathetic Government or introduce contentious matter to which hon. Members opposite could object, for he thought in a new Parliament he might quote what was said by an eminent man some years ago, namely, that they were all Members of Parliament for India no matter where they sat. He thought it had been conceded time after time in this House and in the country by both of the great political Parties that the natives of India should be employed in the administration of the country as much as possible and as far as was consistent with good government. He need not argue that principle this afternoon. He dared say hon. Members had heard that the more they gave the educated Indian natives the more they would want. No doubt that was the case, but it was not alone among Indians that this result was found. It was, naturally enough, the effect of an education extending over a hundred years. It was also reasonable as the value of the

    831
    services of the natives of India had been proved in every department of the Government; and, coming particularly to higher matters of statesmanship, it was, he believed, expedient and statesmanlike for the Gov eminent to lend a sympathetic ear to these aspirations. When one thought of the numerous languages and dialects of India, its various castes, its manifold customs and manners, its different systems of property and hereditary rights, it had to be conceded that what is needed in our administration at all times is competent knowledge and general sympathy. A distinguished Governor, Sir John Malcolm, had said that those responsible for pointing indiscriminate abuse at the people of India were usually deficient in a full knowledge of their language; that Europeans could never pretend to that familiarity with the native dialects such as native gentlemen possessed. He himself had been associated for years with native Indian judges in the High Courts, men of high reputation, great learning and versatile capacity. The same sort of persons were found in the Legislative Councils and would be of much usefulness if admitted into the Executive Government at the various Presidencies. In those Executive Councils the same qualifications would be valuable, learning in the law, knowledge of facts, power to adjudge on evidence, the understanding of native subordinates and their character, the familiarity with native aspirations and dislikes. There was another quality which they possessed which was very valuable, both in matters of justice and in administration—a talent which he believed made Scotsmen such acceptable Members of this House. They had the power of listening. People in India explained why the Government officials had been provided by a kind Providence with two ears; it was that there was one for the plaintiff and another for the defendant. He therefore supported the Amendment.
    MR. REESsaid he would not have interfered in the debate in so far as the question of the partition of Bengal was concerned, had he not thought it necessary that something should be said by some person conversant with India, and not taking the line of the hon. Member for East Nottingham. He
    832
    would not deny that there was a strong public opinion against this measure in Bengal, and that it had been exhibited in a legitimate manner in the Press and at public meetings. He went further, and admitted that there was a national feeling in Bengal which had grown up because it was believed that the existing system was of benefit to Bengal, the Bengalis, and Calcutta. He likewise admitted that the Chamber of Commerce of Calcutta—a body capable of expressing an opinion of great value—was opposed to this partition, and that that opinion was shared by the European Trades Association, although he did not understand that their objection was exceedingly strong or insuperable. But there was another class who were interested in this matter to whom the hon. Member for East Nottingham had not referred. He meant the planting class. He had made inquiry and had special means of finding out that the planting class were not averse from this measure. On the contrary, they approved of it. It was their interest that coolies should be obtained for labour in the tea-gardens; and he ventured to say that if the Bengal Government had erred in any way in this matter it was in that they had been protecting the coolies too much to their own disadvantage. For the coolies who had gone as labourers to the tea-gardens had taken the opportunities they had of acquiring land and settling in the neighbourhood of the gardens. That showed that they had been well-treated by the planters, who were just and generous employers of labour. It was said that the people of Bengal would never be satisfied until they had a Governor and a Council like Madras and Bombay. He had some knowledge of Presidency government, and believed the system to be so bad that it had only been possible to work it because the men were so good. Since the seat on the Council of the Commander-in-Chief had been abolished, the Governor might be in a minority for his whole term of five years. This was a system which had strained the abilities of Warren Hastings, and though it would ill become him to say that the Presidency Governors were not able men—indeed he held exactly the opposite opinion—yet it might safely be assumed, that they had

    833
    not been, and would not be, superior to Warren Hastings. The hon. Member for East Nottingham had made a claim which he was bound to deprecate; viz., that he represented the people of India. Hon. Members in this House were only representatives of their constituencies, and any other position that was given to them would be entirely due to the knowledge of the subject under discussion and their handling of it. He would put against the experience of the hon. Member for East Nottingham, as Secretary and Under - Secretary in Bengal, the experience of Sir Charles Elliott, who had been Lieut.-Governor of Bengal, and an exceedingly capable Governor who said it was the one office he had held in India in regard to which he was unable to say that he had done his daily duty as he would have liked to have done it. It was impossible to adopt the opinion of any one officer on this subject and the officer whose experience had been in one province was less likely to form a correct judgment than one who bad filled many offices in many provinces. He held it unnecessary and unwise to discuss this measure here, because of the use which would be made of the discussion in India. In common with the mover and seconder he wished that the matter had not been pursued until Papers had been laid, and the way in which the matter had throughout been conducted no doubt exacerberated the feelings of those concerned. It was also unusual that the measure should have been passed at Simla, but however carried, it had become an accomplished fact. The opinion of the planters deserved, however, the special consideration of this House. They had never been guilty of any cruelty to their employees, or of any conduct towards them of which complaint could be made. The measure might have been carried in a somewhat more public manner, but it was possible that if it had been communicated to those who were concerned there would have been difficulty in passing it. He did not say it was hurried through for that reason, but he thought that the feelings of the Bengalese in this matter did not receive due consideration. In discussing the further employment of the natives of India he did not want to indicate to-day what particular offices should be given them.
    834
    That seemed as futile as any attempt to carve India into new provinces this afternoon in this House. But he thought more might be done in that direction. The Indians made most admirable judges and served on the benches of the High and other Courts with the greatest distinction. For his part he should like to see them made district judges in larger numbers. Greek philosophers and sophists had been introduced into the House already, and a Greek poet had said that a man was a fool who did not know how much the half was better than the whole. He did not believe that he would have excluded from the application of that principle speeches upon the Indian question. He thanked the House for having listened to him so patiently, and trusted that when any question involving his constituency arose they would be equally indulgent with him, as the Welsh, Free Church, Liberal and larger half thereof, had for many years been inarticulate and unrepresented.
    MR. C. J. O'DONNELLrose to support the Amendment. Like the preceding speaker he had been an officer in the service of the Bengal Government, and he was extremely pleased to hear the way in which the people of that country had been referred to. A kindlier or a juster people did not exist, and, moreover, Bengal had the most numerous population of any state under the Crown of England—some 50,000,000 people. The better-class inhabitants were highly educated, and this country owed a great debt of gratitude to the Province, for during the 100 years in which Great Britain had been building up its power in India, Bengal had been the milch cow from which we had drawn our resources. We were therefore under in obligation to Bengal and should listen to the representations which it made. These representations appeared to have been made in a very constitutional form. There had been a protest which had rarely come from any country. He associated himself with the hon. Member or East Nottingham in his remark that the recent Government had shown hostility towards these people. That hostility began within three months of Lord Curzon's government. When the

    835
    noble Lord came into power the rights of the Government in the municipality of Calcutta, were protected by twenty-five nominated members, while fifty were elected to represent the wealth, the commerce, and the intelligence of the town. This body had been doing its work well, and it was not till Lord Elgin's time that any question about it arose. Lord Elgin examined into the matter and came to the conclusion that that body was working well, though it was necessary to give more powers to the chairman. But Lord Curzon came in and destroyed the body and reduced the elected members from fifty to twenty-five, so that the popular representatives—merchants, capitalists, and landlords—were always in a minority. A Committee was appointed to examine into the question of rating, but it was a strange fact that not one of the twenty-five elected members were on that Committee. The system of education which had grown up was destroyed and the native members of the University were driven out. While the men of wealth were insulted, the men of education were wronged. The important point was that everybody outside of the Government was hostile to this measure. When the Lieutenant Governorship of Bengal became vacant there was one man for that appointment and that was the hon. Member for East Nottingham. He was, however, undesirable, because he found in Assam the coolies in the tea-gardens were not well used. He himself had had a great deal to do with the supervising of the enlistment of these coolies and knew they were not well treated. The hon. Member for East Nottingham drew attention to this fact and he was put aside. Another gentleman of great experience and ability, Sir James Bourdillon, was opposed to the partition; he was allowed to hold the appointment for a year and he was turned out and Sir Andrew Fraser put in. He had never been a single day in Bengal, and naturally found the task of governing that great province an extremely heavy one. His (Mr. O'Donnell's) knowledge of this question was derived from a twenty years' stay in Bengal. His last appointment was that of a commissioner of a division with 12,000,000 inhabitants, a division that had been taken from Bengal without
    836
    any one being consulted. It seemed to him that the principal argument in this case was that of population. There could not be any argument more erroneous. The difficulty of the government of a country was not a question of population. It was more difficult to administer government to 1,000,000 Englishmen than to 50,000,000 Bengalese. Practically the whole population were docile peasants. Another point urged by the Government was that there had been such a great increase in the population. That also was incorrect. There had been four censuses taken, and he had carried out the third, and he had come to the conclusion that the increase of population was due to the better numeration of the people. But even so, such an argument was ridiculous. The population of England increased threefold during the last century, but nobody had ever heard of partitioning England up into different governments. There was a point to which he did not willingly refer, but it had been referred to by the hon. Member for East Nottingham, and that was that in his opinion this measure had been carried out, not for administrative, but for political reasons, the reason being to break up the power of Bengal and divide it into two. Perhaps Members of this side of the House did net often read the Morning Post, but a few weeks ago the correspondent of that newspaper, who was travelling with the Prince of Wales in India, took up this question of the partition of Bengal and wrote—
    "A study of the subject from that aspect forces upon me the conviction that it was rather a reply to that advocacy than for administrative reasons."
    The advocacy referred to was that of the popular leaders. The correspondent went on to say—
    "The Government desired to strike a blow at intelligence and enterprise which had taken a form of which it did not approve."
    He would take up the time of the House no longer than to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India that it was quite possible to do away with what had been done, and that he fully associated himself with the advice given by the hon. Member for East Nottingham in regard to the erection of

    837
    Behar and Chota Nagpur into a separate province.
    MR. T. HART-DAVIESsaid he did not propose to detain the House at any length, but there were one or two aspects on which he desired to make some observations. He did not know much of Bengal, although he had been there and had friends there, but he could assure the House that what the hon. Member for East Nottingham had said as to the effect of this partition had not been an exaggeration. He knew that in the opinion of the natives this was a deep-laid plan on the part of Lord Curzon and the late Government to diminish the effect of the Government's previous attitude to the people of Bengal. He was not sure whether that was the case or not, or whether that Machiavellian policy was framed by the late Government, but he was rather of opinion it was as part of the wild policy that prompted the late Government to go in for such things as Chinese labour in South Africa and the Somaliland adventure without seeing the result which must accrue. But the result was the same. It was, he thought, unfortunate that a large and peaceful population should be struck at in this way. The Government had a right to do it, but they ought to remember what Burke said: that it was not a question of what it was our legal rights to do, but what it was to our interest to do. The other part of the Amendment raised rather a wider question than any hon. Member had dealt with that evening. People often spoke of the unchanging East, but he did not suppose that any country had changed more during the last thirty years than India. There was a new spirit, a new feeling there. We had a large population now trained by western education, which had been trained in western ideas, and it was absolutely impossible for us to go on refusing to give them an adequate share of the government of their own country. It was time that something was done. It was no exaggeration to say we were now living in the beginning of a great world-crisis. A new feeling had arisen over the whole of the East, a feeling which had attained its most extraordinary development in Japan, which would make the government of our
    838
    dependency of India a very anxious matter for many years to come. There would be difficulties in the way, but if we adopted this new spirit, and imbued the administration of India with it, he did not see why our rule in India should not continue in undiminished splendour through the ages to come in the dim and distant future, and of which no man could see the end. But we had to recognise the new spirit, and if we did not, the circumstances would be such as we should hardly like to think of. It was a good thing in the opinion of many that the affairs of India were in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India. It had always been the curse of the administration of India that too much power had been placed in the hands of officials, and that they had been unable to respond to the aspirations of the people. It was a question that could rightly be dealt with now, and which ought to be taken up at once. We ought to associate the people more with the government of the country, and if we did, and based our government of that Empire on local self-government, he did not see why our government of India should not continue through the centuries.
    MR. SMEATONsaid he had no intention of voting for this Amendment if it was pressed to a division, because he was perfectly confident that the Government, with a great opportunity before it and a long prospect of power in front of it, would do justice to Bengal and to India. At the same time he desired to associate himself with much that had been said by hon. Members who had just spoken. He deplored, in common with all well-wishers of India, the indecent haste and tortuous methods with which this measure of partition was hurried on; but not having lived in Bengal, he did not feel justified in giving an opinion one way or the other with regard to it. He deplored the unfortunate impression which had been undoubtedly created, not only in Bengal, but throughout India, that one object of the partition was to destroy and break up the national and political solidarity of Bengal. The House had heard the question of the partition discussed from both points of

    839
    view. Both the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs and the hon. Member for East Nottingham evidently held briefs. The latter had asserted with some justification that he held a brief for the people of Bengal. He thought, however, that the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs was hardly justified in attacking the hon. Member for East Nottingham in the way he had done, because the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs belonged to a province which they were accustomed to call "Benighted," where opinions on the important subject under discussion were not likely to be illuminating or instructive. As regarded Bengal he (Mr. Smeaton) had little personal knowledge. His service had been rather in the northern northwestern, and central parts, and in the far east of Burmah, so that he could claim a fair acquaintance with the feelings of the people of India as a whole. His object in rising was chiefly to say a few words upon the second part of the Amendment—
    "And we further beg to represent to Your Majesty that the reasonable demands of the Indian people for a larger share in the administration of their affairs should receive the consideration of the Government."
    He had had very valuable opportunities of consulting many representative members of the best educated Indian people all over the continent, and he could say with a certain amount of confidence that the real object of the people of India, as represented by their leaders, was not so much to obtain offices under the Crown—those offices were showered upon them constantly. What they wanted was to get a hand in the control of the policy of India. Their point was—and it was a very vital one—that expenditure and taxation in India were excessive. Expenditure and taxation depended on policy, and therefore they claimed to have some share, subject, of course, to obvious limitations, in directing the policy of their country. It was a common remark, chiefly in the Tory Press, that it was a misnomer to speak of the "Indian people"—that the Indian people had never spoken collectively, and that the idea of anything like a body of Indian public opinion was absurd; that in fact "Indian public opinion" was a myth. That was a grave misapprehension. The people of
    840
    India were very easily moved in the mass when aroused by any sentiment, anger, or affection. They must remember the extraordinary outburst of feeling all over India in thousands of villages when Her Majesty the late Queen was in danger of her life, the prayers that were offered in those villages, and then the deep grief that was exhibited all over the continent when her death was announced. He would point to another instance. The whole of India was aroused unitedly when this country sent its great contribution of relief during the great famine five years ago. He was himself a witness of the universal feeling of gratitude for that help. One more instance—of a sinister kind. In the dark days of the Indian mutiny, fifty years ago, when there were no railways or telegraph, the whole of northern India rose as if by a mysterious telepathy. It was nonsense to say that the Indian people had no collective views when they were moved, and he asserted that they were now moved, and that what they claimed they claimed through their leaders collectively. The one great grievance they felt was that whereas they were taxed beyond their taxable capacity they did not feel that they got value for the money they paid. They were over-governed. They did not believe the government was the system best suited to the condition of the country; and it was far too expensive. Although, it seemed paradoxical, he had no hesitation in saying that there was no country under the sun more democratic than India. India had been over and over again conquered, but the villages never sacrificed their ancient democratic institutions, and no conquest ever suppressed them. He recalled a remarkable instance of this feature of the Indian people. When he went to Agra at the request of the Governor to ascertain if the citizens would accept the octroi system of taxation, the people sent emissaries all over the surrounding districts, and their elected representatives afterwards met him and protested against the introduction of the octroi system, pointing out that it was a tax on imported goods which would raise prices, diminish, consumption, and disorganise trade. The proposed system consequently had to be

    841
    abandoned. They wanted Free Trade, and they got it. Another instance of the democratic disposition of the people was furnished in Burmah, immediately after the annexation. He recalled going up the Irrawaddy immediately after the annexation to endeavour to discover how they could establish peace within some fifty or sixty villages. He went to one village and asked that emissaries should be sent all over the country they represented to obtain an authority with whom he could deal. There instantly assembled a little Parliament of sixty or seventy, who elected a lady as their representative authority, and proceeded to discuss and arrange matters under her leadership, so that their democracy extended to women's suffrage. Was it to be wondered that the spirit of democracy had penetrated the villages, and had been enlarged into districts, which had extended into provinces, and then over the entire country? It seemed to him that the time had come for a Liberal Government to recognise these remarkable facts, and to endeavour not only to convince themselves, but the sceptical among the people of this country and this House, that a great national feeling and aspiration did really exist in India for a share in controlling the policy of the country, and thereby its taxation and expenditure, which they considered to be excessive. Therefore he respectfully suggested that the Government might send a Royal Commission to India to satisfy itself whether or not this national aspiration existed to the extent he had described; and, if it did, what system might be adopted to meet this aspiration; and whether there were not thousands of loyal, educated Indians capable of being employed as the elected representatives of the Indian people in a new form of government to correspond with those aspirations. It was of very happy augury that after seven years of pomp and pageantry, extravagance and misrule, there also had expired a Government which was represented by empty benches opposite, and that the Liberal Party should now be in a position to bestow on India the foundation principles of the Liberal policy—peace, retrenchment, and reform.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): This Parliament presents a considerable number already of new features; and it is a new feature, and one, I think, on which we ought to congratulate ourselves, that this afternoon we have had six maiden speeches in succession from Gentlemen who have shown themselves possessors of a competent knowledge of Indian subjects and were eager to express the views which they represented. I, for one, have no quarrel with my hon. friend the mover of this Amendment. Though I am not one of those who desire that the House of Commons should be always interfering with the complex and difficult affairs of India, yet I think a debate of this kind can do nothing but good to this country and also to our interests in India. Upon the partition of Bengal I do not propose to detain the House very long. I wish very much for many reasons that my right hon. friend Mr. Brodrick was in the House, because he knows better that I can possibly know from the Papers what was in the minds of the India Office and what was also in the minds of the Indian Government of that day. So far as my information goes, I cannot assent to the views of those Gentlemen who have said that the movement for the partition of Bengal arose from political motives and from the desire to repress the expression of political opinion. Whether the original motives may not have taken on some colour of that kind I am not in a position to affirm or deny. But I think my hon. friend the Member for East Nottingham almost admitted that there was a case for the redistribution of the boundaries of the Province of Bengal in the amount of work laid upon the shoulders of the Governor of that province. My hon. friend quoted in another connection Lord George Hamilton, and I am sure we all extremely regret the absence of the noble Lord from our debates. Lord George Hamilton had a longer experience at the India Office as Secretary of State than I think anybody now living. Lord George in December last said that, so far as he could recollect, with scarcely an exception, he had never come into contact with a Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal

    843
    who, when pressed, did not at once admit that the work he had to perform was almost an undue strain upon his strength. There was ample evidence that the labours of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal were enormous. That is not saying that the specific redistribution of the administration of Bengal was the wisest that could be devised. The hon. Member for East Nottingham produced his own scheme to-night, and one or two other Gentlemen have made suggestions. But this is not the moment for a technical examination of the precise way in which this redistribution of the administrative areas was carried out. It had been said that it would have been better if we sent as Governor-General some successful Gentleman from the House of Commons with a council, and some think that that would have been the best plan. Others, Supported by the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, thought no more fortunate or happy system of government could be devised judging from the experience of the past. I do not say for a moment that I share that judgment, although I know that it was held and urged by Lord Curzon himself in the discussion of this subject. I take it, then, that some redistribution of areas was advisable. The word "partition" I am afraid is rather misleading, and we are apt to think of Poland and other nefarious transactions of that kind. I should be very sorry to admit that this was a partition in that sense. But it was, and remains, undoubtedly an administrative operation which went wholly and decisively against the wishes of most of the people concerned. It had been said, and unfortunately by an important person in India, that this demonstration of opposition in Bengal was "machine-made opinion," that it was the work of political wire-pullers and political agitators. I have often heard that kind of allegation made before. Governments are apt, when an inconvenient storm of public opinion arises, to lay it at the door of political wire-pullers and agitators. There are, however, Indian officials of great weight and authority who entirely put aside that allegation or insinuation, and who argue that these Calcutta agitators would have had no response from the people they
    844
    were appealing to if there had not been in the minds of the people a distinct feeling that they were going to suffer a great wrong and inconvenience; and, although no doubt the agitators could form and disseminate these views, yet these sentiments and views existed quite independently of any wire-pulling or agitation. That is my own conclusion derived from reading the papers. But the redistribution of Bengal is now a settled fact, and every speech that has been made this afternoon has laid stress upon and given weight to that conclusion. At this moment there is a great subsidence—it may be only temporary—but there is a subsidence of the feeling against the redistribution; and in face of that it would be very unreasonable to ask the Government to start afresh to redistribute the areas and incur what, to my mind, would be a new outlay of taxation. As my hon. friend says, India has just had seven years of pomp and pageantry. The time has not yet come to pass any verdict upon the great administration of Lord Curzon. Some find the energy of it feverish; others find it glorious. At some future date the historian of that time will be able to pronounce much more effectively than we can what Lord Curzon's administration has effected and what not. But none of us will deny his fine powers, his great gifts, and his supreme devotion to what he believes to be the public interests. But my own view is that, at the end of his great period, India should now be allowed to take breath. Therefore, we should now move very slowly. I do not think it would be a desirable or even a defensible movement to attempt to reconstruct Bengal or to restore the old distribution of power in that area. My hon. friend who moved the Amendment suggested there should be an increase in the number of officers on the executive council, an increase in the Legislative Council, that there should be three natives added to the Council of the Secretary of State, and that there should be forthwith an advisory board set up in Calcutta.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: No, an advisory board should be set up, not in Calcutta, but in all the districts of India for purposes of consultation. My remarks had nothing to do with Calcutta
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I would point out that those advisory boards would have no responsibility, that all these other changes would need an Act of Parliament, and I doubt whether good results would follow. Whether the partition was a wise thing or not when it was begun, I am bound to say that nothing was ever worse done so far as disregard of the feeling and opinion of the people is concerned. It is a fundamental principle in any Government in which Englishmen and Scotsmen are concerned that you are bound to consult and take into consideration all the opinions and even the prejudices of those affected. When the scheme was in the first place exhibited to the people of India it was exhibited bit by bit. The first proposal was in one direction to take certain areas, and the second proposal was an extension and alteration of that. A final scheme in which all these competitive efforts were summed up was never submitted to the judgment of any body in Bengal at all. The result of that was the raising of a storm by a plan which was never carried out, and the storm which had been raised raged with just as much violence when the final scheme came to be carried out. I think that is a matter which no defender of the late Government will really stand up for. Coming to the last and most important part, in some respects certainly the widest part of the Amendment, I do not think I need say much. I think I gather already that I need not at all assure hon. Gentlemen who represent Indian interests specially, and I need not assure the House, that so long as I have any responsibility for Indian affairs I shall not be likely to depart from those general principles of Liberalism—not in a Party sense, but in that sense in which both Parties, in my opinion, desire to see India governed. It seems to be sometimes forgotten that India has an ancient civilisation and that the people are not barbarians. The officials who have had most dealings with them admit, and not only admit but proclaim, that these people have in them admirable material upon which you may by and by—and in this case I do not at all object to the phrase "step by step"—build up a system under which they shall
    846
    have a far greater share than they now have in the government. When this Amendment was first put on the Paper, it urged that the Government should take the admission of the natives of India to a larger share in the administration into their immediate consideration. The Viceroy has been on his throne I think three months, and I have occupied my office a few weeks with the trivial interlude of a contested election. For me, therefore, to guarantee the immediate taking of this matter into consideration would, I think, hardly be reasonable, and I am glad that the word has disappeared from the Amendment. But I for one shall deprecate in the case of anybody with whom I have any influence any resort to that rather harsh, rather arrogant, and rather supercilious language towards the people of Bengal which has been used by some from whom I should not have expected it. In the whole field of government there has been enormous activity and energy, no doubt, during the last six or seven years—in education, public works, irrigation, railways, and in regard to the frontier. I am not going into the frontier question now. It was once said that the study of the Apocalypse either found a man mad or made him mad. I sometimes think when I hear these endless discussions about the frontier—not by responsible men, but by irresponsible men—that the north-west frontier is almost as prejudicial a field of study in creating this state of mind as the Apocalypse has been said to be. My own view can be expressed in a few sentences. Though the zeal of your officers—most honourable for them—for great public works has sometimes gone to excess, so far as I am concerned there will be no tendency to stay vigorous action on the part of the Government of India in the direction of works which are proved to be, or which there is good reason to expect will be, of a remunerative character. If you want security and strength in India one of your ways of getting it is to lighten taxation, and I shall look therefore in the direction of greater economy in order to lighten taxation. I respond with all the conviction I have in me to the appeal for sympathy. You may call it sentiment if you like, but a man is ill fitted for the

    847
    governing of otter men if he does not give a large place to the operation of sentiment.
    EARL PERCY: I desire to express my concurrence with the general conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman. No one I believe wishes to impugn the good faith of my right hon. friend the late Secretary of State for India, or to assert that he intended to mislead the House when he promised to lay Papers. The right hon. Gentleman has accused the late Government of some precipitancy in sanctioning this scheme, but I think he hardly makes the charge good. The original scheme was put forward at least three years ago, and it was largely owing to the public criticism with which that scheme was met that it was modified in very important particulars. Then the right hon. Gentleman said he was not aware of the precise motives which actuated the late Government in assenting to this policy—whether their object was to combat political agitation in Bengal. So far as I know, the only object they had in view was to secure administrative efficiency. The wonder to me is that the change which the Government of India proposed has been deferred so long. It is fifty years since Lord Dalhousie described the burden resting on the Government of Bengal as greater than any single man could be expected to bear. Since then the population has risen from 40,000,000 to 80,000,000, and Calcutta in point of population has become the second city of the empire. The demands made on the time and energies of the local government have grown greater and greater every year with the increasing complexity of the problems connected with the rapid expansion of industry, and the development of municipal activity among a people whose proneness to litigation is, I think, only equalled by their aptitude for political controversy and criticism, and the keenness with which they scrutinise every detail of administration. I can hardly imagine a more conclusive proof of the need for this change than the fact that owing to press of business the Lieutenant-Governor is unable to visit many of the districts under his charge more than once in the whole five years of his tenure of office. It being admitted that
    848
    some change was necessary, the late Government were confronted by the fact that only one alternative was possible to that recommended by the Viceroy, and that was the solution alluded to by some of the earlier speakers, namely, the adoption of the Presidency system in force in Bombay and Madras. There seem to be two conclusive reasons against the adoption of such an experiment. In the first place there is the great disparity of population in the three provinces. I speak from memory, but I think the population of Bombay is something like 20,000,000; Madras, 40,000,000, while the population of Bengal is at least double that amount. I doubt very much—it may be rash to say so—whether any one starting de novo with a tabula rasa would now devise the Presidency system as one ideally suited to the needs of Indian government. For what is that system? You send out a gentleman from England who has none of that initial or personal knowledge of the people over whom he is to rule, or of the problems he is expected to solve, which every Resident and Commissioner possesses. In order to correct that inevitable defect, you associate with him two members of the Civil Service whose nominal prestige is inferior, but whose practical control of affairs is as great as his own; you make the Governor in fact, a mere primus inter-pares in a triumvirate, with the result that instead of the sympathetic influence of a personality you have to content yourselves with the intangible authority of a bureaucracy. Now, defective as that system is in the old Presidencies, its transference to the province of Bengal would have been attended with peculiar drawbacks. Owing to the fixity of the land system in Bengal the civil servants there are deprived of one of the readiest means of coming into daily contact with the lives and interests of the people. Whoever is appointed Governor of Bengal must have had previous experience of Indian administration, and his colleagues of the Civil Service would merely serve to divide his authority and weaken his sense of responsibility. There is one very pertinent question which may be put to gentlemen who criticise the change, and that is, "What individual or class would be benefited by the retention

    849
    the old system?" I can imagine only three. The members of the legal profession are naturally apprehensive that in course of time, with the development of the new Province, the local courts will absorb a great deal of the judicial business which now passes through the High Court at Calcutta. Then there is the class of absentee landowners, who prefer the social attractions of the capital to living on their own properties, but in future will have to spend a great deal of their time at their estate offices at Dacca; and, lastly, there is the class whose principal occupation is political agitation, and who will find much of their material for agitation cut away when they are no longer able to point to the neglect of local interests, which under the existing system is almost inevitable. One of the main reasons for this change is the crying need of the Province of Assam for the development of its material resources and an increased efficiency in its administration. Almost every large administrative area in India has its own Civil Service Commission trained on the spot and acquiring fresh knowledge every year of local conditions and requirements; but Assam has had for a long time past to borrow its Commission from Bengal, and has thereby lost the advantage elsewhere derived from length and continuity of service. If there is one principle of government which is elementary, it is that all administration is bad which depends on borrowed men. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has added to it an expression of opinion that the time has come for associating the people of India in a larger measure with the management of their own affairs. That is rather a large subject to tack on as a rider to an Amendment to the Address. I suppose we all desire, whatever the form of government, not only to treat the feelings of the inhabitants with respect, but also, as time goes on and as they show themselves fit, to give them wider opportunities of expressing their opinions on questions that interest them. But even the mover of the Amendment recognised that the process of evolution must be a gradual one. Legislative Councils were not introduced until 1801,
    850
    and thirty years elapsed before any provision was made for native representation upon them. I think it would be rash to take the experience of the last fourteen years as affording adequate justification for a further step in that direction. Considering the character of India and the fact that it is as large as the whole of Europe, excluding European Russia, it is surely obvious that the permanence of British rule depends to a large extent on preserving unity of method. A popular system cannot be applied to one part of India and withheld from another. Though I do not desire any harsh repression of the political aspirations of any section of the community, I think it is safe to say that a great many of the ideals put forward by orators at the Congress are not only wholly opposed to the views of the large majority of the creeds and races of India, but if translated into practice, would be quite unsuited to their practical needs and requirements. There is no doubt that the present scheme has given rise to a great deal of discontent, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy that there is no proposal, even at home, which is more certain to awaken bitterness and opposition than a proposal to alter old geographical limits, to redistribute electoral areas, or to interfere with municipal boundaries. But there is this to be said in favour of the scheme of administrative re-adjustment proposed by the Government of India, that, not only does it subserve the interests of administrative efficiency but it actually secures far better grouping than has hitherto existed both of language and nationality by recognising the preponderance of the Mahommedan element in the North, and amalgamating the Uriyah-speaking populations of the West. I will only observe in conclusion that the same agitation has been raised again and again in connection with similar administrative changes in other parts of India. We all remember the great outcry which arose with regard to the severance of the frontier provinces from the Punjaub, a policy the success of which I conceive is now almost universally recognised.
    SIR H. COTTON: I think that there was no popular objection to that whatever; the objection there was a purely official one.
    EARL PERCY: It is very difficult to gauge how far an agitation does represent a real popular feeling or not. Personally I doubt not from former precedents that within a very short space of time—probably five or six years—those who are loudest in their denunciation of the present scheme will be foremost in their recognition and admiration of the courage with which Lord Curzon has faced a temporary unpopularity in the permanent interest of administrative efficiency.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that, in view of the sympathetic statement of the right hon. Gentleman and the nature of the discussion, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDONsaid he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice dealing with the exclusion from this country of foreign contract labour during times of trade disputes. It would be within the recollection of those Members who were present in the last House of Commons that an Amendment very similar to that which he now brought forward was submitted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, when it received great support in the House, the Opposition, he believed, supporting it unanimously. At all events, 148 Members supported it, including the present Home Secretary, his Under-Secretary, the Postmaster-General, and many distinguished members of the present Government. He hoped, therefore, that the principle of the Amendment which he proposed would find acceptance in the House, and that hon. Members on the opposite side would support the views which they then held. No doubt he should be reminded that he himself voted against that Amendment. He was quite prepared for that charge, but he hoped he should not be deemed
    852
    guilty of any inconsistency in the matter, because his reason was that he was most anxious to do nothing whch would jeopardise the passing of the Aliens Act as a whole, and he had to subordinate what he believed to be the lesser to the greater consideration. He had to help the Government by every means in his power to pass that Bill into law, and he could not do anything which would risk the passing of that measure. In spite of that he was at that time and was now in complete agreement with the views of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and his friends. He said so at the time in the House, and he had not changed his opinion in a single particular. As, however, must often happen under a system of Party government, he had to waive his personal feelings in deference to those of the Leaders of the Party to which he belonged. He thought, moreover, he might safely prophesy that there were many hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite who, before this Parliament was over, would find themselves forced into the same position. As he understood the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was that they had no strong objection, or indeed, any objection whatever, to the admission of any quantity of unskilled or skilled labour during ordinary times, but that they did object to the admission of such labour at times when labour disputes were taking place. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil the other night, he was glad to find, went a little further than that when he however, that the importation or the protested against the employment of an enormous number of foreign seamen on British ships. He heartily agreed with the hon. Member, and hoped that he and his friends would press that point forward. His view was, influx of cheap foreign labour, which from the circumstances of the case was willing and, indeed, often compelled, to work for hours and wages which no trade union would tolerate, must have an adverse effect upon the general standard of work and living of the employés, and place them at a disadvantage. There was no doubt that a large number of unskilled foreign labourers made a strike much less difficult to organise and much more likely to be conducted with success. On the Royal Commission

    853
    they had evidence brought before them from the Lanarkshire coal mines, and the witnesses told them that foreign labour from Berlin and elsewhere had been systematically imported into that district because their labour was a little cheaper than the labour obtainable in the district. It seemed to him a wrong thing that these people should be placed in that position, and that the country should lose by emigration many valuable men. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, in putting forward his Amendment last year, spoke of men as having been vilely dismissed, and of a number of Spaniards and Poles having been introduced into the works, the English people being told that if they objected there would be a further importation of Spaniards and Poles. That threat was carried out, and there was abundant evidence that a large mass of this labour in Spain and Southern Italy was readily available. It had been imported into this country before, and might, and very likely would, be again on similar occasions in the future. He believed that at the time the labour problems of the Transvaal were being discussed and thought out, a large number of these men, Spaniards and Poles, were offered to mine owners at an incredibly low rate of wages—wages very little higher than those at present given to the Chinese. That fact was enough to show that the idea of employing European labour of this kind was not an illusory one—the question had been considered, and the labour was readily available. He supported the principle of this Amendment because he felt strongly that nothing could be more disadvantageous or, indeed, disastrous to this country than to lower generally the standard of living of the wage earners and working classes of this country. In the possibility of the importation of cheap foreign labour for the purpose of settling trade disputes to the disadvantage of one of the two parties to the dispute, he saw a menace to our prosperity and a very real and serious menace to the standard of comfort which the working classes possessed after so long and costly a struggle. They had the evidence, given before the Royal Commission, of a gentleman, who was admitted to be a good authority on
    854
    this question, the Rev. Mr. Davis, Rector of Spitalfields. That gentleman described as typical, and not at all exceptional, the case of a man in the tailoring trade with a wife and three children whose earnings were 7s. a week. People of that kind could be imported at any time when there was a trade dispute, and such a thing would obviously mean disaster to our working classes. No cheapness to the consumer could compensate for the bad effect on the producer which the low wage standard of 7s. a week would bring about. On the grounds of national health, and of what had been described as the physical deterioration of the people, this question had to be dealt with. We had little to depend upon now in our great and unequal struggle with the industrial world except the general physical condition of our people, and he did not see how we were to retain that, or improve the position our people were now in, if at any time there was to be undercutting in the manner he had described. It might be said that the logical effect of the argument he put forward was that a national standard should be set up, and that all employers should be compelled to pay a certain rate of wage, independent of any competition from abroad; but he had never taken that attitude. It seemed to be an impossible one. An industrial struggle within the limits of any given country should be fought out by the citizens of that country, and the importation of foreign labour in order to settle a trade dispute to the disadvantage of one of the parties to the dispute should be regarded as a foul blow and ought not to be permitted. It was with the hope that legislation would be promoted to prevent that foul blow from being struck that he put forward the Amendment. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite, however much they might question the merits of the Amendment, would not question the sincerity of his motives in moving it, and he did not think they would. He begged to move.
    SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid he wished to second the Amendment. Representing as he did a large working-class constituency, and also being one of the officials of the Alien Emigration Society which initiated the Bill to prevent undesirable aliens

    855
    coming to this country, he desired that this logical consequence of that Act should pass into law. While trying to pass the Bill through Committee the Unionist Party were accused of bringing in the measure for window-dressing purposes, and of not being in earnest. He desired to show to-night at all events that they were in earnest and wished this matter to be carried through. He pointed out that in the United States the first Alien Immigration Act passed did not possess this charm, and that in a very short time it was found necessary to amend it.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question to add the words, 'But we humbly express our regret that Your Majesty's Speech contains no reference to the exclusion from this country of foreign contract labour during times of trades disputes.'"—(Sir William Evans-Gordon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): The hon. and gallant Member certainly succeeded in dissembling his tone in regard to his proposal under two hostile votes delivered last July, as he assured us he had always been in favour of it, and that he only voted against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) because he did not wish to wreck the Aliens Bill. I should like to ask the hon. Member whether, supposing the late Government still occupied these benches, he would move this Amendment to the Address and ask them to accept it.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: I certainly would do so, and I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I moved ah Amendment to the Address against my own side, which was the means of bringing to the front the Alien question. A Royal Commission was appointed on my Amendment to the Address of 1902.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: As the hon. and gallant Member was prepared to vote against his own Government on the Amendment it is rather difficult to see why he did not propose it
    856
    last year. It was a question of great interest; but I am not going into that at all. When the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil brought forward his Amendment in July, at both the Committee stage and the Report stage I voted in favour of the Amendment, and the Prime Minister also voted for it, as well as the great bulk of hon. Gentlemen who were then on the Opposition side of the House. There are, as we all know, arguments for and against this proposal. There was a considerable discussion on the point last July, and I cannot understand why the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he had a chance of putting this principle into the Aliens' Bill, did not make use of that opportunity. He now comes forward and blames us, and proposes practically a vote of censure upon us for not putting this proposal into the King's Speech this session, when he knows perfectly well that legislation with regard to it is impossible—perfectly impossible, for the simple reason that we cannot do everything at once. We have been in office a very short time, and have had a general election since we were put in, and we are now about to deal with many important questions. It is too soon altogether to re-open the question of the Aliens Act, and the hon. Gentleman very well knows that it is out of our power at the present time to propose any such legislation as he suggests. The hon. and gallant Member did not vote for the proposal during the passage of the Aliens Bill, and he gave as his excuse that he did not wish to risk the passage of the Bill. I remember at that time it was said by the late Home Secretary that it was not germane to the Bill. Why was it not? The Bill dealt with various questions. The principle on which the right hon. Gentleman opposite acted was that the Bill should exclude undesirables, and many classes were excluded, such as diseased persons, lunatics, and the very poor. But why not exclude undesirable labour, if labour is undesirable? On what argument could the hon. Gentleman fairly exclude this question from the purview of that Bill? No; the hon. and gallant Member did not intend his Motion on this ground. I must remind the House of something more. For the last ten years right

    857
    hon. and Gentlemen on the other side of the House have declaimed, in season and out of season, on the importance of dealing thoroughly with this Aliens question. For nine years they neglected it, and in the tenth year they brought in a Bill which they pressed through the House, and on such slender foundation did they stand that the hon. Gentleman said it would have risked the passage of the measure if he had endeavoured to carry the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. And now the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to censure us because we do not and cannot do what the Unionists refused to do last July when they had the chance. The House knows perfectly well that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and I presume hon. Gentlemen opposite do not intend to press it to a division. It would be ungrateful after the support we gave to this principle. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows well that the great majority on this side would support the Government in rejecting this Amendment, though most of us are in favour of the principle which underlies it. Is he then going to force us, knowing that, and having regard to the confession of his own exigencies last July, to vote against his Amendment? We cannot accept his Amendment at the present time, and as regards the future, I have no doubt it will come up for consideration on a more suitable occasion. I do not know whether the Aliens Act will come under the purview of this House, but it may be that amendment may have to be made in one direction or another, and if, and when, that opportunity arises, then will be an excellent opportunity for considering this question.
    MR. CROOKSsaid he was delighted that the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney should have thought fit to bring forward his proposal. It only showed what a sobering effect a general election had on the mind. He remembered that the everlasting cry of the hon. and gallant Member and his friends was to clean something off the slate, and they started wiping this off the slate immediately after putting it on. He wondered if the majority of the hon. and gallant Member's Party had been maintained the House would have heard
    858
    a word on this question. It was very wonderful how people changed. He supposed that they might expect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to vote for this Amendment. He did not want to say the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind, but he remembered reading a speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which, in reply to a question as to why he did not vote for this particular Resolution, he said it was not germane to the Bill. As a matter of fact the Act was an absolute fraud, and he himself stated distinctly when it was before the House that it would not do anything to promote that for which the hon. Member was honoured. Unfortunately a record was kept of other utterances, and he remembered the hon. Member's asking whether they could prove that this Bill would be used as an instrument for introducing cheap labour, and he replied that he thought it would be so used. Around the East End the hon. Member declared that this Bill was going to stop sweating, get rid of slums, and stop rack-renting. He remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean voted against the Second Reading and took a few hon. Members with him into the lobby, with the result that some of the people who believed what the hon. Member for Stepney said waited for him (the hon. Member for Woolwich) on the railway platform and threatened him with a little personal violence. What a wonderful measure it had proved! All it had done was to provide a few soft jobs for people. A little deaf and dumb girl had been kept out last week under this wonderful Act. There was another case: to-day a refugee in danger had asked for the asylum of Britain, which had always stood for the right of asylum. It had been said that wherever the British flag was unfurled there was liberty. That used to be so, but it was altered by the late Government. The present Government had started cleaning the slate, but it would take a long time. Many hon. Members went down to their constituencies on the passing of this Act and laid in a stock of fireworks to celebrate the event, but those fireworks were wasted, because the people soon discovered that the time of the House

    859
    had been wasted on a fraud of a Bill. The rich people could buy their way in, but they would not admit a man like Mazzini. He hoped the Opposition were proud of that state of things, but he was ashamed of it. When the measure was before the House an attempt was made by the Labour Members to prevent its being used as a means of procuring blacklegs to lower wages in this country, but they were defeated. The Act had not kept out a single alien who would have come into competition with labour here. Seven persons had been kept out, and five of them would have dropped down dead had they been allowed to come ashore. The late Member for King's Lynn asked how the examination would take place, and he was told that they would be examined in a building on shore. And then came the further question, "After that what then?" and the answer was, "They would not allow them to land." It wanted a very clever Government to do a thing like that. He did not think the present Government could equal that in any circumstances. The people who promoted Bills ought to know their real effect. The position of the Labour Members was that some of the Members of this House had decided to bring in a Bill on this matter, and they expected it to pass as an unopposed measure. Surely there would not be found an hon. Member on the Opposition benches who would oppose it alter what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said at question time, and he expected the hon. Member for Stepney and hon. Members opposite who voted with him on this particular question in the last Parliament would vote solidly in favour of the Bill which was about to be introduced. The Act wanted amending in a variety of ways, and at the proper time he should urge the Home Secretary to consider the way in which poor people at the present time were compelled to live. These aliens were brought in by an association from countries where they gave too much protection to the rich and not enough to the poor. They could not catch old sparrows with chaff like that. That was a question which had to be grappled with. Dwellings in some districts became more and more crowded,
    860
    and the more they were crowded the more they were rack rented. In Spital-fields he had known poor people living in coal cellars at 1½d. per night. He held it should be a criminal offence on the part of the sanitary authorities not to put a stop to that. Would the members of the late Government and their supporters join in assisting to putdown the system of sweating? The last Government gave out contracts for cap making for the Navy at prices which it would not pay any decent woman to work for. There was a system of contracting and sub-contracting and sub-contracting again which should be stopped. But the people who did that class of work were not on the register, and he supposed they were not worth considering or worrying about. It was idle to make excuses for not safeguarding the interests of the workmen of Stepney in last year's Act. They knew now that the Act was a mere makeshift for killing time. He and his friends said so at the time. His description for what was done last year was that the whole of the British people were bluffed by the Government doing nothing at all. Week after week they sat on these benches praying and beseeching the Government to do something for the people, and pointing out to them that the greatness of the Empire did not—
    MR. SPEAKER: A review of last session is hardly relevant to this Amendment.
    MR. CROOKS: I am obliged for the correction, but we are really discussing a Bill of last year. I stand rebuked.
    MR. SPEAKER: I said "a review of last session."
    MR. CROOKS: Thank you, Sir. I think last session's proceedings have been very properly dealt with by the electors of this country and I will not go into them. As lovers of the poor he and his friends had sympathy with the Amendment, but they were not going to vote for it. They were going to introduce a Bill which would, he hoped, make the law on this matter what they desired, They would vote against this Amendment, and they were willing to go into

    861
    every constituency in the country and state their reason for doing so. He was perfectly sure that the industrial community would be with thorn on that occasion. Some of the points with which they wished the Home Secretary to deal were sweating, overcrowding, and rents—if that could possibly be done by the introduction of a Fair Rent Bill. He appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Woolwich has made the important statement that it is the intention of himself and his colleagues to bring in a Bill dealing with this subject, and that being the case I certainly do not see that my hon. friend need press his Amendment. We shall be able to say what we have to say when the hon. Member brings in his Bill. The reason why I personally am anxious that this matter should be discussed and why I would be glad to see the Bill is that it seems to me by itself to indicate a perfectly illogical proceeding. It appears to me and has always appeared to me to be perfectly illogical and inconsistent to prohibit the immigration of these alien labourers and at the same time to allow the free import of alien goods. The hon. Member has said that during last session he sat praying and beseeching the Government which, then sat on the Treasury Bench to do something for the people and that nothing was done. Now he has his opportunity. Let him pray and beseech a Government more powerful than the last, and by the time the next general election comes round let us see what account he will give of its answer to his prayers.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDONsaid that in deference to the request made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and in view of the fact that a Bill was to be introduced by the hon. Member for Woolwich and his friends, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.

    EROSION OF THE COASTS.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONrose to move an Amendment representing to His Majesty that the serious encroachments of the sea on our coasts call for the immediate attention of the Govermment.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

  EVENING SITTING.

    KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question (19th February), "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses, of Parliament."—(Mr. Dickinson.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid when the House rose he had just commenced to move the Amendment standing in his name dealing with the encroachments of the sea. It was a question of the utmost importance, as the sea was encroaching on the coast in many parts of the United Kingdom at an alarming rate. In Holderness it was a very serious and grave question. From the seaside town of Bridlington to as far as Spurn Head the sea had swept away the land at a very rapid rate; as much as four yards of land were swept away last year. He did not raise this as a party question, but he spoke on behalf of many parts of the United Kingdom and was glad to say that he had the support of many Members situated on the opposite benches. They wished to induce the Government

    863
    to come to their assistance and to give financial assistance if possible. The law of the land and modern decisions in Courts of Justice were both on their side, going to show that it was obligatory on the Crown to prevent inroads being made upon the land by the sea. The Board of Trade returns showed that the acreage of the country was gradually diminishing; every year we lost a tract of land the size of Gibraltar. In thirty-three years, from 1867 to 1900, the acreage showed a diminution of over 182,000 acres, although the land reclaimed from the sea was included. He could not help thinking the present system was an unfair one. All the land reclaimed became Crown property, but, whilst receiving any revenue derived from it, it did nothing itself for the protection of our coast. In his constituency they had an excellent example. A very large tract of land had there been reclaimed from the estuary of the Humber, known by the name of Sunk Island, and it brought in to the Crown a revenue of something like £10,000 per year. They thought that a portion of this sum ought to be expended in defending the east coast from the ravages of the North Sea. Whilst speaking on the subject he wished to give grave warning to the President of the Board of Trade. It was absolutely necessary to maintain the road leading to Spurn Lighthouse, which was joined to the land by an embankment three or four miles in length. That embankment had to be maintained by the Board of Trade, but the Board of Trade defences were at the present time in a very bad position. The sea was likely to break through the main road, and he could assure the President of the Board of Trade that a very large sum would have to be spent in repairing the damage. There was an old saying that a "stitch in time saves nine," and he thought it would be well if the President of the Board of Trade looked into the state of the defences. If he did he would find them in a shocking condition. In Italy the State shared with the people of the district the cost of sea defence. In Belgium the State had built large sea defences entirely at its own cost, and had in many other cases contributed
    864
    large sums towards the maintenance of the sea defences, the national grant in that country between 1902 and 1904 being no less than £1,000,000 per annum. In France also the State contributed large sums. At present in this country the cost of protecting our shores from the sea fell upon the individual landowner or upon the parish or township where the inroad might be taking place. The result had been entirely unsatisfactory, local effort to cope with the difficulty having absolutely failed. It was not for him to offer suggestions for schemes, and he did not know whether the President of the Board of Trade had any scheme for dealing with the matter; it would be best for the right hon. gentleman to discuss the subject with experts. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would have seen the reports of the important Conference which took place in London on February 6th. Those reports showed conclusively that this was a national matter, which ought to receive national assistance. The difficulty was to persuade the nation to give assistance. He had not raised the question in any Party spirit or with any idea of personal advantage, because land in which he was interested had no connection whatever with this matter. He trusted that the President of the Board of Trade in his reply would be able to hold out a hope that it was the intention of the Government to do something. Perhaps he might be able to see his way to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter, to see what damage was done, and to report as to the best method of effectually dealing with it. It had been said that the Government intended to find work for the unemployed, and he could not imagine a better or a more beneficial mode than that they should be put to the task of defending our foreshore. He maintained that it was the duty of the Crown to protect our shores from attacks from the sea just as much as it was their duty to protect them from attacks by enemies. He thanked the House for listening to him, and begged to move.
    MR. LUKE WHITEseconded the Amendment. He declared that the question had

    865
    become a national one, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would make some official inquiry into it. The matter was one which required their earnest attention. A great many of the local authorities had done much in order to protect our coasts from the erosion of the sea, expending large sums of money in that direction. The town of Bridlington had spent no less than £100,000 in order to protect the town from the inroads of the sea, and this had placed an enormous burden upon the local ratepayers. In this respect he would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade as to the period allowed for the repayment of loans raised for the erection of sea walls and sea defences. He considered that where the defences were of a permanent character a longer period for repayment should be allowed local authorities than the scale which existed at present? This was a serious question to those who were trying to do their best to stop the inroads of the sea, and he certainly thought something might be done to encourage local authorities by making better provision for the repayment of loans than was allowed them by the present short terms. Bridlington some thirty years ago obtained a loan, and the period for repayment allowed was fifty years; but seven or eight years ago they applied for a loan for works which were of a permanent character and they only obtained a period of twenty-five years. That was a very short period for works of a permanent character. He earnestly trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would seriously consider the matter. It was one which affected the country as a whole, and it particularly affected the ratepayers along our sea coast. It ought to be attended to, and he trusted that some official inquiry by experts would be made. He hoped local authorities would not only be assisted by the Government by advice and in a pecuniary sense, but that the Government would do something to place the matter upon a national basis so that all the local authorities might know their position.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question, to add the words, But we humbly represent to Your Majesty
    866
    that the serious encroachments of the sea on our coast call for the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government.'"—(Mr. Stanley Wilson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added.'
    MR. H. H. MARKSsaid that as he represented a constituency which was one of the chief sufferers from the great and growing evil of sea erosion, and one of the chief victims of the ever-recurring expense which that evil entailed, he ventured to address a few words to the House. He recognised that it would be wholly unreasonable to expect that this question, so long neglected by so many Governments, should have found a place in the programme of the present Government, in these days of its tenderest youth, not to say its toddling infancy. They must all recognise that the Government had a large, varied, and ambitious programme, and if the question raised by the Amendment had involved any consideration of legislation he would have had some hesitation in rising to support it; but he ventured to suggest that this was not necessarily a question of legislation. It was, it seemed to him, rather a question of sympathetic administration, and he looked with some confidence to the President of the Board of Trade to give it that sympathetic consideration, first of all because he knew the broad mind with which the right hon. Gentleman approached all matters of public interest, and secondly, because he remembered that, according to the proverb, new brooms swept clean. The operations of nature were responsible in a large measure for the erosion of our coasts, but a great deal of that erosion was due to the defective methods which had been employed to deal with the evil. A large portion of the land which had been allowed to be washed away by the sea had been so washed away through the ignorance or negligence of the owners of the land. Another trouble was that the local or other authorities had been in the habit of employing their own officer to design and carry out the defence works; and in many cases the men so employed had no practical knowledge of the subject. He could instance experiences

    867
    at Lowestoft and Morecambe Bay. It was here and in this direction that he suggested that the Government could be helpful. He was not going so far as to suggest that the cost of maintaining our coasts from the invasion of the sea should fall entirely on the National Exchequer. He would like it. All who represented sea - board constituencies would like it. But he fully recognised that as things were at present and as things were likely to be for some time to come that demand could not be granted. But there were things the Government might do. The Government might assist to provide the funds for the necessary defensive works, at low interest, on easy terms of repayment, secured, in the case of private owners, on the land, and in the case of municipal owners, on the rates of the local area, and subject always to the condition that the works should in every case be carried out by an engineer of experience in this work and approved by Government. Such a course as that would ensure some organised method in the treatment of the evil of which they complained, and, he felt confident, proper and permanent work. So far as he was concerned, speaking on behalf of the local authorities in his own constituency, whilst they would like to ask for all they wanted, they thought it prudent and discreet to ask for what they thought they might reasonably hope to get, namely, some action on the part of the Government recognising the necessity for uniformity in coast defence work, and for the direction of those works by some one of competent authority and of competent experience. If those things were forthcoming, and if, combined with them were offers of reasonable terms on which to raise the funds required for the works and reasonable periods within which to repay the advances made, whilst they would not have removed the evil—which unfortunately was not removable—they would at any rate have mitigated in some considerable measure the burden which at present weighed heavily and with increasing oppressiveness on some of the most important districts of the country.
    MR. G. BARINGdrew attention to a very important con-
    868
    ference held in London a short time ago of the representatives of local authorities of many places on the coast, which came to the unanimous decision that it was time the Government intervened and took some strong action in order to come to the assistance of local authorities in the matter of sea defences. There were most alarming reports of the disastrous action of the sea on the east coast, and the conference was unanimously of opinion that the financial cost entailed was far too great to be borne by the local authorities. At the town of Sandown they complained that the action of the sea was assisted by the action of the War Office, which had been carting away tons and tons of the foreshore for the purpose of constructing some forts in the neighbourhood: that had had the effect of greatly weakening the sea defences. Only a short time ago the sea washed away a large part of the road in that locality, and nearly separated the town and foreshore from the other part of the island. Then there was a disaster at Freshwater, where the patriotic ratepayers had raised the funds necessary to repair the sea defences. But matters of this kind could not be left to private individuals or parish authorities. The Isle of Wight authority to deal with this question was the rural district council. That was a comparatively poor body; the rateable value was low, and it was quite impossible for them to deal with this question. He ventured to suggest that it would be possible for a systematic inspection to be made of the coast line, and a schedule might be prepared showing where the sea was doing most damage and where immediate assistance ought to be given. He quite recognised that for the past ten years there had been very little money for this or any other work, but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would see that it was a matter to be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. He was certain of a sympathetic reply, but he submitted that the House was entitled to more than that. The sea was active, and it was necessary that something should be done at the earliest possible moment. If his suggestion were acted upon and the report sent to the right hon. Gentleman he was sure that the President of the Board

    869
    of Trade would see the necessity of something being done immediately.
    MR. BECKETTsaid he made no apology for adding a few words on this important question. The constituency he represented had perhaps the longest coastline in England, and he would scarcely be performing his duty to the inhabitants of that district if he did not support the Amendment. In the case of waste land and agricultural land the damage was serious enough, and he was fully aware of the enormous cost which would be entailed by a proper system of sea defence in such cases. That cost had been estimated by eminent authorities to reach no less a figure than £25,000 per mile. In addition to that a charge at the lowest estimate of 10 per cent. on that amount would be necessary to provide for interest on the borrowed money and the cost of up-keep. But there was a far more serious side to this question. He spoke now of the case of numerous small fishing villages, whose houses were being gradually swept away and whose inhabitants were poor men who had a hard struggle to live. These men had to fight the sea to earn their daily bread and to contend with the same element in order to prevent their very dwellings from being engulfed. Fashionable watering-places had many rich visitors in their seasons who contributed to the funds subscribed by local effort for defraying the cost of sea defence; but it was a very different thing in the case of small fishing villages where the rate assessment added little to the local revenue, and where such defence as they could make against the encroachments of the sea had to come out of private pockets. He knew of one small village which had spent £5,000, provided by private persons, during the past twelve years in sea defence. He supported the idea that urban and district councils should be assisted to borrow money on easier terms for providing against sea encroachments. At present where the district councils took any steps in the matter they had to petition the Local Government Board for sanction to borrow money. Then the Local Government Board sent down an inspector to report. If the inspector
    870
    reported favourably the council had to go into the open market and borrow the money on the best terms they could obtain for ten or fifteen years. That term was too short, and the burdens were too heavy. In the case of other public works the Public Works Loans Commission advanced the money at a rate not exceeding 3½ per cent. and the term for repayment ran up to fifty years. The Local Government Board should take into consideration whether they could not make arrangements to enable urban and district councils to borrow money on the same conditions. He wished to emphasise what had fallen from the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He had no desire to make this a Party question. He admitted its difficulty, and, although the cost might be high, that was rather an additional reason for inducing the Government to find a proper solution of the problem. His Majesty's Ministers had announced their intention of providing the cost of repatriating the Chinese who had not left their homes unwillingly. Surely it was not too much to ask them to do something for those Englishmen who did not desire to leave their homes, but whose homes showed an undesirable tendency to leave them.
    MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he had to thank the hon. Member for Holderness for having brought this very important matter before the Government. The seconder of the Amendment had spoken about permanent defensive works having been erected on various parts of our coasts. They had, unfortunately, not been permanent. The truth was that many of those works had been badly engineered, and almost invited the sea to knock them down. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that one of the most important subjects to be considered by the House would be the question of finding employment for those unfortunate people who could not find it for themselves; and he imagined that Parliament could engage in no better work than in organising employment to make good the erosion of our sea coasts. He noticed that Lord Rayleish had made a proposal to build up defences against sea encroachments on the Essex

    871
    coast, which he was glad to see the Central Body for the unemployed in London had accepted. He represented a seaboard constituency where funds had been provided by private subscription for defence against sea erosion, because all the money which could be raised by the rates had to be devoted to harbour construction and other purposes. He did not ask the Government to give money for sea defence, but he hoped they would endeavour with the aid of the Local Government Board so to organise the Central Relief Fund which had been subscribed for the unemployed that it might be utilised for works to provide against sea encroachments. He believed if that were done, and if the local authorities were allowed to raise money on such terms as had been already advocated, a work of great utility would be accomplished.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that this was a question which deeply affected his constituency. The whole of the northern boundary was washed by the Bristol Channel with a 34-foot rise of tide, and exposed to westerly gales and heavy seas. He perfectly agreed that these sometimes prevented Welshmen from coming over to endeavour to alienate his supporters, but he would rather fight their opinions than fight against the sea. The coast line in his division was composed partly of crumbling cliff, but the real defence against sea encroachment was the shingle. That shingle was always moving from west to east, although they were able to keep it up by means of groins. Some of the owners of the foreshore, however, allowed the shingle to be carried over to Wales, as had been done near Bridgwater. He believed that the Board of Trade could, on application, prevent the removal of the shingle. He knew that in the case of his own property he was successful in preventing it. The question was whether district councils could apply to the Board of Trade to grant a prohibition order to the foreshores of a district council lying further to the west over which they themselves had no jurisdiction. The prohibition should be extended to the whole line of coast in danger by sea encroachment. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether he would
    872
    consider the question of appointing a small departmental committee to consider the whole matter, to take expert advice, and, having got that advice, would he on the application of any recognised local authority, be it county council or district council, send down an official of the Board of Trade to make inquiry and deal with particular local divisions. It might be said that what was a most excellent plan of sea defence in one case was useless in another, and that was why so much money had been lost along the coast. If the House could have some assurance, such as had been suggested, from the President of the Board of Trade, they would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. H. BEAUMONTsaid he hoped on rising for the first time to address the House to receive its kindly forbearance. He asked this for two reasons; first, because he did not intend to inflict upon the House a lengthy speech, and second, because he was speaking in the interests of his constituents, to whom this was a matter of great importance. He should like to emphasize all that had been said by his hon. friend the Member for Holderness, and to back up the speech of the Member for Isle of Wight. He submitted that this was a question of as much importance to those who lived inland as to those who lived by the sea shore. Therefore, it was a national matter, and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give money for the erection of sea defences, so that the whole expense should pot be thrown on the local bodies.
    MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he wished to give a few facts to show the ravages which had been made by the sea in his own district. During the past ten years the sea cliffs had vanished to the extent of between twenty and thirty feet, and the beach had been lowered to the extent of ten feet, so that the sewers had been injured by the inrush of the sea, involving repairs which had cost considerable sums of money. Groins had been put up, and a seawall built, but during the past four years these had been seriously damaged, and further sums of money

    873
    would have to be spent upon them. On the south side of the town which he represented there was formerly a splendid stretch of sand where the inhabitants used to enjoy themselves, but that had gone. He would not urge that the money of the country should be expended for the purpose of preserving the land of private landowners from sea encroachment. Far from it; but there was a duty on the Government to prevent some of the things which had already been indicated. The lowering of the beach had been brought about by the taking away of sand and stone for building purposes. These materials had been removed because the Government had permitted the landowners to have a particular right to the beach. If the Government could not recall the concessions already made, he trusted that they would not renew the permission to carry away sand, shingle and stones, from the foreshores, a permission which had been availed of in some cases to the extent of 500 tons per week. As to the unemployed problem, that was a question which must receive immediate attention Numbers of men who were unemployed to-day might be employed on this work by the Government, and it would be a benefit to the nation before many years had passed away.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree that this is a question of importance and urgency. I also agree with my hon. friend opposite that this is not a Party question, but then hon. Members opposite never raised it when they were in office. There is no doubt that some districts have suffered very considerably from the encroachments of the sea, although in other parts the sea is retiring from the old coast line. Unquestionably, coast defence is one of the most important subjects for the consideration of any Government. One town in my own constituency has suffered very severely. It is very difficult for a locality with a small population and low rateable value to protect the coast properly without increasing the burdens of the ratepayers beyond an extent which can be borne. Therefore, I think this is a question of national interest. The right hon Baronet has asked for protection from the political currents that flowed into his district from the direction
    874
    of Wales. I think the right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is well able to protect himself. There remains the question of the removal of sand and shingle which left the land unprotected at Bridgewater and elsewhere. I promise to look into that matter. In fact, the policy of the Board of Trade in recent years has I been to refuse permits to individuals to remove sand and shingle from the shore. When the House comes to consider on a large scale this matter of protecting our coasts it resolves itself, as nearly all questions do, into a question of money. Suggestions have come from all parts of the House to subsidise local authorities from the Imperial Exchequer in regard to this and many other matters. But this Government, as the hon. Member for Thanet has said, is in its infancy or still in its swaddling clothes, and their moneybox is not very full at this moment. We have not the money to spend on all those schemes on which we would like to spend money. I would remind hon. Members that the Government, has been asked to repeal the coal tax. Next, to throw the whole burden of education upon the taxes—which would mean a trifle of about £7,000,000. Then someone has suggested old age pensions. That is only another £26,000,000. Other suggestions are that light dues and high roads should be put on the taxes. This runs up to just a trifling sum of £50,000,000. These things show how difficult the problem is. Nevertheless, the Government recognise the importance of this matter, and they agree tint the case is one for inquiry. A good many suggestions—some valuable suggestions—as to inquiry, inspection, and the employment of engineers of experience have been thrown out in the course of debate. These suggestions ought to be inquired into. The Government have decided to have an inquiry in the form of a Royal Commission, which will extend not merely to coast defence, but to two or three other kindred subjects—such as waste lands and probably afforestation. The Government recognise the urgency of these questions and propose to appoint a Commission at an early date to inquire into the matter. I do not think anything is to be gained by very hasty action. After all, the sea has been at work for a good

    875
    many centuries, and I do not think it will act in such a way as to render precipitate action necessary. It is not for the purpose of putting off action that I make this proposal, but rather that we may devise what action shall be taken.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think we can complain of the tone which has been taken by the President of the Board of Trade. I represent a constituency which has a large seaboard. At St. Margaret's Bay the local authority has requested the Local Government Board to advance money in order to protect the bay from the ravages of the sea, and they have also subscribed liberally of their own money. In a matter of this sort I think some greater liberality might be shown than is now shown with regard to the length of time during which loans are repayable. I associate myself with the request that the Board of Trade should send competent engineers to advise localities. The right hon. Gentleman said that the matter resolved itself into a question of money. I think this question of the defence of the sea coast might receive a little more attention than many of the other claims put forward. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is going to grant an inquiry into the subject, but I hope he will not associate too many subject? and that the first consideration will be given to this question of the erosion of the coast. I think we have got as much as we are likely to get from the Government considering the difficulties of the case, and I think my hon. friend might be satisfied with the assurance he has received, that the subject will be dealt with by inquiry without delay.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to address one or two observations to the House from the point of view of the Department for which I happen to be responsible in this House. All I can say is that so far as the facilitation of public inquiry is concerned, the Local Government Board will do its best in that direction. The question of long
    876
    or short periods for the repayment of loans is a very serious one, and one the Department would have to go into very carefully. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. friend has said, except that, so far as my Department is concerned, it will render the Board of Trade the sympathetic co-operation which such an important subject demands.
    MR. MCVEIGHsaid that with regard to private rights in foreshores he had known of many cases in which rights had been conferred upon individuals. Lord Annesley had for many years past to his knowledge been selling sand at 6d. a load from a foreshore with which he was acquainted, and the Crown actually proceeded to make an arrangement with Lord Annesley giving him rights in that foreshore. He had however got a clause inserted in the Act which prevented Lord Annesley from removing sand except at one point. He thought the Commission ought to have power to investigate the whole matter of the Board of Trade giving private property in foreshores to individuals. The second point he wished to put was whether the Commission would apply to Ireland which he urged it should do.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that after the sympathetic reply of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYrose to move an Amendment expressing regret that no remedy had bean proposed to prevent the great want of employment which now existed. Speaking for a constituency which had many rich, but many more poor of the working class within its boundaries, he felt he would betray those who sent him to the House of Commons unless he entered a protest against the unruffled optimism of His Majesty's Government in regard to the trade of the country. We were told in the gracious Speech to congratulate ourselves upon the increase of our exports and imports as indicating

    877
    the sound and progressive condition of our industrial position. But it was somewhat remarkable that while the gracious Speech recorded the fact that there had been an increase of our exports and imports, not a syllable had fallen in this House or elsewhere from the Government to show sympathy with or any intention to remove, the anxieties and misery from which the unemployed suffered. On the contrary, any executive act of the present Administration had been rather directed to a different purpose. In the Return compiled by the President of the Local Government Board one could see only one intention and that was to alienate sympathy from the unemployed and avert executive action. If that statement was thought to be too strong, he was quite prepared to water it down so as to describe the Return as designed to create the impression that pauperism and unemployment were not so bad as some people thought. It was not his business to defend the Return, but what it showed was that the cost of the pauper was greater now than it was in 1849. It showed also that the number of outdoor paupers had actually and comparatively declined since 1849. But anybody who had the slightest acquaintance with the Poor Law system inaugurated sixty years ago could have guessed that fact. The Returns of unemployment, such as they were, were sufficient for his case, and he would quote from those statements the steady increase of adult able-bodied indoor paupers from ·8 per thousand in 1874 to 1·1 per thousand in 1900 and 1·3 per thousand in 1905. Outdoor relief (able-bodied) had dropped from 11·7 per thousand in 1849 to 2·1 per thousand in 1905. Anybody, however, who had given any attention to the question knew that the system which in 1849 was slowly getting to work was bound to reduce the outdoor class. That was its great principle. The figures proved that persons who in 1849 were considered suitable for relief were not now considered suitable. What was the condition of these persons to-day? The figures provided no evidence that these persons were flourishing citizens. It was notorious that for some years past the vagrant class had been increasing. In short, the Return amounted to a declaration that after sixty years of free imports, cheap
    878
    food, big loaves, trade union wages, temperance movements and reform, we were as we were in the matter of genuine poverty among the able-bodied. Indeed, we were probably worse, seeing that the 1·3 of able - bodied indoor paupers per thousand in 1905 was the outcome of a more rigorous system than the 1·5 per thousand of 1849. He denied that the figures as to imports and exports indicated that our industries were in a sound and progressive condition. Taking Trade Union figures, the statistics of the Statutory Unemployment Committees, and the results of independent researches into the social condition of the people, they showed that the state of our trade was far from satisfactory. Our foreign trade, they were told, had shown an increase. But had the wages of our workmen increased in proportion? That, was the real test, not what profit the trader got, but what wages the British workman got, and how many workmen got no wages at all. The Board of Trade Labour Gazette proved that one out of every twenty trade unionists could not find work in England or Scotland; and if that was so, what must be the condition of unskilled and unorganised labour, and this was what the Government called a sound and satisfactory state of things! There was, in connection with this subject, a useful, but much-derided, Act of Parliament—the Unemployed Act. At least it enabled us to form some estimate of unemployment, though any estimate so formed must fall short of the truth. According to the Board of Trade Labour Gazette, taking London alone, 42,093 persons had been registered as unemployed in the London area. Of these, 8,072 had been given employment-relief at wages barely sufficient to keep body and soul together. What had become of the other 34,000, who had not obtained employment relief? They had been left to starve or were forced into pauperism. In the year in which they were told to congratulate themselves upon the exceptional prosperity of British trade some 34,000 persons most of them willing wage-earners, not wastrels or ne'er-do-wells, were left to starve or go into the workhouses. Whilst there was no suggestion of a remedy for this evil from the Ministerial side of the House, at least they on the

    879
    Opposition side could claim to have a definite remedy. Unionists believed that a defensive tariff would enormously mitigate the evils of unemployment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite denounced tariff reform, but he believed he would live to see a repetition of what occurred in the first half of last century in regard to the Corn Laws, and that those who now opposed fiscal reform would be the very men to bring it in. There was another Party on the benches near him, the Labour Party, which had a remedy. It was simple and drastic—the re-adjustment of the relations between Labour and Capital. He believed that Unionists and those of the Labour Party would come to recognise that the policies of tariff reform and social reform were closely related—were, indeed, the counterpart of each other, and that what was wanted was more regulation of our foreign and home trade. That must make social reform and fiscal reform go hand in hand. They would get no remedy for the unemployed problem unless it was approached in the right spirit. He believed the President of the Local Government Board and his colleagues would never solve the problem so long as they gazed complacently at Blue books while the people perished, and offered figures and Returns to starving men. The Government did not even handle their own figures properly. They imagined that the increase of imports and the increase of exports according to recent Returns showed an equally satisfactory position. The most significant feature of these trade Returns was that the imports exceeded the exports. Manufactured imports meant less work for the British workman. The excess of imports over exports meant a dead loss to the workmen of this country. The Free Traders declared that the excess of imports represented interest on our foreign investments abroad. Yes, while the rich man derived his profit from abroad, the poor man was unemployed at home.
    MR. CROOKS: Let the rich man share it then.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he would give the opinion of a writer who he thought would meet with respect. A Socialist
    880
    writer, Mr. R. B. Suthers, in last week's Clarion said—
    "If the capitalists invest abroad, their capital will find employment for the foreigner, (or the co'onist), and the interest on the investments comes home in the form of goods and may throw British workmen out of employment."
    That was why they said a defensive tariff would enormously mitigate the evils of unemployment. The Government, they knew, would not regard a defensive tariff as a solution of the unemployed problem or as conducing to the general improvement of our trade; on the contrary, they thought our present trade system was perfect. What was the Government's alternative remedy to remove the evils of unemployment? Were they prepared to follow the lines laid down by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil? He saw no indication of it. The only crumb that could be gathered from the Government was in the last paragraph of the Speech from the Throne in a suggested amendment of the Unemployed Act. Those who were in the last Parliament knew that the rank and file, as well as the leaders of the then Opposition described that measure as a mere tinkering with a great subject. If an Amendment, poked away in the general list of measures which might or might not be dealt with, was their solution of the unemployed problem, then the House could form an accurate measure of the Government's sympathy with the unemployed struggling poor of this country. But there might be some promise in the record of the President of the Local Government Board. On examining that record he was bound to say that it was far from re-assuring. [Laughter.] That laughter showed that the memory of the House, as of the public, was short. When the right hon. Gentleman was one of the Unemployed Committee of 1893 he opposed the proposal of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that Government grants should be given to local authorities for relief works, the right hon. Gentleman then declaring that "such a policy would debauch workers for a generation." On the same Committee the President of the Local Government Board took the view, which was supported by the present Prime Minister, that those compelled to seek employment relief in times of exceptional distress should be deprived of their votes. Some

    881
    would say he had quoted from the salad days of the right hon. Gentleman, to he would now take his actions since he had become a Minister. Almost his first act was to inform a deputation of the London unemployed that it was only reasonable that workmen employed under the Act should receive less than the standard rate of wages. [Cries of "No."] All that he could say was that the words were taken from The Times report. If the right hon. Gentleman did not say that those who claimed such relief under the Act were to receive less than the standard rate of wages, did he declare they should receive the standard rate of wages, and if he did not say ei her of those things, what did he say? He also wanted to know how the right hon. Gentleman could reconcile his statement that no man was worth more than £500 a year with the fact that he took £2,000 per annum as President of the Local Government Board in order not to become a blackleg. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
    MR. CROOKSasked if the words which he overheard the hon. Gentleman say, "I will go on speaking till all is blue" were strictly Parliamentary.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYagain endeavoured to address the House, but there were further cries of "Withdraw," and the hon. Member then appealed to the Chair.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind hon. Gentlemen that by making use of this form of preventing an hon. Member from speaking they are using rather a dangerous weapon which may be used against themselves. If the hon. Member for Hoxton had said anything which was unparliamentary I should have called upon him to withdraw it. I understand that the expression he used was a quotation and was not an original observation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the observation he made was taken from a report which he read in a newspaper of a declaration made by the President of the Local Government Board. The state-
    882
    ment he quoted was that the right hon. Gentleman took a salary of £2,000 as President of the Local Government Board because he would not be a blackleg, although he had declared no man was worth more than £500 a year. If he had misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman of course he would be most ready to apologise as he had no desire to make any personal observation. But he claimed he had quoted his words accurately. He had known the right hon. Gentleman for more than twenty years and it was not his desire to try to make capital out of anything of a personal character. He wanted to show that the right hon. Gentleman's public speeches did not convey any confidence to those who took an interest in the unemployed problem. The next step that the right hon. Gentleman took on acceding to office, was when the Tottenham local authority applied for sanction to employ the unemployed upon a swimming bath. The right hon. Gentleman refused official sanction to the arrangement. [Cries of "No."] Then he should be glad to be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman. Again, the actual word the right hon. Gentleman used to the Lambeth Guardians, who desired to acquire land for a farm colony, were—
    "The history of previous experience does not warrant the assumption that the proposal of the guardians is likely to be attended with that measure of success as would justify the large expenditure it would involve."
    This tenderness for the interests of the ratepayers' pockets was a new feature in the right hon. Gentleman's character. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the expenditure of public money for farm colonies for the unemployed was more profitable than running empty steamboats upon the Thames. Either the words of the right hon. Gentleman meant nothing, or they meant that he was against farm colonies altogether. The right hon. Gentleman could un-questionably claim that he had more drastic and heroic remedies for unemployment before the recent election. In his election address the right hon. Gentleman used the words—
    "A legal eight hours day is the best means of securing work for all."

    883
    He was not quoting from the right hon. Gentleman's revolutionary days, but from the time when he was a Cabinet Minister, and no Cabinet Minister surely would deceive his constituents by advocating that which he believed his colleagues would not allow him to introduce. There was nothing in the King's Speech about an eight hours day, and the House had a right to know whether it was part of the programme of His Majesty's Government or not. When a Minister of the Crown defined an eight hours day as the best means of providing work for all, and there were in London 40,000 men registered as unemployed, of whom 34,000 had received no work by employment relief, but were sent into pauperism or had to starve, the House had a right to know whether the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to his constituents was a mere attempt to get votes, or whether it was part of the policy of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. On his side of the House they were satisfied that all was not well with British trade and that all could not be well so long as the bitter cry of the workless workman confronted and shamed His Majesty's Ministers who tried to deceive the nation by cries of Chinese slavery and yet left the workmen of our country to starve. He begged to move.
    MR. HILLSformally seconded the motion.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question to add the words, 'But humbly to represent that whilst Your Majesty records with satisfaction the fact that the imports and exports of the country show a steady and accelerating increase, there is widespread misery among the labouring classes due to want of employment, and this House regrets that no remedy has been proposed in Your Majesty's gracious Speech to prevent the great want of employment which exists."—Mr. Claude Hay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words "be there added."
    MR. G. H.ROBERTSsaid that they of the Labour Party were keenly
    884
    alive to the problem of the unemployed, but they were not going to be a party to making the matter a peg on which to hang fiscal reform. They had a lively recollection of the fight that arose when the controversy was raised by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and the suggestion of old age pensions was tacked to it so as to make fiscal reform attractive to the working classes of the country. The Labour representatives were well aware of the fact that unemployment was not peculiar to a free trade country, but was even more widely prevalent in a protectionist country. They were also aware that the largest unemployed army of workers in the world was Coxey's army in the United States. The Labour Party were glad to note that it was the intention of His Majesty's Ministers to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject in due course, and whilst they did not desire to embarrass the Government, they hoped no undue delay would be allowed. He entirely dissociated himself from the remarks of the previous speaker. He did not think anything was to be gained for the cause of the unemployed by making personal attacks upon the President of the Local Government Board. He thought it was bad policy to exploit the poverty of the masses in order to display vindictiveness towards a right hon. Gentleman whom they were pleased to know came from the class they were associated with, for they were glad to know that a member of the working class community was considered to be of sufficient fitness and capacity to occupy a seat in the Cabinet of the nation. During the election campaign, not merely for political purposes, they attempted to prove that unemployment would always be with them so long as industries were unregulated and disorganised as they were to-day. He went so far as to submit that while profit-making was the great end of those engaged in industry, so long would it be that large masses of their fellow men would be begging others to permit them to toil and be denied the possibility of utilising their labour to the best advantage. The Labour Members had affirmed that an eight hours day was necessary. At the present time there were railway servants

    885
    working twice eight hours per day, and they contended that these long hours were wrong and were one of the great causes of unemployment. If the proposals of the Government took the form of doing anything to regulate the hours of industry, then the Labour Party would be for giving them their wholehearted support. He hoped that when the Government drafted their Bill it would not follow the lines laid down by the late Government, under which so many inquisitorial questions, repugnant to the unemployed section of the community, had to be put. The Labour Party hoped that the fact of a man being out of work and willing to work would be a sufficient qualification for work being found for him. He hoped that the principle of fair wages would be constantly kept in view by the Government in all their proposals. He claimed that low wage; were to-day largely the cause of unemployment. How fiscal reform was going to remedy this they had no evidence to prove to their satisfaction. He knew that their trades unions had had to fight for every concession which had been made. He claimed, on behalf of those organisations, that, by increasing the wages of the working classes, they had enhanced their consuming power and in that way they had created an extra demand for labour and had to that extent alleviated the severity of the unemployed problem. They claimed that any remedy must have this end in view. They wanted a just and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country, so that no man woman, or child would be denied the right to exercise to the full the consuming power which was their inherent right. He believed that the Liberal Party were keenly concerned in this problem, but in any case the Labour Party did no intend to allow the problem to be exploited in the interest of fiscal legerdemain. They were willing to wait for the
    886
    Government proposals, having confidence in the fact that after what had been said they would be able to diagnose the desires and needs of the people, and he hoped those proposals would be of a tangible character and calculated to achieve the ends which they mutually had in view.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS): The hon. Member for Hoxton has placed on the notice Paper an Amendment in which he expresses regret that the Government is unconcerned with the widespread misery and destitution due to the want of employment. If the hon. Gentleman had confined himself to his Amendment, and to the scope that Amendment would have given him for a useful, impersonal, and practical speech, he might have added to a rather slender Parliamentary reputation. But the hon. Gentleman has used the opportunity, which might have been used in the interest of the poor and for the benefit of the unemployed, for the purpose of instructing and advising the Government, for wasting the time of the House with a réchauffé weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable references to the President of the Local Government Board. To notice them would be to dignify them; to reply to them would give them a substantiality which they lack; and the hon. Member will pardon me if I do not indulge in that recrimination that his attack might provoke—an attack which he must have founded on statements in newspapers, as ignorant of my past record on this subject as the hon. Member himself. But the Government has no right to pass over what is substantial in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The most substantial suggestion is that the Government display unruffled optimism about the condition both of trade and of the unemployed. If that be true—and it is not altogether true—that optimism is

    887
    shared by the overwhelming majority of the electorate of this kingdom, for they share the view that our exports are good and are increasing, that our exports are large and are improving. Curiously, in the very year that the hon. Gentleman and his tariff reform friends described England as a dying country with vanishing trade and disappearing industries, the heads of those industries stood up and unhesitatingly gave the retort courteous that they had an answer to every one of those statements. The hon. Member proceeded from his misrepresentation of imports and exports to the Return which, at the request of some hon. Members, I issued as a command Paper the other day. I am the more justified in issuing that Return when I find men who should know better telling the country that there are a million able-bodied men in our workhouses. I have a right to point out that that statement is inaccurate, being 8,223 per cent. wrong. Instead of a million able-bodied paupers there are less than 9,000 all told. The hon. Member suggested that that return was compiled to alienate sympathy from the unemployed. It is a remarkable fact that it was compiled mainly at the instigation of those social students who build upon fact so as to enable them to get a correct representation of the problem with which they have to deal. I will not allow any Member or any right hon. Gentleman, however important a posision he may occupy in public life, to impugn, without repudiation, the figures issued by our disinterested, neutral, impartial, and well-informed Civil servants, who in these matters are beyond fear and above reproach. What the hon. Member should have done, and has failed to do, is to show in what particular the Return is inaccurate, in what respect it has been cooked. Pending such proof, the Return issued under the signature of the distinguished head of the Local Government Board, Sir Samuel Provis, holds the field in spite of the grotesque insinuations of the hon. Member for Hoxton It
    888
    has been suggested that 1849 was a significant year with which to begin the Return. There was no choice. It is a curious coincidence that the first reliable Poor Law Return synchronises with the beginning of the free trade era. That is neither my fault nor the fault of the late Mr. Richard Cobden; and instead of its being a subject of reproach to the country that, whilst pauperism, indoor and outdoor, has diminished, the cost of maintaining paupers has increased, it is a subject for congratulation, because it shows that under free trade the Poor Law has been humanised, the workhouse is not the Bastille it used to be, and the hospitals of the old days—the free hospitals outside—are in no sense comparable with the Poor Law infirmaries of to-day, in which the treatment of patients is as good as they can get in the average general hospital supported by voluntary contributions. The fact is that the misery of mankind is not increasing. The sympathy of mankind is expanding, and in no respect is it better shown than in the kindly, humanitarian way in which in recent years the poor in workhouses and infirmaries have been treated. I admit with regret that the number of vagrants is increasing. But that is mainly due to mistaken and indiscriminate charity. Since taking my present office, it has been part of my duty in earning this £2,000 a year to make inquiries into this question, and whilst the hon. Member opposite, perhaps, has been otherwise more pleasantly and, probably, more profitably engaged, I have, in the "wee sma' hours ayont the twal," between twelve and five in the morning, been under Waterloo arch and in places where the poor congregate, endeavouring to obtain some insight into the means by which their lot can be ameliorated, and their numbers reduced. Then the hon. Member for Hoxton asked why I had not given any explanation of the Return we have issued in regard to the number of

    889
    able-bodied men who have been relieved by local authorities other than Poor Law guardians. There is only one reason, and it is that last year the figures were given in two reports, which are accessible to the hon. Member, as he would have known if he had given as much attention to this subject as he has to studying the interesting details of my autobiography. The number of men relieved by means of relief work by the local authorities last year was about 20,000. It is true, I regret to say, that pauperism to-day is higher than it was some years ago. There are 105,000 more indoor and outdoor paupers in England to-day than five years ago. Why? Because we have been wasting our substance on riotous living. There are 24,000 more indoor and outdoor paupers in London at this moment than five years ago. Why? Because in the last ten years£670,000,000, which, should have been spent on reproductive and remunerative works for our skilled and unskilled labourers, has been spent on fireworks in South Africa and other extravagant and futile expenditure for the delectation of mafficking Imperialists, and I must frankly say that the exhibition is not worth the money that has been spent upon it. I have one illustration of that point. I notice that the Irish Members are very properly asking for the amelioration of the lot of the labourers in Ireland. In twenty-eight years private enterprise and State effort has built 25,000 cottages for the Irish people, and those cottages have only cost the sum of money which the last Government spent on chasing the Mad Mullah in Somaliland. If that £4,500,000 had been spent in Ireland even as a free gift, Irish labourers would not have been coming into England as they are to-day and competing with English labourers. Irish bricklayers would not have been competing in the labour market, and that money would have been much more profitably employed. The hon. Member has made a statement
    890
    which, so far as it affects me, I brush aside. But he has made a reflection on the authors of the last Act and on the Labour Members who watched the progress of the Measure last session. The hon. Member has accused me of suggesting that the men who were employed on relief works set up under the Unemployed Workmen Act should be satisfied with less than the fair or current rate of wages. He ought to know that that statement is far from true. On the contrary, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was a member of a deputation, which included the Bishop of Stepney and the Rev. Russell Wakefield, to the Local Government Board; and he will, I am sure, confirm my statement that we insisted upon the current rate of wages being paid; and we properly insisted, as I ever shall insist, so long as I hold my present office, that for relief works under the Unemployed Workmen Act there must always be an incentive for the workmen to resume their normal industrial employment, but that that incentive should take the form not of lower wages per hour, but of fewer hours per day or fewer days per week, so that a man would have an opportunity of looking for his usual and natural employment. It is true that in 1893 and 1894 I said—and I have not changed my opinion materially—that it was a mistake for the Imperal Government to give localities doles and grants indiscriminately except with adequate supervision and control of the expenditure, which is very difficult with relief works. I said that in 1894, and what I have said I have said and adhere to. No doubt I have made a similar remark to that quoted by the hon. Member—that certain men are not worth more than £500 a year. I must have had the hon Member for Hoxton in my mind. As to the Tottenham case which has been quoted, Tottenham applied for a loan of £3,000 for certain recreation-ground work for the unemployed, and my predecessor facilitated the loan. The work was carried out in a way that indicated

    891
    lack of proper supervision, and there was a loss of £1,000. Tottenham asked that the period of repayment of the loss should be the same as for the loan—viz. twenty-five years. The right hon. Gentleman opposite refused, and I have adhered to that decision. As to the question of the Lambeth farm colony, my withers are unwrung on that question. If the hon. Member knew the facts, instead of disagreeing with me he would rather praise my action. I am bound to subordinate my personal views on many subjects to my official responsibility as guardian of the ratepayers' purse; and I intend to sink the private in the public good. I am not going to allow land agents and others who have got sour and relatively useless lands, unsuitable for farming and agricultural purposes, to palm that land off on innocent town boards of guardians at two or three times the price that it was sold at a short time ago. Therefore, I think I deserve eulogy rather than blame, and I can assure the hon. Member that if he knew as much about that particular colony as I do, he perhaps would have been a little more severe on that district than even I have been. The hon. Member has made a number of silly statements which have been the vogue of ignorant ournalists of the Yellow Press brand during the last ten years. Nearly all those allegations have been the subject of investigation at a trial at the Old Bailey lasting for twenty-one days. On that occasion the hon. and learned Member for the City of London pursued me with a speech which was one of the ablest I have ever heard against myself. Yet the jury acquitted me, and no one rejoiced at the verdict more than the distinguished advocate opposed to me. Since that time how things have changed! Twenty years ago I was answering these allegations in the dock at the Old Bailey-Poetic justice, through the good faith and kindness of my fellow countrymen, has now placed on me the responsibility of
    892
    showing my fellow working-men a quick road out of the crooked path in which many of them have to live, move, and have their being. Curiously, I have with me the very handbill which I handed to the hon. and learned Gentleman twenty years ago. I would ask the House to note the economic soundness and the moderation of our claim in those days as in the present. We asked the Government to relax the severity of the outdoor relief test for able-bodied men. That I have had the proud privilege of doing myself. We asked public bodies to start works at reasonable rates of wages. That is being done, and has been done. We asked the Metropolitan Board of Works to begin public works and build artisans' dwellings. That has since been done to the extent that we have now forty estates in London with 100,000 county council tenants living in them, as against none ten years ago. We asked for the reduction of hours of labour in Government factories to eight hours a day, and I did my best personally to prevail on the present Prime Minister when he was Secretary for War to carry that most useful reform into practice. The next modest thing was that no firm contracting with the Government should pay less than the lowest trade union rate of wages. We asked that a Bill should be introduced reducing the hours of labour on railways, and I am glad to say that has been done, although I think we have not gone far enough. The tramway workers for whom I also pleaded have had a considerable reduction of hours of labour. Last but not least in this modest programme was the call made on the Government, which I understand the Government is not indisposed to agree to, for an international conference of all civilised commercial nations to consider the industrial questions of child labour, the labour of women, work in dangerous trades and a maximum working day. For advocating these modest and moderate instalments

    893
    of justice the hon. Member tried to make out that we had done some very dreadful things. Sane men do not do dreadful things. England is—
    "A land of just and old renown
    Where Freedom slowly broadens down
    From precedent to precedent."
    But "slowly" should be eliminated and "quickly" substituted. Now I must for a moment deal with the allegations of widespread misery before I conclude. It is not true that it prevails to the extent which has been stated. I am not going to shelter myself behind figures and percentages. So long as there is one bona fide man or woman, through no fault of his or her own, out of employment, it ought to be the subject of the legitimate concern of every citizen and every Minister. On this subject my convictions are obligations, and as soon as they can be converted into political duty and administrative acts we shall lose no opportunity in so converting them. But you do not improve matters by exaggerating the distress. In 1894 seven per cent. of trade unionists were out of work; in 1904 the figure was 6 per cent.; and in 1905 it was 4 per cent.—a considerable diminution; and I am glad to inform the House that, in the judgment of those experts and specialists who are in a position to know, there is every reason to believe that 1906, 1907, and 1908 will, with the exception of the building trade, probably be the best three years for employment and industry during the last thirty years. My next point is briefly to deal with what has been called the "widespread misery" of the unemployed as registered by the unemployed district committees. And here I must ask that the facts shall be allowed to temper the statement of the hon. Member. There are ninety distress committees throughout the kingdom. Eight only in Scotland have asked for grants from the Queen's Unemployed Fund, five only from Wales, and practically there has been no demand from Ireland until the other day, when the
    894
    Committee did their best to satisfy Ireland's demand for a share. The hon. Member himself admitted that under the distress committees 8,000 workmen in London are kept going.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Eight thousand out of 42,000.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: It is not the fault of the committees nor of the Government that the proportion to the number unemployed is so small. It is due to the fact that it is a new organisation and that the committees have great difficulty in doing their work. Hon Members who go further than I do on this unemployed question must admit that, so far as the Local Government Board are concerned, they have stimulated these distress committees to get to work and have supplied them with funds. We have revised the inquisitorial character of the inquiries, and we have made regulations under which these distress committees can do their work. So much for the criticism of the hon. Member. The only thing I have now to do is just briefly to tell the House whore this unemployed question is as raised in the Amendment. At the present moment—and the House must be told this, because these are significant facts which must influence any President of the Local Government Board or Government—we have a Royal Commission sitting on the Poor Law, and, under the second term of their reference, they are to inquire into the various moans outside the Poor Law for meeting distress arising from want of employment during periods of industrial depression. Beyond that, the Commission will have to consider the Unemployed Workmen Act—its object and its scope. The Vagrancy Committee, also dealing with another aspect of the unemployed problem, has concluded its labours, and a valuable and interesting report will be in the hands of Members next week. We have a Small Holdings

    895
    Committee dealing with a not unimportant phase of the unemployed problem. I believe we shall have great difficulty in potting town dwellers back to the land. It will be more easy to prevent people from coming to the towns, and the Government have wisely decided, as has been announced to-night by the President of the Board of Trade, to institute a Committee that shall be short, sharp, practical and businesslike, to take into consideration the questions of afforestation, the reclamation of waste lands, coast protection, coast erosion, and so forth. I can only say that so far as our Department is able to facilitate that work we shall do our very best. One other point I think it is right to mention to the House. My distinguished colleague the Secretary of State for War has, at the request of those who know this unemployment question well, done a very sensible and practical thing—he is going to give twenty battalions of Militia their training in the winter and during the slackest period of their year. I believe the whole of the Militia might receive their training at the periods which synchronizes with the slackest period of their normal unemployment. Miners, who are busiest in winter, might receive their training in June and July, while, on the other hand, bricklayers' labourers, and men of that class, who have a slack time in winter, might receive their training at that season. But, perhaps, better than all I have mentioned—and I hope the House will pardon me for doing it—is that I have called into conference at the Local Government Board a number of the largest employers of casual labour in this country, those who employ men at intermittent work, to see whether, by appealing to them to set their own house in order, they cannot on their own initiative, and by consultation with each other, mitigate the precariousness of dock, gas-work, and brickfield labour. The hon. Member says that whatever
    896
    you do you will not seriously affect the problem of the unemployed unless you deal with the question of tariff reform. Two and a half years ago when this question of tariff reform was first brought forward I ventured to say that the agitation and its authors would be "snowed in." My prediction has come true. Not only has the tariff reform Party been "snowed under," but an avalanche has hit them in the midriff. To paraphrase that Americanism, "The subsequent proceedings interest us no more." I venture to say that I have one remedy for unemployment. I believe that what this country wants is immunity from war. I believe that industry is hungering for peace, and that commerce wants economy and retrenchment in every department, and above all, hon. Members must not forget which trades had the largest amount of unemployment. The cotton trade had never had such a good year. The shipbuilding trade last year excelled even its own splendid annals of prosperity-Iron and steel, engineering and machinery, have reached a record in the very years when we were told that the undertaker or the broker's man was to visit them. The trade which has the largest number of unemployed is the building trade. Five years before the war there were only 2 per cent. in that trade out of work, but that percentage is now six times larger. There are no foreigners in the building trade. It is not touched or affected in the least by foreign competition. If the tariff reform proposals were introduced, and if materials were taxed on coming into the country, it would be worse for the building trade. There is simply one reason why the builders are out of work. Since the war the rate of interest on money for private enterprise has risen from 2 per cent. to 3½, 4, and 5 per cent. Let me "bovrilise" these facts. Five years before the war there were 1,012 private Bills got through the House of Commons,

    897
    Many of these meant the expenditure of £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 on gas works, electric lighting, tramways, housing, and municipal undertakings. Since the war dear money has prevailed, and local authorities have had high rates. They have withheld the promotion of public works which would otherwise have given employment to a large number of men. The result has been that the number of men unemployed in the building trade has been considerably increased. I am glad to say that the building trade is improving. That improvement will go on as money becomes cheap and as the general trade of the country improves. I beg the House to assist in providing real remedies, but not the economic quackeries that are often suggested, not fiscal fallacies, where the remedy would be worse than the disease, not the proposals of visionary politicians which would sap the independence of the people, postpone permanent reform, and do damage both to the community and the individual by proceeding on the unsound economic lines which these pernicious remedies too often take. The greatest means for the improvement of trade is that in the next twenty years we should not have fourteen wars and expeditions as we had in the last ton years. What we have to do is not to spend so much money on wasteful expenditure, abroad, but to concentrate our efforts on remunerative expenditure at home; help industries in their natural expansion so that they can absorb what are now displaced. What we have clearly to recognise is that it is not sufficient to provide men with irregular work; that it is not sufficient to provide transient relief works. I believe that the best remedy you can provide for unskilled labour, apart from giving steady work, is to see that the wages paid are such that the workman would have a margin wherewith to insure against unemployment. Less money should be wasted on drinking
    898
    and betting, and wiser provision should be made for the exercise of true providence in the best sense of the word. These are only some out of many of the suggestions that might be made for the betterment of the unemployed. If time permited, and if this were the occasion, I could go into more of the things which the Government have in contemplation. There is no royal road to economic reform or social revolution. The remedies for the unemployed are as numerous as the causes are multifarious. It is the business of the Government to take occasion by the hand, and to help the unemployed whenever that is possible. So far the Government have lost no opportunity of helping the unemployed on every possible occasion, as the several measures in the King's Speech indicate, and I sincerely regret that the time of the House in the debate on the King's Speech should have been more or less wasted, as it has been, in the discussion of this subject to-night.
    I trust that I have dealt with the Amendment to the satisfaction of the House generally. I hope I have done it in a tone and temper that have commended my observations to the House. I thank the House for having listened to me so kindly. I would be inhuman if I did not say that I thank the House from the bottom of my heart for enabling me, the first of the ancient lowly, to stand at this box after twenty years to repeat in the same form, and to commend to the House of Commons, what in the old dark days of the unemployed I pressed on the public attention with much less notice. To-night I speak under circumstances and with an environment which are more congenial to me than in the days when I had to appear in the dock of the Old Bailey, where I first met the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of London.
    MR. COURTHOPEsaid the President of the Local Government

    899
    Board had given an outline of some of the questions with which the Government proposed to deal in connection with the unemployed problem. He mentioned small holdings, and it was to that subject that he himself desired to refer. The question of unemployment was closely tied up with the agricultural question, and he was glad to know that the Government proposals included the remedy of bringing the people back to the land. In endeavouring to find a remedy for the exodus from the rural districts, it was well to look for a moment to the cause of it. It was said during the election, and since then in this House, that the people had been driven from the land by the wickedness of the landlords. He submitted that that was not so. He maintained that they must look further than the landlords for the cause of agricultural depression. To adopt any drastic system of taking people back from the towns to the land, without providing any profitable employment for them, would be a failure. It would be putting the cart before the horse. The people who were brought back to the land must be enabled to cultivate it profitably. Something must be done to revive the agricultural industry. One of the reasons why the agricultural industry required reviving was that we had not produced agricultural commodities sufficiently, and that we had imported too much. Why was it that we imported annually 7,500,000 bushels of onions, between 3,500,000 and 10,000,000 cwts. of potatoes, and £5,000,000 worth of fruit? In January this year we imported 30,000 cwts. of foreign hops. He mentioned fruit and hops because he believed the cultivation of these products required a greater amount of labour than any other cultivation that could be named. One of the best methods, in his opinion, that the Government could adopt in order to bring the people back to the land was to do something to encourage the fruit industry and the
    900
    hop industry. It was said that the hop and fruit growers wanted protection. What they wanted was to be able to enter our markets with their produce on the same terms as foreigners entered with their produce. Give them fair trade and their farmers would be able to compete. Something should be done for the hop and fruit industry, for if the farmers and fruit growers had fair play, or real free trade, they could meet any competition in the world. We imported too much, and produced too little, and no one would suggest that that was a good thing for our working classes. He hoped that this question of the right of entering foreign markets would be considered by even this Free Trade Government. The present Government, above all others, ought to deal with the question of "back to the land," and the easiest way of doing so would be by reviving our great national industry.
    MR. HUNTsaid he could not quite agree with the right hon. the President of the Local Government Board in his remarks about the fireworks in South Africa. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that these fireworks had been caused by the invasion of our country by the Boers and by their insulting ultimatum. If the right hon. Gentleman looked back in history he would see that no great nation had ever been able to go on for any great length of time without a big war. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that fiscal reform was practically dead and buried. He begged to differ from him entirely. They were told quite recently by Lord Avebury and by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that, in spite of booming trade, unemployment was getting worse and worse. The Member for Merthyr Tydvil said that the misery caused by want of work was very terrible and continuous, so that the booming trade did not seem to have

    901
    done the working people very much good. [Cries of "Divide."] He did not come to the House with the intention of speaking, but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what he proposed to do in this case? The First Lord of the Admiralty had much work to do for the British Navy, but the Government contractors, Messrs. Jackson, told them that they were going to buy till the granite they required for the Keyham Harbour Works in Norway because they could get it cheaper there than here, and that the reason of that was because the Norwegian workman got only about half the wages the British workman required. An hon. Gentleman had said that the British Government should be a model employer, and should pay the union rate of wages; but, he asked, did they insist on the foreign employer of labour paying the same rate of wages as here? And if not, how were they going to give employment to the British workman if they got goods from foreign countries at cheaper rates than they could be obtained at here? Take the wool industry. The tax in America on woollen goods was £94 for every £100 worth. The consequence was that America kept its own market to itself, and sent its surplus goods to this country free and sold them at cost price, or sometimes at less than cost price. While imports from this country were heavily taxed—Lord Kelvin said at about the rate of 12½ per cent.—the Americans sent their goods over here without paying a halfpenny for their admission. Therefore we were practically paying the Americans £10 or £12 upon every £100 of goods received. That was the way in which it appeared to him. He thought at all events that it was very well worth the while of those who represented labour to look very closely into the matter in order to see whether it was not possible that those who believed in free imports were wrong and that the whole of the rest of the civilised world right.
    902
    Question put, "To add at the end of the Address, 'But humbly to represent that, whilst Your Majesty records with satisfaction the fact that the imports and exports of the country show a steady and accelerating increase, there is widespread misery among the labouring classes due to want of employment, and this House regrets that no remedy has boon proposed in Your Majesty's gracious Speech to prevent the great want of employment which exists.'"
    Question negatived, and Main Question again proposed.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he had to move an Amendment to the Address in regard to throwing the cost of the maintenance of the public roads upon the Imperial Exchequer. He was bringing the subject forward in accordance with a promise which he made in his election address. [MINISTERIAL Laughter.] Evidently, from those cheers, hon. Members opposite were astonished at any one endeavouring to redeem promises given at the election. The reason he had interested himself in the matter was that if his suggestion were adopted the main roads of England would be kept in a better condition and the ratepayers in the country districts would be materially relieved. The main roads of England were daily becoming more used, and although they were better than in days gone by they left a good deal to be desired. He thought the system in France was one which might be adopted with great advantage to ourselves. There were national roads supported by the State and other roads in the maintenance of which the State assisted. Under these circumstances the roads in France left but little to be desired. This subject had already engaged the attention of several Commissions, and the Local Taxation Commission of 1900 recommended that one half of the

    903
    expense of the national roads should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. Two secretaries of the Treasury concurred in that view, and there were also references made to the subject by the Committee on Highways, which reported in 1903. He was afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to give him a very sympathetic answer, but he had no doubt that the President of the Local Government Board would give the matter his attention, as the question was of the utmost importance in the rural districts.
    COLONEL LEGGEformally seconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question, to add the words:—'But humbly regret that no mention is made of any arrangement for making the maintenance of public roads a charge on the Imperial Exchequer.'"—(Colonel Lockwood.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a matter which we cannot well deal with until we come to consider the question of local taxation, and I promise to consider the matter then.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODintimated that in view of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
    To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

    SUPPLY.
    Resolved, That this House will, this day, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
    Ordered, That the several Estimates presented to this House during the present session be referred to the Committee of Supply.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved, That this House will, this day, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.—(Mr. M'Kenna.)

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
    Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Bethnal Green Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; Bury Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Channel Ferry Railway and Quay Bill [H.L.]; Clacton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Cumberland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]; Dover Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Dover Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Dover Harbour (Works, &c.) Bill [H.L.]; Fulwood Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Glamorgan and South Wales Water Bill [H.L.]; Haslington Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Llandrindod Wells Gas Bill [H.L.]; London Squires and Enclosures Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Churches Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Nettlebed and District Commons (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]; Newport Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill [H.L.]; Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Penllwyn Railway and Road Bill [H.L.]; Rugby Subordinate School Bill [H.L.]; Thames Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Vauclain's Patent Bill [H.L.]; Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]; Warboys (Union of Districts) Drainage Bill [H.L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [H.L.]; Wolstanton United Urban District Council Gas Bill [H.L.]—Presented, and read la.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]; Anto-fagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway (Purchase) Bill [H.L.]; Bridgewater Canals Bill [H.L.]; Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]; Crediton Lighting and Power Bill [H.L.]; Crystal Palace Company Bill [H.L.]; Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance
702
Society Bill [H.L.]; Folkestone and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]; Great Central and Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railways Bill [H.L.]; Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill [H.L.]; Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill [H.L.]; Great Western and Rhymney Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Havana United Railways and Regla Warehouses Bill [H.L.] Holyhead Water Bill [H.L.]; H. R Baines & Company Bill [H.L.]; Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Hull and Barnsley Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]; Hull Joint Dock Bill [H.L.]; Kent Collieries Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]; Kent Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Kidderminster Gas Bill [H.L.]; Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill [H.L.]; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill [H.L.]; London and North Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Manchester and Milford Railway Bill [H.L.]; Maryport Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Railway Bill [H.L.]; Milford Docks Bill [H.L.]; Mirfield Gas Bill [H.L.]; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill [H.L.]; National Assurance Company of Ireland and Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company Bill [H.L.; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply Bill [H.L.]; North Sussex Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]; Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill [H.L.]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Portsmouth Water Bill [H.L.]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Railway Clearing System (Superannuation Fund) Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield Assay Office Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Thames Deep Water Dock (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Trent Navigation Company Bill [H.L.]; Truro Gas Bill [H.L.]; Wirral Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.].—Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (1905–6) (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE).
  Estimate of the further amount required during the year ended 31st March, 1906, beyond the sum already provided in the grant for Navy Services for the year.
  TRADE REPORTS: MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 645. Germany (Agriculture in Germany).
  INDIA (ARMY ADMINISTRATION).
  Further Papers regarding the administration of the Army in India (in continuation of [Cd. 2718.]).
  Report of the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy. Volume 1.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
  Annual Report and Accounts of the Governors, for the year ended 31st December, 1905.

  ROUMANIA: NEW CUSTOMS TARIFF (INTERIM STATEMENT).
  Translation of the new Customs Tariff of Roumania as modified by the commercial treaties with the United Kingdom and Germany, together with a summary of the new law relating to tare on goods dutiable by weight.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return of all sums received by the visitors of lunatics for travelling expenses or upon any other account from the 1st January to the 31st December, 1905.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  Eleventh Annual Report by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies of the proceedings of the registrars under the Building Societies Acts; with an abstract of the annual accounts and statements of societies for the year 1905.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SCHEMES, INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES, AND TRADE UNIONS.
  Reports of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, for the year ended 31st December, 1905.
  GREEK LOAN OF 1832.
  Account for 1905.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Orders made by the councils of the following county borough and city, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain shops in the county borough of Southport; city of Wakefield.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (DANGER OUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES).
  Report to His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department by G. A. Bonner, Esq., Barrister-at-law, on the draft regulations proposed to be made for the processes of spinning and weaving flax and tow, and the processes incidental thereto.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACT, 1891 (MEASURING AND PHOTOGRAPHING OF PRISONERS.
  Regulations, dated 22nd February, 1906, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 8 of the Penal Servitude Act, 1891, applying the provisions of the regulations dated 20th June, 1896, relating to the measuring and photographing of prisoners, to any alien in respect of whom a certificate has been given under Section 3 (1) of the Aliens Act, 1891.
  CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND): (ACCOUNTS, 1904–1905).
  Accounts of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland, for the year ended 31st March, 1905, and from 26th July, 1869 (date of the Irish Church Act) to 31st March, 1905, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General theron.

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
  Regulations made by the Local Government Board under the Act—Regulations for carrying the Act into effect made under Section 4 (3) of the Act (Principal

  705
  Regulations); Regulations temporarily modifying the principal regulations; Regulations amending the principal regulations in regard to the record paper.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  I. Treasury minutes, granting under Section 2 of the Superannuation Actretired allowances to—Walter Robert Hoyles (Principal Foreman, Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, War Office), (19th February, 1906); William Walter Kellaway (late Engineer (1st class Engineer-in-Chiefs Department, Post Office). (20th February, 1906); Lewis Robert Ambrose, Claudius Robert Brock, Harry Clarke, Henry Eden, Henry Haley James William Jater, William James Jater, William Samuel Priest, William Taylor, Overseers and Senior Telegraphists, Central Telegraph Office, Post Office, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887. (20th February, 1906).
  II. Treasury minute, declaring Hanoi Tonquin French Indo-China, to be an nuhealthy place within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1896. (26th February, 1906).

  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANK).
  An account of the gross amount of all moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, on account of "the Fund for Military Savings Banks," from 19th September, 1845, to 5th January, 1900.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Report of the proceedings of the Inspection Committee of Trustee Savings Banks, for the year ended 20th November, 1905; with Appendices. Fourteenth Annual Report.
  NEWCASTLE CHAPTER ACT, 1884.
  Order in Council, dated 16th February, 1906, establishing two residentiary canonries in the Cathedral Church of Newcastle, in addition to the two established by Order in Council of 26th November, 1900.

  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Order in Council, dated 16th February, 1906, exempting certain mixtures of
  706
  picric acid from all restrictions under the Explosives Act, 1875, when kept and conveyed in manner specified.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Council, dated 16th February, 1906, entitled "The Southern Nigeria Protectorate Order in Council, 1906."
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to codify the law relating to marine insurance.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  A Bill for the better prevention of corruption.
  Were presented by the Earl of Halsbury; read 1a, and to be printed.

  THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONIES.
  VISCOUNT MILNERrose to call attention to the situation in South Africa, and to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could give the House any information as to the form of the proposed Constitutions of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I feel that I stand in special need of that indulgence which your Lordships are always ready to accord to one who addresses you for the first time. I can honestly say that it is only with the greatest reluctance and from a strong sense of public duty that I am bringing up this matter at all to-day.
  At first sight the moment may not appear opportune. The noble Earl the Secretary of State may say:—"We have told you that we are giving this matter our most careful consideration, and that we find it a very difficult and complicated one. The Prime Minister stated only last Monday that he was wofully in want of information; the noble Marquess the Leader of this House stated on the same day that we were obliged to make

  707
  further inquiry on a variety of subjects; under these circumstances, how can you expect us, after only a week, to give you full particulars?" I admit the force of that, and I may say that the last thing I wish to do in this matter is to hurry the noble Earl or the Government. The more complete their knowledge the better. But without going into every detail I think the noble Earl may be glad of an opportunity of making some statement on the general trend of the Government's policy, especially on points which have not attracted so much attention as Chinese labour.
  I see it assumed in some quarters friendly to the Government that their guiding principle is simply to reverse everything done by their predecessors. If that is the case, I think that the country, which has certainly never given its approval to such a proceeding, is entitled to know what is contemplated before it is too late. I hardly think myself that that can be their intention. Still, there are certain disquieting symptom?—witness the whoop of triumph with which the Speech from the Throne and the commentaries of Ministers upon it have been received by the whole anti-British Press of South Africa and by the agitators who since the conclusion of peace have never ceased to discredit and obstruct all the efforts of His Majesty's servants in that country, even when they were of the most direct benefit to the mass of the Boer people.
  That insidious and absolutely consistent enemy of this country, Ons Land, breaks into a pæan because the Lyttelton-Milner régime is as "dead as a door nail." Ons Land is really almost as happy, and, of course, more demonstrative than on the occasion of our military disasters at the beginning of the war. I say these are disquieting symptoms; I hope the noble Earl will be able to dispel our alarm—the alarm of those who did not sympathise with the enemy during the war, and do not want to see all the hard and costly work accomplished since its conclusion mutilated or undone.
  I should like to point out to your Lordships some of the principal points with respect of which we are in suspense, and very anxious suspense. First of all, there was a passage in His Majesty's Speech which seems to me to have re-
  708
  ceived much less attention than it deserved. I refer to the brief paragraph which announced the immediate grant of full responsible Government to the Orange River Colony. The noble Marquess the Leader of this House seemed to treat that as a matter of course. He even said that he had never been quite able to understand why the late Government did not deal with the Orange River Colony in the same way as with the Transvaal. I cannot say what reasons weighed with the late Government; but to me it seems tolerably obvious that, if you are tempted to make the same risky experiment in two places, you naturally try it first in the place where the risk is less, and not in that where it is immeasurably greater.
  I trust the Government are under no illusions as to the extent of the risk in the Orange River Colony. What, after all, do we mean when we talk of giving responsible government to a colony? It means giving it, virtually, complete independence under the Crown. There remains, no doubt, the Governor's veto on legislation, a veto very rarely exercised, very invidious in its exercise, but still, as far as it goes, a certain power; but in executive matters the whole authority rests exclusively with His Majesty's Ministers. I think it was the late Lord Salisbury who once pithily described the situation by saying that the only bond between the Mother Country and a colony with responsible government was the bond of affection. But what if that, the only bond, is lacking? And in this case how can any reasonable man expect it already to exist?
  Here is a colony, three-quarters of whose inhabitants have been at war with you up to less than four years ago, a war that was fought with the utmost determination to the bitter end. It is true that they have been treated since then with a generosity which I believe has no parallel in history, that everything has been done, both to restore their material prosperity and to spare their susceptibilities, and that this treatment has not been without its effect. I believe that my friend, the Lieutenant Governor of that colony, is probably to-day one of the most popular men within its borders, with Boers quite as

  709
  much as with Britons. But though all that is very satisfactory as far as it goes, it does not amount to anything that by the wildest stretch of imagination could be called affection for British institutions, or the British Empire.
  The process of reconciling the Boers to the new political conditions has been quite as rapid as any rational being could expect. No doubt, however, it would have been even more rapid, and the prospect to-day would be far brighter, but for one most regrettable circumstance. I refer to the fact that almost every man of influence among them—their leaders in the war, to whom they cling with a loyalty which does them honour, the ministers of their Church, whose influence over them is notorious, and the leading writers in the Dutch Press—have from the very outset devoted themselves to thwarting the policy of reconciliation and to keeping alive by every means in their power the bitterest memories of the war. There have no doubt been some honourable exceptions, but in the great majority of cases this has been the attitude adopted by the leaders of the Boers in both the late Republics. Only last month ex-President Steyn, who was merely taking a line which has been taken over and over again by other leaders, made a speech to a Boer audience at Dewetsdorp and exhorted the mothers who had "suffered so much" in the concentration camps to remember those sufferings, and to see that their children were not unmindful of the story.
  That is bad enough; but there are still worse tactics to which the Boer leaders continually resort. I refer to the policy of trying to stir up the more ignorant and illiterate portion of the Boer people, and to excite and maintain their hatred of the British régime by the constant assertion, the mendacious assertion, that Great Britain has not fulfilled the obligations which she undertook under the terms of surrender. How, in the face of the plain letter of that document, out of which that accusation has over and over again been refuted, any human being can still go on reiterating it absolutely passes my comprehension. But any stick is good enough to beat a dog with, and any fiction, however malicious, however ridiculous,
  710
  is good enough for these gentlemen if it can only thereby foster animosity to Great Britain.
  What is going to happen under responsible government? It is more than probable—it is, humanly speaking, certain—that the persons to whom I have referred will form a large majority, if not almost the whole, of that first elected Parliament of the Orange River Colony to which, from the first hour of its existence, the whole legislation and executive power in that Colony is to be entrusted. I do not suggest that they will begin by doing anything sinister. All forms will be duly observed; as why should they not be? It will be perfectly possible for them, with the most complete constitutional propriety, little by little to reverse all that has been done, and gradually to get rid of the British officials, the British teachers, the bulk of the British settlers, and any offensive British taint which may cling to the Statute-book or the administration.
  I can quite understand that from the point of view of what are known as the pro-Boers such a result is eminently desirable. They thought the war was a crime, the annexation a blunder, and they think to-day that the sooner you can get back to the old state of things the better. I say I quite understand that view, though I do not suppose that it is shared by His Majesty's Ministers, or, at any rate, by all of them. What I cannot understand is how any human being, not being a pro-Boer, can regard with equanimity the prospect that the very hand which drafted the ultimatum of October, 1899, may within a year be drafting "Ministers' Minutes" for submission to a British Governor who will have virtually no option but to obey them.
  What will be the contents of these Minutes, I wonder? As time goes on it may be a proposal for dispensing with English as an official language, or a proposal for the distribution to every country farmer of a military rifle and so many hundred cartridges, in view of threatened danger from the Basutos. I think I can see the Governor just hesitating a little to put his hand to such a document. In that case, I think I can hear the instant low growl

  711
  of menace from Press and platform and pulpit, the hints of the necessity of his recall, and the answering scream from the pro-Boer Press of Britain against the ruthless satrap, ignorant of constitutional usage and wholly misunderstanding his own position, who dared to trample upon the rights of a free people.
  I may be told, I know I shall be told, that such notions are the wild imaginings of a disordered brain, that these are theoretical possibilities having no relation to fact or probability. They are not imaginings. They are just reminiscences. I know what it is to be Governor of a self-governing colony, with the disaffected element in the ascendant. I was bitterly attacked for not being sufficiently submissive under the circumstances. Yet even with the least submissive Governor the position is so weak that strange things happen. It was under responsible government, and in the normal working of responsible government, that 1,000,000 cartridges were passed through Cape Colony on the eve of the war, to arm the people who were just going to attack us, and that some necessary cannon were stopped from being sent to a defenceless border town, which directly afterwards was besieged, and which, from want of these cannon, was nearly taken.
  But, quite apart from these questions of very real but more remote interest, I do want most earnestly to ask His Majesty's Government this most immediate, urgent, practical question. What are you going to do in the Orange River Colony about the new British settlers upon the land—those, I mean, who are Government tenants—about the British teachers in Government schools, about the constabulary, about the officials, high or low, but especially the humbler of them, who have served you with such devotion during these last arduous years? Are you just going to hand them over like that without any further concern as to what may happen to them, with their legal rights, no doubt, such as they may be, but with no safeguards against hostile administrative action?
  Remember, this is no case of gradual constitutional development. It is the case of a sudden revolution. Loyalty
  712
  to the old system will be a black mark against a man under the new. The Government must surely feel that, if it is a question between the grant of full responsible government and this country keeping faith, they should choose the latter. In that case they will find that they have, after all, got to qualify their grant of responsible government and to proceed in a more gradual and circumspect manner than the words of His Majesty's Speech seem to imply. It is perfectly possible to do this. I believe it is absolutely more practical than the per saltum method. And, again, if they are wise and if they really, as the Prime Minister says, are looking forward to federation, they would do well to reserve certain powers in both the new colonies affecting matters which are of more than local importance until they are in a position to hand them over to a Federal Government.
  And now, returning to the general line of my argument, let me say that, as far as the attitude of the Boer leaders is concerned, there is absolutely no difference between the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal. But, in the case of the Transvaal, the danger arising from that attitude is less considerable. Unless the Transvaal is ruined and depopulated by blows levelled at its principal industry, or unless the distribution of political power in the colony is absolutely unfair, the British element, whether or not it obtains a majority in the Legislature, will in any case command so strong a minority that it should be able to protect itself and should, if it is not hopelessly alienated by our attitude towards it, supply to a great extent that bond of affection which, according to the great statesman I have already quoted, was the only bond which held self-governing colonies to the mother country. Surely, under these circumstances, it is not surprising that in the work of constitutional development the late Government should have given priority to the case of the Transvaal, and should have contemplated the two colonies proceeding in echelon, if I may use the expression, to the goal of ultimate complete self-government, which was the same for both.
  I know it may be said that the fears I have expressed about the Orange River

  713
  Colony amount to a plea for perpetual Crown colony government in that country, that they leave no hope of its ever being in a satisfactory condition under responsible government, and that, therefore as we are bound sooner or later to give it responsible government, why not give it now; why irritate them by delay? My Lords, I would like to join issue in the most direct manner with those who take up this position. In the first place, let me say that I am an out-and-out advocate of ultimate complete self-government, even in the Orange River Colony. If I had not been, I could never have put my hand to the terms of surrender in which that prospect was referred to. But I was satisfied that we were not holding out the hope of anything which we were not certain to grant in any case, and that complete self-government on the basis of the political equality of all white men was the only possible, the only desirable, goal of the work of political reconstruction in both colonies.
  To that goal every line of our policy, so far as I was responsible for it, has converged. Nor have I ever doubted that, though the road might be long, though the process might be slow, and must, if it was to stand the best chance of success, be gradual, with patience and circumspection we should be able ultimately to arrive at a thoroughly satisfactory result. Every year that passed the bitter memories of the war would grow a little more distant, and the trick of playing upon them less effective. Every year the obvious solicitude of the Government for the welfare of the people, the multiplication of good schools, the improvement of agriculture, the spread of railways, the hundred and one works of material advancement, would win us friends or diminish the hostility of enemies. Every year the new population would become more firmly rooted on the soil, and get on to better terms with the older inhabitants. Let me be quite frank and say that, even in the most favourable circumstances, even if sufficient time had been granted for all these influences to produce their inevitable effect, we might nave found, when we came to granting complete self-government to the Orange River Colony, it was still a source of some solicitude to Imperial statesmen. But I
  714
  felt that, if things went well elsewhere, it would not be a real source of danger.
  And here I come to the kernel of the whole business. Whether responsible government in the Orange River Colony can, or cannot, be introduced with safety depends on the general political situation throughout South Africa. Natal and Rhodesia are all right in any case. But in the Cape Colony, when the rebels are restored to the register, as they soon must be, the Bond will no doubt once more assert its domination; and with the Cape Colony under Bond domination I say that it is a very risky business to give complete self-government to the Orange River Colony, unless we can absolutely rely, to restore the balance, upon a prosperous and loyal Transvaal. That was, and is, the key of the whole South African situation.
  If I may digress for a moment, I should like to say that people in England have never fully appreciated—and that is one of the weakest points in the whole position—how great, how decisive, that prosperity and loyalty of the Transvaal in favourable circumstances might be; how important a factor in the peaceful federation of South Africa and the whole future of the Empire. Just now the Transvaal, indeed all South Africa, is under a cloud. It has cost us great sacrifices. The compensations which we expected, and reasonably expected, have not come. The local difficulties of the Transvaal—though this is one fault of our Party system and not of the Colony—are a curse to the political life of this country. Men are sick of the whole affair, and, as is always the case under such circumstances, the croakers are magnifying every trouble and spreading broadcast the most gloomy anticipations.
  Well, I am old enough to have lived through all this before. I remember when year after year this same gloom, these same jeremiads were all concentrated on our policy in Egypt. That was before we had had time to make Egypt a magnificent success. All this calumny with which the air is thick, all this raving about mammon and "Randlords," and the war having been a war for gold, and the liberties of a people having been trampled under foot to satisfy the greed of ruthless capitalists—substitute

  715
  bondholders for "Randlords" and you have an almost literal repetition of the hysterics of the early eighties. To-day the detractors have altered their tune about Egypt, and are even extolling our work there, which, if they had their way, would never have been done, in order to discredit by contrast our work in South Africa, which is still passing through the years of stress and strain. I do not suggest, for a moment, that the circumstances of the two countries are in any way similar. But the moral—the moral of patience, of tenacity, of turning a deaf ear to the consistent vilifiers of the policy of their country, and of the honour of its statesmen—is the same.
  My Lords, as I have said, if you aim at political stability in South Africa you need a prosperous and loyal Transvaal. The right plan in my opinion was to go gently until you had built it up. A cautious line in constitutional development, and full steam ahead in the material recuperation of the country—that was the true policy in both the new Colonies—always with a view to ultimate complete self-government. But as you have decided against the gradual method, as you are going not only to plunge into full self-government at once in the Transvaal, but to go at an equally breakneck pace in the Orange River Colony, then it is of vital and urgent importance—it may make the whole difference between our ultimately retaining or losing South Africa—that you do nothing to hamper the growth of the Transvaal or to alienate the affections of its people.
  What is the outlook in that respect to-day? My Lords, I say it with the deepest regret, the outlook is far worse, in my humble opinion, than it was three months ago. Six months ago, three months ago, it looked as if we were through our worst troubles in the Transvaal. The economic crisis was over. Trade returns, railway returns, revenue—every index of the general economic condition of the country was showing very satisfactory results. The amount paid by the mines in wages and salaries was £1,871,000 more in 1904–5—the first Chinese year—than in 1903–4. The amount paid by them for stores was £821,000 more. The expenditure of
  716
  this large sum by its immediate recipients was giving a powerful impetus to every industry in the country and to agriculture. The number of whites in profitable employment had enormously increased. The surplus population was almost absorbed, and there would soon have been a demand for further immigration. The reviving prosperity of industry and of agriculture was raising the spirits of the people—and, believe me, there is nothing like common prosperity to soften the asperities of racial rivalry.
  Moreover, the improvement radiating from the Transvaal was beginning to make itself felt, as sooner or later it was bound to make itself felt, in every part of South Africa; and, according to the latest returns, Cape Colony and Natal, which had suffered so deeply in consequence of the depression in the central State, were showing unmistakable signs of revival. As compared with that, what is the position to-day? What is the position of the great industry of the Transvaal, the great industry of South Africa, as it has been left by the acts and the declarations of His Majesty's Government? I venture to say it is a position of the most complete, the most harassing, the most paralysing uncertainty. No business could possibly flourish under such conditions; and we have just got to face the fact that the economic development of the Transvaal is definitely stopped. The best we can hope is that things will not go back. There is no chance of their going forward until the menace at present hanging over the colony is removed.
  My Lords, if I were to attempt to enter adequately into the discussion of Chinese labour, either on its economic or on its ethical side, I should keep you here till midnight. Moreover, we have now reached a stage in this controversy, which, sooner or later, is reached in every controversy, when no one can any longer hope to make converts. But, if this is not the time for argument, it is a time for a profession of faith. The tide of prejudice is running strongly against this system. That is the more reason why those who believe in it should speak out boldly. I know that I bear a large share of the responsibility for the introduction of Chinese labour. I am not going to

  717
  apologise for it. I am firmly convinced I was right.
  I did not go into this grave business lightly. When it was first suggested, when the question was first raised, I was as much opposed to it as all the rest of the white population of the Transvaal, except a mere handful of mineowners and mine experts, a small minority even of their own class. By what subtle means, by what insidious and subterranean influences, by what mysterious process does any one suppose that I, together with thousands of our fellow-countrymen out there—men quite as independent, as honest, as moral, as religious, as the average middle class and upper working class of Great Britain, to which they belong—that I and they were converted to take a different view? We were converted by the facts; and if I was converted a little sooner than some of the rest, it was only because I had earlier and fuller access to the facts, and perhaps more time exhaustively to study them.
  But let me add that, however great appeared to me its economic necessity, as revealed by the facts, I should never have felt myself justified in recommending the system if I had thought it morally wrong. I disliked the idea of it, because I foresaw that it would give us an enormous amount of trouble, though not precisely the trouble that has arisen, and that it would be difficult to recruit the coolies, to bring them over, to arrange for them on arrival; difficult to house them, difficult on the one hand, to prevent their giving trouble, and, on the other, to protect them against rough usage and against imposition, while the population would have to be protected against outrage. I fully recognised the gravity of all this. These were drawbacks, inconveniences, grave objections, no doubt, but such as with hard work and good organisation and administration could all be overcome, as I believe they have been overcome, although, no doubt, some mistakes were made and some very regrettable things happened in the process. These difficulties could not, in my judgment, be allowed to weigh against the supreme need of the country, not of the mines alone, not of the Trans-
  718
  vaal alone, but of every industry, of every portion of South Africa—the need of labour. It would have been otherwise if there had been something in the system which appeared to me inherently and incurably wrong. But that I was—and, after reading pages and pages of declaration and of hair-splitting I still am—totally unable to see.
  On the ethical side the charge against the system has now been reduced to this, that if you admit the Chinese coolies into the Transvaal at all, you are morally bound to admit them for all time and for all purposes. It seems to me that this is an entirely new moral law invented for the particular occasion. These men are aliens. They have no rights in the country by birth or citizenship. No one disputes that the Transvaal would have a right to exclude them or any other aliens. What is contended is that it has no right to admit aliens for a limited time and a particular object. But it is surely less interference with the freedom of the Chinaman to admit him for a certain time and for a certain purpose than to exclude him altogether. The people of the Transvaal want the Chinese for one purpose only. The Chinese are delighted to come, fully understanding that it is for that purpose only. The purpose itself is a good one. It is labour, arduous and disagreeable labour, no doubt, but still straightforward, honest labour. I say, under these circumstances, it is tyrannous, yes, tyrannous, on the part of the people of this country to prevent the Transvaal people and the Chinese from entering into this arrangement between themselves, and I say that tyranny is immoral.
  It has been said, and I sympathise with the remark and with the spirit that animates it, that there is no honest work which British workmen cannot do, and that they could do the work for which the Chinese are brought into the Transvaal at a certain wage. But the point is that the enterprise cannot afford the wage which British workmen would require, and rightly require. The British workmen will not, and ought not, to accept the only wage which for that particular work the mines can afford to pay. It would mean to him degradation. But for the Chinaman, with his different

  719
  standard of living, this same wage is not degradation, but advancement. And in doing this work which he can do without degradation, though the British workman could not, he is at the same time creating work of a different kind which the British workman can do with advantage. The arrangement is the most reasonable, I might almost say the most providential, which can be imagined; and it seems to me unreasonable, harsh, and tyrannous, both to the Chinaman and to the Briton, to forbid it.
  So much about the prospect on its economic side. Now, how about the political? Let me say at once that, even from the political point of view, I attach far more importance to the general prosperity of the Transvaal, to the development of its industry and its agriculture, to making it a great country, the home of thousands of working British people carrying on an ever-increasing trade with their fellow-workers over here—I say I attach more importance to that than to this or that franchise, this or that distribution of seats, always provided you do nothing ludicrously unfair. I thought that in both these respects what is known as the Lyttelton Constitution was a very fair one. I am sorry it has been upset. But I do not say that some other arrangement might not be devised which would be equally fair, though I should not so describe any plan which did not give the young unmarried or newly-married residents, who form so large and important an element in the Transvaal population, and bear so large a part of the burden of taxation, their full share of political power. I should not so describe any plan which involved the total swamping of the small towns. And, fortunately, abstract justice in this respect coincides with political expediency. For it is to the country towns and to the average professional and middle-class and working-class voter of the Rand and of Pretoria that you must look to prevent political power in the colony falling too much under plutocratic influence. The bulk of the country voters will do what "Het Volk" tells them, and "Het Volk" is not going to save you from "Mammon." It is quite as willing to-day as the old Transvaal Government was before the war to make
  720
  its own bargain with "Mammon." It will go for Chinese labour, or for some bad substitute, such as forced Kaffir labour, which really is "tainted with slavery," if thereby it can only get complete control of the country schools.
  There never was a question of this kind, a question of the distribution of political power, more complex and of more far-reaching importance than the present I one. But obviously I cannot discuss its details with the noble Earl across the Table to-night. We are in complete ignorance why Mr. Lyttelton's Constitution was rejected, or what the Government are going to put in its place. Probably the Government themselves do not yet know. But what I want particularly to ask is this. Are we never to know until everything is decided? Is this matter to be withdrawn entirely from the cognisance of Parliament and of the country, until we wake up some fine morning and find ourselves in the presence of an accomplished fact, which we may greatly dislike, and there is no room for criticism or even for suggestion? I most sincerely hope that the noble Earl will assure us that that is not going to happen.
  The case is entirely different from Mr. Lyttelton's Constitution. That was avowedly temporary and transitional. There would have been plenty of subsequent opportunities to alter and amend it. But this is to be the grant of full responsible government. This country is going to say its last word about the Constitution of the Transvaal and at the same time, perhaps, to give the decisive bent to the whole future of that Colony and of South Africa. That is so grave a step, the issues involved are so momentous, that no Government is justified in taking it without first submitting it to public discussion.
  My Lords, I must admit that I look forwards to the future with deep concern. I should have spoken perhaps even more strongly, but I have wished not to seem to make a Party attack. My desire is to save our position in South Africa, and not to do anything to injure, to discredit, or to hamper the Government. I am not much of a Party man any way. I have had too long and bitter an experience

  721
  of the evil effects of Party spirit on those national interests which it has been my duty and privilege, however imperfectly, to serve.
  If I were a Party man I should try to goad the Government into going still further than they have done, into completely crippling the industry of the Transvaal, into recasting the electoral system of that colony to the detriment of the British element, into hurrying on full responsible government in the Orange River Colony without any safeguard or precautions; because I feel certain that, while the people of Great Britain may not realise what all this means while it is being done, they will greatly dislike the consequences when the thing has been done, and they will visit with condign punishment those who have done it. If I were a Party man I should rejoice to see the extremists, who have already dragged it so far, run away with the Government coach altogether. But from my point of view the alienation of South Africa is too high a price to pay for another swing of the pendulum at home. For the pendulum may swing backwards and forwards many times, but South Africa once lost will be lost for ever.
  LORD HARRISrose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister was correctly reported as having at Liverpool, on January 9th, stated that the Government was making an inquiry as to what steps could be taken to remove the "taint of slavery" from Chinese labour; and, if so, what provisions of the Ordinance, or what administrative arrangements on the mines, justified the expression "taint of slavery."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should explain that I rise now to address your Lordships at the request of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in order that he may have the opportunity of replying to the points raised in my Questions at the same time as he deals with those which have been addressed to your Lordship by the noble Viscount who has just sat down. I feel that it is inevitable that in addressing you upon the particular points contained in my Question the level of
  722
  the debate must come down somewhat. The subjects with which the noble Viscount has dealt so earnestly and so exhaustively are of the highest Imperial order, whereas those with which I ask leave to trouble your Lordships refer merely to some of the points which serve to build up that portion of the Empire with which the noble Viscount has been dealing. But I hope it needs from me no apology for asking your Lordships to listen to me to-night. You have been on more than one occasion very lenient in allowing me, only a humble director of a company, to address you upon this subject; but I do so because I feel that I am representing the interests of tens of thousands of shareholders, many of them very poor.
  It is not my business to protect millionaires and magnates. They can very well protect themselves; but it is legitimate, I think, to ask your Lordships to listen to me on behalf of the shareholders in these companies which I have the privilege of representing. I shall endeavour in the first instance, in elaborating the Questions which I put to the noble Karl, to show that England feels at this moment so strongly, because she has been in a great measure misled and mis-instructed; and, next, I wish to ascertain from the noble Earl what it is, specifically, that the Government object to in what is being done at this moment under the Ordinance in the Transvaal. The first Question I ask is whether the Prime Minister used a particular expression—the "taint of slavery." When I put this Question on the Paper there had not been a debate in the House of Commons, and I was not aware that one was coming on; but I understand that in the course of that debate the Prime Minister did acknowledge that he used the expression "taint of slavery."
  When putting down this question I thought it only just to the Prime Minister to look up what "taint" means, and I find that Dr. Johnson defines it as a spot a stain, a soil, a blemish. I rather gathered from the explanation of the Prime Minister that he thought the first word in the sentence was a qualification of the last. I must say I cannot see that to call a system the stain of slavery,

  723
  the soil of slavery, the blemish of slavery helps him at all; and I am perfectly certain of this, that many of those hundreds who heard the Prime Minister use that expression, and many of the thousands who read the expression, and possibly the hundreds of thousands who have heard that he used it, did not draw any distinction between stain of slavery and slavery. His Majesty's Ministers seem to me now to be searching about in every direction for qualifications of those words and expressions which they used before the General Election. The other night the noble Earl opposite, the Lord President of the Council, told us, I think, that it was an explanatory expression—
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): I think I used the phrase, "a descriptive term."
  LORD HARRIS: There is a useful letter in The Times of this morning recalling the expressions which Ministers used before the Elections. I find that Mr. Morley described the Chinamen as chattels. A chattel, I suppose, is something that can be sold; and when the people of this country have seen illustrations of Chinamen in chains and heard them described, by an ex-Minister of the Crown and a Statesman who is now a Minister, as a chattel, it would not be unreasonable if a good many of them inferred that these Chinamen could be sold as African slaves used to be in the United States, before the war. Lord Spencer, whose absence we all deplore, and with whom, in his illness, we deeply sympathise, described the Chinamen as confined in cages; Mr. Lloyd-George spoke of them as chained in compounds, and Mr. Burns referred to the system as slavery naked and unabashed. Mr. Burns, at any rate, is not afraid of the expressions he uses. The noble Marquess the Leader of this House, whose absence I deplore to-night as I particularly wanted to put a Question to him, is reported to have said, on 11th February, 1904—
  "The conditions under which these people would live would really amount to pure slavery."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): No. That is denied by my noble friend.
  LORD HARRIS: Well, I have taken it from The Times. The statement is said to have been made by the noble Marquess on February 11th, 1904. If he did not use it, I apologise to him. He did say the other night that he had never used the expression slavery himself, and I was surprised to see this sentence attributed to him. But what I desire to point out is that all these expressions, which there is no doubt were used before the election, are now being qualified. Perhaps I may be allowed to read two letters which illustrate the anxiety which existed on the part of the Radical Party to get hold of any expression, any description by which they might agitate the minds of the people. These are letters which passed on the eve of the New Forest Election. The first was addressed to the Radical candidate—
  "It is reported that the managers of the South African gold mines, or some of them, in order to lessen the cost of meat, which in South Africa is dear and tough, have caused to be extracted the teeth of the Chinese labourers. Will you, if elected, undertake to briny in a short Bill compelling the mine owners to put false teeth in the place of those wrongfully extracted."
  Your Lordships laugh. Yes; it would be humorous if not altogether so pathetic that anyone standing for Parliament should display such gullibility and such greed for an opportunity for the dissemination of imaginary horrors. This is the reply which was sent—
  "Sir Robert Hobart presents his compliments to Mr. So-and-so and, in reply to his postcard just received reporting an almost incredible piece of barbarity to Chinese workmen in South Africa, desires to say that if the writer will be good enough to send him some more details or reference to the report he will at once forward the ease to the Secretary of State for the Colonies as the swiftest and most effective manner of dealing with an inhuman action."
  My Lords, the Radical Party have had the advantage of declamation from church and from chapel. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford has not hesitated to describe his reverend brethren in the Transvaal, the ministers of religion there, as persons with a lower sense of patriotism, of humanity, of Christianity than the right rev. Prelate himself. Why? They are men of the same blood and the same birth. Why should he, with, I venture to think, little of that

  725
  spirit of charity which is enjoined on us by St. Paul, find fault with these gentlemen who, far away from the luxury of palaces and cathedrals, are struggling their best to extend Christianity to the black race indigenous to the colony and to the yellow race which has been introduced there? It seems to me that the right rev. Prelate might have taken the trouble to ascertain the truth with regard to the Ordinance, and the system under which it is being worked, before bringing charges of this kind against men as honourable as any in the Church.
  I have said that the Chapel had also assisted the Radical Party. There is a red pamphlet being sold on every railway platform in England, entitled, "John Chinaman on the Rand; by an Eyewitness." On the outside of it there is a picture of a Chinaman manacled, with chains on his legs, and tied to a post, and in the distance, at the pit-head, are Chinamen being flogged. I cannot help thinking that that pamphlet was written by a certain Mr. Pless. I do not know whether your Lordships have studied this Blue-book, but at page 21 you will find a very terrible story. On that page is Lord Selborne's despatch dealing with the whole thing, and you will find that he refers to a Mr. Boland who had written some description of the ill-treatment of the Chinese. Lord Selborne says—
  "From the acting manager's letter you will see that there can he no doubt that Mr. Boland's informant is a Mr. H. J. Pless, who was at one time Chinese compound manager on this mine, but who has since left the service of the Company, and has returned to China. I will add nothing to the acting manager's letter and affidavit, and to the affidavit by the hospital attendant at the mine. These documents are a sufficient refutation of Mr. Boland's charges so far as they concern the management of the mine."
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): Will the noble Lord give us the number of the Blue-book from which he is quoting?
  LORD HARRIS: I am quoting from the last Blue-book—the one in continuation of [Cd. 2788] January, 1906. On page 30 Your Lordships will find an affidavit of Alexander James McCarthy, hospital attendant at the Nourse Deep,
  726
  Ltd., Chinese Hospital, to the following effect—
  "(1.) I joined the service of the Nourse Deep, Limited, as hospital attendant, on 27th April, 1905, and have worked at the hospital since that date.
  "(2.) I have never admitted a coolie who was suffering from the effects of flogging.
  "(3.) I have never admitted a coolie who was suffering from the effects of torture, such as being strung up by the wrists.
  "(4.) On or about the 10th June, 1905, at which time I was boarding with Mr. H. J. Pless, the Company's Chinese Controller, at his house on the Nourse Deep, Limited, he took a photograph of a Chinese coolie in the following circumstances: I do not know whether the coolie had committed any offence, but Pless said, 'I will make an example of this fellow, and I will photograph him tied up, for fun,' or words to this effect. He then first gave the coolie a cold water bath, followed by a hot water bath. I objected to this from a medical point of view as liable to give the man pneumonia. He then tied the coolie, stripped naked, by his wrists to two large nails on the door in his dining-room, tied his pigtail up to his hands, and then tied his feet. Whilst he was tied up Pless brought food at meal hours and placed it on a chair in front of the coolie where it was impossible for him to get it. Pless kept the coolie tied up from 7 o'clock at night until 11.15 a.m. the following morning, and then released him and allowed him to return into the compound. The same coolie was admitted by me into the hospital, some three days afterwards, suffering from influenza, which I consider was brought on by the cold and hot baths.
  "I remonstrated with Pless on his action on this occasion, but did not report same to the manager.
  "To the best of my knowledge and belief no one else saw the coolie tied up in Pless's dining room.
  "Pless sent the photograph he took to some place in town to be developed; I tried to find out where, but he evidently did not wish me to know.
  "(5.) Pless remarked to me on one occasion that the photographs he had taken would be useful to him on his return to China, and that he would make something out of them; further, that he intended writing a book—with the photographs for illustrations—on 'Slave driving on the Rand.'"
  Now this book, which, as I have described to your Lordships, is to be found on every railway platform in England, contains prints of a Chinaman hanging by his wrists from a nail in a door; and I do not think it is a very extravagant assumption on my part to believe that this book was produced by Mr. Pless.
  Now, the reason why I say that the Radical Party have had the support of

  727
  chapel as well as church is that this book is godfathered by Dr. Clifford. He has written a preface to it, without apparently taking any trouble whatever to ascertain whether the statements contained in the book were correct or not. There are, in the book, quotations from Mr. Boland, whom Lord Selborne has described in the words I have read. Am I not entitled, then, to say that the Radical Party have had the support both of church and of chapel? This is not the first time that slavery in the Transvaal has been discussed in your Lordships' House. I remember twenty-five years ago a very remarkable and memorable speech delivered by Lord Cairns after Majuba, in the course of which he pointed out that serious allegations against the Boer people as regards slavery had been made by the Press in South Africa. He quoted this from the Cape Argus—
  "The Republic has acted in contravention of the Sand River Convention."
  I fancy His Majesty's Government are going to place a great deal of dependence on the Sand River Convention and the Conventions that follow it—
  "And slavery has occurred as an unbroken practice. It has been at the root of most of its wars: it has been carried on regularly, even in times of peace."
  Lord Cairns pointed out that there were from 500,000 to 600,000 Kaffirs in the Transvaal, and he charged the Ministry of the day—the Liberal Ministry of the day—with handing back to a people against whom this accusation was brought, these 500,000 or 600,000 Kaffirs, with the risk of their being subjected to slavery. Where was the virtuous indignation of the Liberal Party then? Not a word; and if we had then agitated the country on that particular point, do not you think that the Liberal Party would have been very indignant? Are we not justified in being indignant that you have brought these charges against us?
  As I said just now, the ministers of religion in the Transvaal are of the same race and blood as yourselves. They take just as great a pride as you do in the great part that England has played in the abolition of the slave trade and in the suppression of slavery; yet before
  728
  the election some of you were not reluctant to use expressions which brought the gravest charges against them as regards their humanity and their pride in what England had done in this respect. There are a good many people not very significant who may use expressions without our taking much notice of them, but when the Prime Minister of England uses an expression one assumes that he has done so deliberately; and when he used the expression "taint of slavery," it seemed to me that it could not be denied that the Radical Party had brought a most odious charge against a number of people who were absolutely innocent of the slightest idea of favouring, encouraging, or patronising any system of slavery, of serfdom, or of servile conditions. If it could be disproved that any of those conditions existed, we were justified in expecting either an explanation why the term was used or an expression of regret that it ever had been used.
  I pass on to the next point. I trust the noble Earl will be able to give your Lordships to-night a specific and clear explanation of what it is in this Ordinance that the Government take exception to. I will take the liberty of going through one or two points. One descriptive word has been used constantly—"compound." Are your Lordships aware that the word "compound" does not come into the Ordinance at all? The word is "estate" or "property," and the compound is only a walled-in portion of the estate of the mining companies partly for purposes of protection against the violent winds of the Transvaal and partly as protection from attack from some other estate. The Kaffirs, who entirely manned the mines before the Chinese came, were very fond, on a holiday or on a Sunday, of raiding a neighbouring compound if they could, and the compound fence, a very substantial fence, was an excellent protection against these raids. The necessity for a compound at the Kimberley mines was absolutely different from the necessity on the Gold Mines in the Transvaal. The compound at the Kimberley mines is required because diamonds are very small, easily concealed, and very valuable objects, and it was necessary to have an

  729
  opportunity of examining the Kaffirs before they left the compound to prevent illicit diamond trading. But the Kaffir has no opportunity of stealing gold on the Rand, and the compound there is not for the purpose of confinement so much as for the purpose of protection. Anyhow, the term is not used at all in the Ordinance and the Chinaman has perfect liberty, under the Ordinance, to wander about the estate of the particular company. Therefore, I cannot conceive that that is the objection taken to the Ordinance.
  Now, as regards compulsory repatriation, one must consider the whole of the circumstances. The Chinaman is recruited in China on the condition that at the end of his term of service, or after his term of re-engagement has expired, he shall return to China. Do you say that he is not a free man, that he is not entitled to make an engagement of that kind? Do you say that he does not understand what he is doing? All I can say is that if the British official—not the official of the mine-owners, but the Consul at the port—does not satisfy himself that the man understands the contract into which he enters, then he is not doing his duty. It is the business of the Government to see that each man who is recruited does know the contract into which he enters. It seems to me an astounding proposition to advance that these men, members of a race who wander all over the world, and who are shrewd enough in many of their commercial dealings to look after themselves, are not to be free to make an engagement of that kind. If that is the objection, I am very much afraid the Government are going to find themselves in a very serious dilemma, because the Portuguese Government have already stipulated, or are about to stipulate, that the very same thing should be done with Portuguese Kaffirs. As your Lordships probably know, of the Kaffirs employed on the Rand something like 67 to 70 per cent. are from Portuguese territory. They are not British subjects, and the Portuguese Government have recently stipulated—it may have been carried out by now for all I know—that they will only allow recruiting in Portuguese territory on condition that at the end of the third year, or, if he re-
  730
  engages, at the end of the fifth year, the Kaffir should be returned to Portuguese territory, and not be allowed to take up other work in the Transvaal. Are we to understand that not only are you going to interfere so seriously with Chinese labour that the Transvaal will not be able to get it, but that you are also, out of consistency, going to interfere with the recruiting of Kaffir labour from Portuguese territory? This is a doubly serious question for those who have invested their money, their small fortunes, in these properties.
  Is the objection to the Ordinance that the Chinese cannot own property? There are plenty of instances where aliens may not own property. Such is the case in certain States in the United States of America, and the Indian civilian who goes to India for the best part of his life is not allowed to own landed property there. There are several cases in other countries where aliens may not own property. What is the suggestion? That you are going to force the Chinaman, in order to own property, to become a British subject when he goes to the Transvaal! You will be landing yourselves in curious complications in taking objections of this kind to the Ordinance. It seems to me that the real reason which has animated such a large number of the people of this country is an extreme dislike of the industry because it is gold that is being abstracted. I am certain that if it were steam-coal we should not hear one-half of the objections now raised. You take objection because these men are not allowed to engage in other occupations. Why, it is a common form of agreement in the case of the highest employees that they should not enter into any other business but that of their employers. Is the objection that they have to reside on a particular property? There is the same provision on the British Guiana Ordinance. Is it that they have to carry passes? Why, every Kaffir has to carry passes. How would you identify him if found dead on the veldt otherwise? They are treated exactly the same as the Kaffir in that respect. I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell us plainly what are the points in the Ordinance to which he objects, in view

  731
  of the remarkable difference in the tone adopted by the Government on Friday from that of the night before.
  Now, my Lords, what are you going to do? You are not going to have an inquiry, I understand. I am very sorry to hear it. When I saw that the Prime Minister had said that they were going to make inquiry how to remove this taint of slavery I was extremely hopeful that it meant that there would be a Royal Commission. You do make inquiries, apparently, of some people—anonymous magnates, and faddists. As I have said, it is not my business to defend the magnates. Those whom I do represent desire inquiries, but not of those of whom the Under - Secretary appears to make inquiries. What we want is a public inquiry upon oath, conducted by an impartial body, who shall go into the whole economic questions in South Africa, ascertain whether or not there is coloured labour enough, whether or not European labour will work alongside black labour, whether or not if they would not many of the mines could afford white labour, and whether or not this alien labour is necessary and as to the conditions under which it has been carried out.
  I do implore His Majesty's Ministers not to discard this humble prayer of mine. I advance it most earnestly for this reason. I complain that the people of this country have been entirely misled as to the nature of the system under the Ordinance, and as to the provisions of the Ordinance. It is no use those who are concerned in the mines saying a word. It is no use noble Lords and their colleagues on the Front Opposition Bench saying a word. They are not believed. But an impartial inquiry by a Royal Commission would, I am perfectly convinced, show the people of this country how very much they have been misled, and how very unnecessarily their indignation has been aroused. I do most earnestly beg the noble Earl to consider this prayer of mine, and, if possible, to convince I his colleagues that it will be to the benefit of South Africa and of England that an inquiry of that kind should be held.
  I am sure it is better than going to the people whom the Under-Secretary goes
  732
  to. He has been to Mr. Creswell. I can tell your Lordships something about the Association which has been formed, and which is called the Chinese Ordinance Repeal League. The Members include Mr. Creswell, Mr. Wybergh, and Mr. Edwards. Mr. Creswell was a very capable engineer, but, unfortunately, he had a bee in his bonnet. He was allowed to run one of the mines after the war, when there was a large number of indigent whites in South Africa, entirely with white labour, and at the end of six months or more—I forget how long, but it was after a fair trial—the chief engineer of the company, a very much more experienced engineer, said to him, in effect—
  "Well, I am very sorry I cannot allow you to go on; the mine is not paying, and this experiment must cease."
  It was accordingly put a stop to, and ever since then Mr. Creswell has had a grievance. It is his mission, he thinks, in this world to convince the general public, which is perhaps not very difficult, and to convince men of his own profession, which is absolutely impossible, that his attempt on this particular mine was a success, when the best engineers on the Rand can prove quite easily that it was an entire failure. Mr. Creswell is one of the people whom the Under-Secretary consults. He told us so the other night.
  Then there is Mr. Wybergh. He was also an engineer under a company of which I am chairman. He is, I believe, a fair engineer. He also has a fad, and his fad is politics. Just before the war he was taking an active part in agitating against President Kruger's Government. When I joined this company, of which I am now Chairman, having had nothing whatever to do with anything that had preceded the Raid, I gave my promise to President Kruger that the company should take no part whatever in politics, and I cabled out to Mr. Wybergh that he must make his choice between the company and politics. He chose politics. He was justified, of course, in doing so; and he was subsequently made Commissioner of Mines in the Transvaal. After being in that office for about a year he retired—and I believe it was a matter of pretty general knowledge that he retired because otherwise his

  733
  services would have been dispensed with—and he has now got a grievance against the company and the Government. The third name I mentioned was that of Mr. Edwards, and he, unless I am entirely misinformed, is a renegade Britisher, who fought against us during the war. This is the association which the Under-Secretary has been consulting.
  I venture to suggest to the noble Earl, who, I am certain, has not implicated himself with insignificant people of this kind, that a very much safer course is to obtain information in the Transvaal itself on oath by an impartial body whom the people of this country will entirely trust. What is it that you are going to do? The Government are going to interfere, I understand, with the disciplinary regulations of the mines. I hope it will turn out all right. You must quite understand that the managers of these mines are persons who have had great experience in discipline and in the control of large bodies of men. I can quite understand the Government feeling it necessary to make these changes. I only warn them that if the changes are made, and if agitation results among the men, the managers will be far more free from responsibility than they are now It is just a question whether it is not better to throw the whole responsibility on the managers.
  The other thing you are going to do, I understand, is to offer to repatriate the Chinese. You are going to offer them the cost of their passage home; that is to say, you are coming between master and servant, and offering the servant an inducement to break his contract with his master. That would be called by another name, legal or commercial, in this country. But I am very hopeful, for the sake of the mines, that there are not many Chinese who are going to accept this offer. I see on page 107 that Mr. Jameson, the protector of the Chinese—he is not an official of the mining companies—has expressed a certain opinion on this matter. Lord Selborne says, in his despatch—
  "The Superintendent of Foreign Labour expresses the opinion that the high sense of the binding nature of a written contract entertained by the Chinese would deter many coolies from expressing a desire to break their contracts."
  734
  In the speech to which I have already referred, Lord Cairns concluded with these lines—
  "In all the ills we ever bore
  We grieved, we sighed, we wept,
  We never blushed before."
  Which is the more calculated to raise a blush—that England should desert those whom she had promised to help, or that a British Ministry should have to be taught what is the honourable character of a contract by some poor Chinese coolies?
  I have not gone into the economic part of the question to-night. I shall venture to ask your Lordships to allow me to do so on another occasion. I wish to show your Lordships how justifiable has been the action of those who have insisted that alien labour was necessary, not merely for the mines, but for the progress of the country, and it is necessary, in order to bring that home to conviction, to deal at considerable length with the economic side of the question. All I do now is to ask the Questions standing in my name, and I put it to your Lordships whether I have not fairly shown that expressions were used by persons of the highest authority which must have had a very great effect on the minds of many voters in this country—the effect of raising an excited animosity against the Ordinance and the system of labour brought into operation under it. I ask the noble Earl to toll us what it is in the system which is really objected to. Noble Lords opposite have the power now; they have the opportunity, and can make or break South Africa; but I am certain of this, that England does not easily forgive one or two things. She does not easily forgive if she has been misled, and she does not easily forgive if she finds that she is being done injustice; and I think you will find that there are hundreds of thousands of poor people who have invested their small savings in these mines who will think that your offer to our servants to leave our service without any compensation is inflicting upon them a very grave injustice.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will admit that it is no easy task to follow the noble

  735
  Viscount who introduced this subject. He is not only responsible for much of the policy which His Majesty's Government have not been able to accept, but he is, also, master of all the details which have been impressed upon his memory during a time of stress and anxiety, in which he showed a courage and devotion which his country will not forget. My noble friend also who spoke from the other side has made himself a master of the details of the mining industry, and I thank him for the moderation with which, on the whole, he has spoken. I can assure him that I appreciate entirely the anxiety which he feels; and I think he will believe me when I say that I do not think any one holding the office which I now have the honour to hold could overlook the fact that the prosperity of the Transvaal is indissolubly connected with the mining industry, nor do I think that any reasonable man could deny that the small investors of whom the noble Lord has spoken have a claim for consideration, and have always received consideration, from the British Government.
  The noble Lord has challenged me with regard to the use of terms connected with slavery. I can only follow my noble friends who spoke on this subject on the occasion of the Address and decline to take any responsibility for the use of that term. I have always declined, as far as I could, to take any responsibility for the creation of these general terms. I never had much to do with election placards, but it always seemed to me that, in the endeavour to get a single word which was capable of being represented in large letters on a single sheet of paper, those who drew up those placards ran a risk of doing a grave injustice. It is not the first time on which these sort of terms have been used. There are many in our recollection; and I confess I rather regretted to hear the noble Viscount bring into this discussion to-day a term which has had the same sort of misleading interpretation attached to it—I mean the term pro-Boer.
  But I must call your Lordships' attention to one instance of how easily these things are misrepresented. The noble Lord opposite quoted some words which he said had been used by Lord Ripon, who is not able, through illness, to be
  736
  in his place this evening. May I tell him how that speech reads in the pages of Hansard?—
  "The system which it is proposed to establish is one of semi-slavery. There is no other term to be applied to it. I am afraid I shall incur the censure of Lord Milner for having made that statement. … It is not pure slavery, because it is preceded by what is supposed to be consent on the part of the parties who are to be emigrated, but, once they are in South Africa, if they are not slaves, at least they are prisoners, for they are not to be allowed out except uuder stringent regulations and with a possibility of being arrested at every turn."
  As to pictorial representations, the art of political caricature, in the hand of a master, fascinates the victim even while it attacks him. In other hands it becomes a bludgeon which is as likely to injure friend as foe. I wish to express my deep regret—I have no hesitation in using that word—that this term has been used, for two particular reasons. In the first place, I regret exceedingly to find that men who have fought for us and suffered for us in the colony should think that their personal honour is impugned. I cannot believe that any reasonable man, even in the heat of an election contest, ever meant anything of the kind. But if he did, it only shows how important it is in these matters to observe the rule that, while we may challenge any system, we are not entitled to condemn an individual except on clear and specific proof. In the second place, I especially regret this incident, because it might possibly seem to raise a suspicion that there was a difference of opinion between the two sides of the House and the two Parties of the country on the great question of slavery itself. I do not believe that for a moment. I believe that all Parties adhere to the proud boast that slavery cannot exist under the British flag.
  If we are agreed so far, it comes to a question, which surely may be discussed with calmness, whether under this Ordinance there is anything which interferes with the liberty of a free man. I may be wrong, but I cannot conceive that anybody could say that all the provisions of this Ordinance were consistent with that right. I think the noble Lord used the argument that the Chinamen had consented to go. I do not think that the voluntary consent of Chinamen to come under the Ordinance

  737
  is a sufficient answer. I do not know whether it has ever happened, but I car conceive a man's becoming a slave voluntarily for certain reasons of his own. It is significant that the differences from the ordinary law are exactly the points at which the difficulties make themselves most manifest.
  I wish to call your Lordships' attention from the Blue-book last published, to the returns of offences for October last. The return is given under several heads, and the figures are given for each head. But they are not summed up, so I may mention that the total number of offences recorded in October, 1905, is 940. Of these no less than 755 come under two sections of the Ordinance, and as this matter is of importance I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to read those sections. Subsection 11 of Section 31 provides that—
  "Any labourer who shall desert from the service of his importer, or shall refuse to work for him when required to do so, or who shall unlawfully absent himself from work, or who shall perform any work or carry on any business other than that of unskilled labour in the exploitation of minerals, or who shall enter the service of any person other than that of the person importing him, or of the person to whom his contract has been lawfully transferred under this Ordinance, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £25, and in default of payment to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two months."
  LORD HARRIS: Is that the British Guiana Ordinance?
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: No; it is the South African Ordinance.
  LORD HARRIS: I thought it was the other; it is so much like it.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: Section 19 provides that—
  "No labourer introduced under this Ordinance shall leave the premises on which he is employed without a permit in the form and containing the particulars prescribed by regulation signed by some person authorised thereto by the importer, provided that no such permit shall authorise the absence of such labourer from such premises for more than 48 hours from the time when it was issued."
  I am informed that those sections cannot be found in the ordinary law. They create crimes which are not crimes under the ordinary law, and, in my opinion,
  738
  that does constitute a difference from the point of true liberty which every free man ought to possess under the British flag.
  The noble Lord also challenged me in regard to the section relating to repatriation. He seemed to think it was ridiculous to call that section an infringement of the ordinary law, because all that was provided was that the man should go home. But there is a good deal more than that in the section. It imposes a penalty if the labourer refuses to return to his country of origin—a fine of £10, or three months' imprisonment. If he pays the fine or serves the term of imprisonment and still refuses, he is to be forcibly sent back. Surely that is not within the ordinary description of the rights and liberties of a free man. I have said I do not wish to support any of the allegations or attacks upon individuals. But where there is a question of limiting liberty—which liberty is the right of every man who lands on British soil who is not a criminal—there we object, and we must continue to object.
  We do not propose, and I do not think we can be called upon—there are plenty of precedents for our not doing so—to sweep away all that we object to at one moment. We recognise that that would be grievously injurious to the industries, and we are not called upon to do it. It is admitted that there have been irregularities in the past, especially with regard to flogging. That certainly did not come within the Ordinance; it was specially debarred at the request of the Chinese Ambassador, and it ought not to have occurred. I do not mean to say that there has not been exaggeration in the accounts given of this matter—and in regard to the gentleman of the name of Pless, to whom the noble Lord referred, very likely he is culpable for misrepresentation at least. We desired that he should be prosecuted, but he had left the country and gone back to China, and it is not very clear that we can get hold of him.
  We are now in this position, that I have the personal assurance of Lord Selborne that he has gone into the whole of this matter, and he is satisfied that he has

  739
  secured humane treatment for the workmen in the mines. I have not the honour of personal acquaintance with Lord Selborne, but Lord Selborne's character is known in this House and the country. I think we should always say that any work which he has done is thorough and conscientious; and during his time in South Africa all accounts show that he has made himself personally accessible and popular to men of every race and class. I feel that I am perfectly justified in accepting the assurance of Lord Selborne in the spirit in which it is offered.
  The noble Lord asked me whether it would not be well to appoint a Commission to inquire into this subject. My Lords, if it is true, as I think it is that under the action of the High Commissioner irregularities have been removed and things are working in a satisfactory manner, I rather doubt the expediency of raking up the scandals of the past. Well, I am talking of the action of the Government. But in the meantime, I do not think the noble Lord quite gathered what it is that we propose to do with regard to amendments of procedure.
  In the amending Ordinance of October last it was arranged that the coolies should be tried by the inspectors with a knowledge of Chinese instead of by the ordinary magistrate, and that they should have a right to hold these trials within the precincts of the mines. It was also enacted that certain penalties should be enforced that were new. We think that while it maybe an advantage, and very likely is an advantage, that the coolie should be tried by a man who knows his language, and therefore can both understand the coolie and makes himself intelligible to him, still, these trials should not be held in any private place but should be held with all the publicity of a Court. From the last information we have received from the High Commissioner I believe that these inspectors, though they were inexperienced at first, have now gathered a sufficient amount of experience to make, them capable of conducting a fair trial. If that is so, I do not see why that system should not be continued.
  740
  With regard to the penalties, I will not go into them in detail, but they were taken exception to by my predecessor and we always objected to them. As a matter of fact, only one of them has been imposed four times. In these circumstances I do not think it will cause any grievous injury to the mines management if they are discontinued.
  The noble Lord spoke of the question of repatriation. I am inclined—I do not know whether to say "to expect" or "to hope" with him that the number of coolies who may accept this assistance will not be large. At any rate I may say that, if the view of the mines management is correct, if the coolies are really treated in the humane and almost fatherly manner which they tell us, I cannot see why they should wish to go. At the same time, it must be remembered that the coolie can go at present at any time if he pays the cost of his journey, which amounts to £17 10s. All we propose is that, if a case should occur, and if after full inquiry and due notice it is found that, owing to any particular cause, a man has not the money to defray the whole of the cost of his passage and he has a genuine wish to go, he should not be prevented from doing so. I venture to think, without taking any responsibility on my shoulders for using the expression, a provision of that kind removes so far from the system the taint of slavery.
  There are some further points I must touch upon. I have been speaking of what we consider necessary for the present, and you will remember that I prefaced my remarks by saying that we did object, and shall object, to infringement of the principles we consider should be incorporated in the Ordinance. As to the future, my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained in a lucid manner in the other House what it is we consider ought to be done, and I may summarise it in this way. We have every hope and expectation that before long the Transvaal will, with a freely elected Legislature and with responsible government, be able to express an opinion as to this labour. We do not think they ought to be asked to vote on

  741
  such a question under any misunderstanding. The conditions of the Ordinance have received the sanction of the Imperial Government, and the Transvaal has a right to know before they vote whether they can continue the system. If, with the knowledge before them that we must object to the conditions as they mow stand, they still vote for the introduction of Asiatic labour, I conceive it would be the bounden duty of His Majesty's Government to endeavour to adjust conditions satisfactory to both parties; but it will also undoubtedly equally be their duty not to shrink from advising His Majesty to exercise his right of veto if that effort failed, or if in their judgment the right of freedom in any part of the Empire was infringed.
  I would say a word or two on the position in which His Majesty's Government found themselves when assuming office. The noble Marquess the other day reproached us with want of continuity. I do not know whether he meant upon this particular branch or in relations with the Transvaal as a whole. I am rather prepared to argue that in this matter there is no want of continuity. In the history of Chinese labour the changes of opinion have been rapid and pronounced. Only eight years ago, in 1898, the Transvaal expressed a distinct opinion adverse to Chinese labour; but I will not dwell upon that; the war has intervened, and we then had a different state of matters. But only three years ago the right hon. Gentleman, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, paid a visit to South Africa, and, in the course of a speech he made at Johannesburg, he said—
  "It is not until you have exhausted these solutions which are the nearest to you that it would be reasonable that you should turn to that other more drastic remedy of introducing Asiatic labour. I know that at present the suggestion has not gone beyond ordinary conversation; it has not been developed or fully considered; but just think of the difficulties you will have to overcome. In the first place, it is clear to me—and no doubt to you—that an overwhelming popular opinion in this very colony is opposed to any solution of that kind. You have first to convert them. Then you will have seen that the other great colonies of the Empire and the opinion of the Mother Country herself regard a step of the kind as retrograde and dangerous; and, lastly, if these difficulties were removed, there are serious practical obstacles in the way which will meet you at the outset, and which, I think, will justify my opinion that it would be very long indeed
  742
  before—even if all other difficulties were removed—you would obtain any reliable supply from the sources which have been suggested."
  On 31st March, 1903, Sir G. Farrar, on his return from the Bloemfontein Conference, addressed a meeting of miners and residents of the East Rand and advocated the introduction of Asiatic labour under restrictions; but on the following day there was a mass meeting organised by what was known as the White League, and by the extraordinary majority of 5,000 to 2 the following resolution was passed—
  "We pledge ourselves to prevent by every means in our power the carrying into effect of the proposal for the introduction of Asiatics to work in the mines and other industries of the Transvaal."
  Now, I think it is interesting to note, in passing, that Mr. Chamberlain seems still to adhere to the declaration he promulgated on the occasion I have referred to, for, on December 30, he referred to the statement and said—
  "I have not swerved an atom from that policy."
  In 1904 very different counsels prevailed. I need not go into detail, the noble Viscount has stated it in a nutshell. He said both to-night and also in the telegram which he sent at the time, that he found that the evidence given before the Labour Commission showed that in no other way could the required labour be provided, and I admit that there followed thereupon a very remarkable change of opinion in the Transvaal. But I do not admit that the other conditions laid down by Mr. Chamberlain have in any way been met; there are still the opinions of the great colonies, New Zealand, Australia, and the Cape, in objection; and as to public opinion in this country, well, of course, it was obscured for a time, but I think that the result of the General Election can leave no doubt of what that opinion is. I do not wish to press the point, but I do wish to express a doubt if the late Government embarked on the policy with any clear idea of the ultimate result. One thing seems clear, that they professed to be trying an experiment. The noble Marquess who then led this House said, on February 12, 1904—
  "We do not propose to resort to that expedient lightheartedly or because we desire what has been called an indiscriminate influx

  743
  of Asiatics. But we are prepared to try the experiment on a limited scale and fenced in by every precaution which experience can suggest."
  A few days afterwards his colleague, Mr. Lyttelton, in the other House, said—
  "In British Columbia, as in this case, I believe the necessity was temporary, and needed to give a basis to an industry which, when formed, the outside labour could be dispensed with. In Africa you want to underpin a temporary structure and afterwards to fill in the foundations from the ordinary source of supply."
  On March 21, Lord Selborne, speaking in this House, said—
  "I do realise how the working population of the colony feel that they cannot, in the long run, compete with the Chinaman as a labourer. But for that reason, is it, therefore, wrong to use the Chinaman temporarily for a definite limited purpose?"
  It is interesting to ask, what is the meaning of experiment? I should imagine there would be some limit of time or money, and these references may be said to contain some vague suggestions, and confine the experiment to modest proportions. I gather from the dictionary that experiment is—
  "A method or course of action adopted in uncertainty whether it will answer the purpose,"
  and I find that definition followed by the illustration from Bacon—
  "It is good not to try experiments in States."
  But passing on to 1905, I find that on February 15th Mr. Balfour, answering in debate a Question from the present Prime Minister, whether a limit of numbers had been fixed, or when the experiment would end, said—
  "No limit has been placed upon it, but the experiment of using Chinese labour is being most carefully watched by the responsible authorities on the spot, and if it should be found that the immigration of these labourers from any point of view was, on the whole, producing a balance of ill, the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we without hesitation should prevent any augmentation of their numbers."
  A little later Mr. Lyttelton said—
  "I am not prepared to set a limit as suggested, but I understand that the present requirements of the mines are for no more than 55,000 Chinese, and that after that number has been introduced the rates of increase, if increase there be, will be very moderate. The experiment and all its consequences have received and are receiving the closest attention of the Transvaal Government and His Majesty's Government."
  744
  The number 55,000 is important. It is evidently taken from the report of Mr. Evans, the Superintendent of Mines, and represents what Mr. Lyttelton understood to be required in order to fill up the gap "in underpinning the structure."
  If this experiment was a reality, if Mr. Lyttelton's understanding of it was real, it appears to me there were two alternatives open to the Government at that time. In the first place they might have defined the limits distinctly and instructed the Lieutenant-Governor to regulate the licences accordingly; or, if they did not choose to do that, they should themselves have assumed some control over the issue of licences and secured reports from South Africa to enable them to do so. They did neither of these things. The only thing that was done at that time was that at the end of a telegram on other matters, a pious opinion was expressed to the effect that it would be good policy for the mineowners voluntarily to suspend the importation for six months. But it unfortunately happened that at that precise moment a large number of licences were issued, as many as 16,000. I maintain that, although it might have been more prudent for the authorities in South Africa to have communicated with His Majesty's Government when they found this large number of licences wanted, still the real responsibility of this matter rested with the Government at home, because they did not adopt one of the alternatives of which I have-spoken. It does not seem to me to be fair treatment of your representatives at a distance if, when you come to a point at which an experiment you have been making reaches its limit, you should not distinctly instruct those agents how they are to act.
  I am not surprised that the mineowners are under a little misunderstanding. I quite appreciate the position of these mining managers. Any one who has seen anything of mineral operations, will know that no mine manager can open out new seams, or can sink deep fittings, without some knowledge that when the opening-out operations are complete he will have a sufficient labour supply to carry on the business. I am not surprised, therefore, that the mine

  745
  managers should look ahead; but the telegram which was sent on December 30th, came as somewhat of a surprise. It showed quite clearly that the mine-owners had been estimating ahead, and I need only adduce one sentence—
  "All arrangements have been made with a view to a continuous flow of immigration from China being established on permanent basis."
  Well, my Lords, what becomes of the "experiment"? It was exactly at this moment that His Majesty's present Government came in; and when I said that I thought in this particular there was not that lack of continuity of which the noble Marquess complained, I think I was justified, and the Government were justified, in what they did. We honoured all the Bills of the late Government. We disliked this importation. We could have wished to have seen no more coolies landed; yet we interfered with no licences which had been issued before. But, surely, we were entitled to take the whole question of the "experiment" into consideration before it crystallised and became permanent.
  The position of the labour market may, perhaps, have some bearing on- this subject. In January, 1904, at the time of the Resolution to introduce Chinese labour, there were employed in the mines 12,814 whites and 75,027 coloured; no Chinese; and the output was £1,231,000. In November last there were 18,125 whites, 96,283 coloured—that was, 20,000 more—45,856 Chinese; while the output was £1,729,742. It has been put to me that if the white basis was not possible and the black basis was inadequate, why should there not be a black and a yellow basis? I do not accept the premises. I am not sure that a white basis is impossible; but I wish to say that our objection is not to the yellow, but rather to the conditions under which the yellow was introduced. As to the objection to the yellow itself, I think it very difficult to find anybody who does like it.
  I have to apologise to the noble Viscount for finding myself unable to follow him in all the details upon which he argues in regard to the constitution to be adopted for the new colonies. I can assure him we most carefully considered the adaptation of what is called the
  746
  Lyttelton Constitution. We spared no time or labour to adjust it if that was possible. We consider that it is our duty in framing what he has justly called the final form of constitution for these colonies to make it as perfect as is possible. For that time and inquiry are required. We have thought it desirable to remove the letters patent because that would avoid complications; but I wish it to be distinctly understood that this is entirely without prejudice to the consideration of the basis upon which that constitution was framed, to every particular of which we shall give our attention.
  The noble Viscount asked whether I could not at least indicate the trend of our proposal. I think that is asking too much at the present time. We ask to have time to make inquiries; and I think the noble Viscount will admit that, if we give some information upon which we had not had time to form definite conclusions, and before we had examined every possible alternative, we might really be doing prejudice to the constitution as it finally comes before us. The noble Viscount asks whether we will undertake to announce—publish to this House, I suppose he means—the constitution when it is framed. That is a point on which I have not had an opportunity of getting any advice, and on which he will not, therefore, press me at this moment; but I believe there was no announcement made in the case of the Lyttelton Constitution, and I am not sure whether there is any precedent for such announcement in the case of the formation of responsible government.
  The noble Viscount spoke on this matter with much earnestness; but I could have wished that it had been with rather less bitterness, if he will pardon my using that phrase. After all, the proposals of the late Government, although going by steps, did propose to achieve self-government, and all that they said when issuing the constitution which has now been annulled, was that they had not found it practicable to proceed to full self-government at that time. I am not convinced by the arguments used in that despatch. I am afraid I am not convinced by the arguments the noble Lord has brought before us this evening.

  747
  People sometimes speak of these colonies with which we have now to deal as if they had never had the opportunity of governing themselves before. The form of representative government is a natural form to be given to colonies which have come into existence in the way, so common throughout the world, of com mercial settlements, which have gradually increased, and for which local government is therefore required. But that is not the case of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. They have both governed themselves, and in the case of the Orange River Colony I should be prepared to say with no small measure of success.
  The noble Viscount has spoken with great earnestness as to the danger of giving the Orange River Colony self-government. But I think we have also got to look to its past history and not take what I think is rather a prejudiced view of the position at the present time. There was this element in our situation. We found a practically unanimous demand in the Transvaal for the grant of responsible and not representative government. One expression used was that it was indeed a question of months, not of years. And although the Governor did not himself concur in that expression, he did himself propose that the number of seats which had been suggested in the representative government should be doubled in order that the change to responsible government should be thereby facilitated.
  My Lords, I think a great deal of what the noble Viscount has said in regard to the dangers of introducing this form of government into the Orange River Colony turns on the comparative safety of the two institutions. On that point I should like, with the permission of your Lordships, to quote a few words from a more authoritative source than any of my own—
  "It is difficult to understand how any English statesman 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 be nominated by the Crown, without any reference to the wishes of the community, whose interests are entrusted to
  748
  their keeping. It has never been clearly explained what are the Imperial interests which require the complete nullification of representative government. But if there be 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 to exhibit in the practical working of colonial government any means for making so complete an abrogation of political influence palatable to the representative body. … It was an unhappy consequence of this system that it relieved the popular leader of all the responsibilities of opposition. … The colonial demagogue bids high for popularity without the fear of future exposure. Hopelessly excluded from power, he expresses the wildest opinions, and appeals to the most mischievous passions of the people, without any apprehension of having his sincerity or prudence tested by being placed in a position to carry his views into effect."
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDON DERRY: Will the noble Lord state from whom he is quoting?
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: I am quoting from Lord Durham's Report on Canada. The Government had no hesitation in choosing, as between responsible and representative government, in favour of responsible government. From the words I have quoted your Lordships will see that I have a personal interest in that decision which I need not be ashamed to avow in this House. Many years ago a similar question arose in another great colony, where the principles of responsible government were advocated and were put in force by my grandfather and my father. It is, I confess, an encouragement to me, in the views I have ventured to express to your Lordships, that I am following the principles they thus professed and which resulted in the prosperous, and great, and loyal Dominion of Canada.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench felt, during the speech of the noble Viscount who brought forward this question, that we should not be able to get very much information from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the intentions of His Majesty's Government and the basis of the new constitution which it is proposed to grant to the Transvaal. As far as we were able to ascertain from the speech of the noble

  749
  Earl, the reason why the Transvaal is to be granted the full rights of responsible government is that the inhabitants of that Colony desire it. That was the contention of the noble Earl. But I might point out that, naturally, the moment a Liberal Government comes into power, the whole population who are dissatisfied with the present regime immediately agitate as much as possible in order that they may get responsible institutions. All I can say is that when we were in office the Party in favour of representative government largely outweighed those who were in favour of responsible institutions.
  But, in spite of the warnings which the noble Earl has received to-night from the noble Viscount who sits on the Cross Benches, we know that the Government are determined to grant responsible institutions to both the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal. We must bow to that decision, but we do sincerely hope that the noble Earl will give us some Papers at a future date, and inform us on what basis the Transvaal Constitution is going to be granted. Is it to be granted more or less on the basis of the Lyttelton Constitution? That constitution was very carefully framed with regard to the views and the wishes of, we believe, the majority of the people of the Colony, and we believe that it met with their approval. I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary is in the position very much of a great potentate who is about to grant a constitution to his subjects, but with this difference, that whereas the Czar of Russia cannot quite foretell the result of the constitutional measures he is going to grant to his subjects, the noble Earl is in the position of being able to say absolutely what kind of Ministry he desires to predominate in the legislative affairs of the Transvaal. The noble Earl, in dealing with this matter of Chinese labour in South Africa, was conciliatory enough to say that he felt sure that neither Party in the State would tolerate slavery in the British Empire. To that statement of the noble Earl we gladly subscribe. But I must say that when we heard that statement we did indeed regret that the noble Earl had reserved it for your Lordships' House, and had not made it
  750
  on a public political platform during the first week of the General Election.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: We could not have done it then.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Then during the week previous to the General Election. My Lords, you will have observed the remarkable political play which the Liberal Party have placed upon the stage. Before, the election they fought under the banner of slavery. ["No."]
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Certainly not.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I do not say noble Lords themselves so fought, but the Party to which they belong. Many were the statements and addresses in which the word "slavery" occurred. No words were bad enough for the Tory Party because they had allowed Chinese labour to be employed in South Africa. I have here cartoons, pamphlets, pictures, and violent statements, all put forward by members of the Liberal Party, some of whom are Ministers of the Crown today, pointing out what a vile practice this was, and it was nothing less than slavery. What happens then? Parliament assembles, and the Prime Minister, amidst the applause of his followers, proceeds to inform the House of Commons that it is not slavery; it is only "servile conditions." It is perfectly apparent that a certain section of the Liberal Party—Members who are somewhat enthusiastic upon this subject, and who moreover sincely and genuinely believe in their assertions that Chinese labour is slavery—would not subscribe to the statement of the Prime Minister. One of the most prominent of those Members of the House of Commons is, I think, the Member for the Abercromby division of Liverpool, and he told the Prime Minister on the first night that Chinese labour was wrong, and that it was impossible in the same breath to say that they would leave it to the responsible Government of the Colony to decide whether they would have Chinese labour or not. A day passes, and what is the next act in the play? The Government again speak upon this subject in the House of Commons. This time it is the

  751
  Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies who replies on behalf of the Government. This, indeed, I might term a day of abjuration for the Government. The electioneering arguments of the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong had to be thrown over, for the welfare of the Transvaal is at stake and havoc would otherwise ensue. The Under-Secretary of State, with, I think, perfect propriety and due regard for the welfare of the colony, said to the House of Commons "The electioneering extravagance of our Party must be repudiated; they were only" (I am not quoting his words)—"Chinese pills for Radical consumption; they may all be dismissed by the phrase 'terminological inexactitudes.'" We are told that the colony must decide this matter for itself; that they will have the right to decide whether or not they will have Chinese labour when responsible government is granted, and that until that time arrives the taint of slavery is to be entirely removed from the Ordinance by the fact that a few fines are remitted, and the Chinese are allowed to take free voyages at the expense of the British public—voyages, which, by the way, the noble. Earl the Colonial Secretary must be pretty certain they are not likely to undertake, since this Blue-book shows that those who were forcibly repatriated immediately tried to get back to the Transvaal. Furthermore, the representative of the Colonial Office informed the House, of Commons that the Colonial Secretary was in dead earnest in this matter, that from the first he had exerted himself, and that his gun was loaded, not with blank, but with ball cartridge. By the way, it is rather curious that neither the noble Marquess the Leader of the Party opposite nor the Colonial Secretary himself thought it necessary to fire that gun on the first day they met Parliament in your Lordships' House. Not a single reference was then made to the fact that these Chinese were going to be repatriated at the expense of the British public, and I think that, from that circumstance, we may assume that the members of the Cabinet did not attach very great importance to the decision.
  But, my Lords, observe what happens then. The extreme members of the
  752
  Radical Party in the other House decline to swallow this soothing syrup administered to them by the representative of the Colonial Office. In their opinion, Chinese labour is still slavery, and the Government cannot divest themselves of the responsibility by shifting it on to the colony itself. We see, therefore, what I may call the policy of the washing of hands, of free trips for the Chinese, and of the hope of the interference of the Empress of China. Then we realise that this policy, enunciated by the Government in the House of Commons, does not receive the desired mead of approval from the whole of their supporters, and what happens? Once again the Government speaks, this time through the President of the Board of Education. We notice at once that the Government have shifted their ground; they have evidently been subjected to severe cross-examination by the more extreme of their supporters. What does the President of the Board of Education say?—
  "Chinese labour is objectionable to the English people, and it could not and would not be approved of in time to come under any circumstances whatsoever."
  But even this dose is not sufficiently strong, and another change comes over the scene. On Friday the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks, and, in a somewhat saturnine pronouncement, tells the House of Commons that this employment of Chinese coolies in South Africa, is slavery, and that the Government are going to resume their right of veto. As far as I understood the Colonial Secretary to-day, the noble Earl stated with perfect distinctness that if they thought it necessary or wise the Government would undoubtedly exercise the veto of the Crown in regard to any legislative Act passed by the new Transvaal Legislature.
  My Lords, I ask this question: How is it that on Monday last the Government of His Majesty said that Chinese labour was not slavery; that on Wednesday what I have described as the policy of the washing of hands, of cheap trips for the Chinese, and of female interference was put forward as their definite and accepted policy, that on Thursday the policy was changed for something

  753
  rather more stringent, and that finally on Friday the whole policy is reversed, and we are informed that slavery has been re-instated under the British flag and the Transvaal is to fall under the veto of the Crown? We on this side of the House, and, I venture to think, the people of the country—aye, and everybody in South Africa from Cape Town to the Zambesi—will wish to know why on Monday last, in the opinion of the Government, Chinese labour was not slavery and the Colony were to be left to decide this matter for themselves when responsible institutions were granted, while on the following Friday indentured labour is declared to be slavery and the Transvaal is not to be allowed to decide the matter for itself, but the veto of the Crown is to be invoked.
  It was often our misfortune when we were in power to be criticised by noble Lords opposite for our policy as a Government. Searching comments were invariably made; our policy was declared not to be based on any principle, but to be a policy of expediency. I venture to think, however, that the annals of Parliament may be searched in vain to find a single parallel to the peripatetic utterances, contradictory statements, and versatile declamations which have marked the progress of His Majesty's Government during the first week of their official career in the two Houses of Parliament.
  Now with regard to the position of the noble Lords opposite. We know that the noble Earl the President of the Council supports the policy of Monday last, or, of Wednesday—the policy of "not slavery, but servile conditions," the policy of the washing of hands, and of allowing the Colony to do as it likes. There are other members of the Cabinet with the same view, including, as far as I could gather, the Colonial Secretary himself. But we know that certainly one member of the Cabinet supports what I may call the policy of Friday. We know from his former utterances in this House the, I will not say extreme, but strong view which the Minister for Agriculture holds upon this matter. There is not the slightest doubt as to what he thought, and I must congratulate the noble Earl and those who support him on having been able to triumph in the
  754
  Cabinet during the last few days, although I confess it seems remarkable that the Colonial Secretary should have been defeated on the very policy of his Department as announced by his subordinate in the House of Commons. The policy of conviction is evidently stronger than the policy of convenience. The noble Earl and those who think with him can go home with feelings of satisfaction that the principles they have upheld—I admit consistently upheld—have been adopted and endorsed by the whole Cabinet.
  Now, my Lords, let us consider for one moment the position of His Majesty's Government as we understand it to-day. They are going to grant self-government to the Transvaal with one hand, while, with the other, they take it away by the reservation of the veto. And what for? You are going to knock the bottom out of the greatest principle which has been conceded to our colonies during the last fifty years—the right of self-government—in order to say that you have a right to control the native races in a new colony, and you are specially going to mark out the people of the Transvaal as incompetent to deal with this problem of alien labour. The noble Earl the Colonial Secretary referred to the fact that Australia and, I think, New Zealand, had protested against the importation of Chinese labour, but he forgot to add—perhaps he has not studied that particular despatch—that the Australians added "until responsible Government is granted." What they objected to was the Chinese going there under representative institutions or Crown colony government. I am sure they would not have said a word if the Transvaal had possessed responsible government. If the noble Earl grants the Transvaal responsible government and at the same time tries to dictate to the people of the colony the manner in which they should deal with the alien immigrants who come to the country, I venture to say that he will get a much stronger protest than the one he quoted, not only from Australia, but also from New Zealand and the other self-governing Colonies, telling him that his policy is reactionary, and that he is casting a

  755
  slur upon the good citizenship of those who belong to the British Empire.
  I presume that His Majesty's Government will be logical in this matter. Surely that is not too much to expect. If you intend to prohibit the indentured labour of Chinese coolies in the Transvaal, you ought in all logic and in all propriety to interfere in the management of all native races alike. What difference is there between the Chinese coolie and the Portuguese Kaffir? There is very little difference indeed. The system of indenture is very similar. The Portuguese Kaffir has to go back 150 miles. Has he any means of returning if he wishes to do so? I suggest that point for the consideration of noble Lords opposite. And what about the natives of Swaziland and Basutoland? Are you going to leave the administration affecting those races to the people in authority there? And what about the kanakas in Queensland? Are you going to assert the principle in the Transvaal of interfering with alien immigrants, and leave it alone in Australia? That seems to me to be an absolutely inconsistent position. By saying that you are going to interfere with the alien immigrants in the Transvaal you have committed yourselves to the principle of interfering with all these native races throughout our Colonies. The noble Earl will be asked to resume his right of control over the kanakas in Queensland, the aborigines of Western Australia, and the natives who go to the West Indies under the system of indentured labour, and I think that, when he contemplates the problem, he will feel the overwhelming nature of the work which is being cast upon him as Colonial Secretary. And what is it all for? It is all owing to the determined enthusiasm of noble Lords like the noble Earl opposite who insist upon pushing the Government as far as they possibly can.
  In conclusion, I have only to point out how different is the position of His Majesty's Opposition in this matter of Chinese labour from the position of His Majesty's Ministers. We, indeed, were consistent all the way through; you have been thoroughly inconsistent, or, at any rate, your policy has been marked by great inconsistencies. We have
  756
  always said that we placed implicit confidence in Pro-consuls like Lord Milner and Lord Selborne, and to-night we thoroughly endorse the words which have fallen from Lord Milner. We have always supported their views, and we have never found reason to differ from them. We have always said that Chinese labour is not slavery, and we adhere to that position. What we said and what we still say is that it was a necessary expedient to supplement the shortage of native labour. What has been its effect? Its effect has been well described by the noble Viscount who moved this Motion. It has maintained the position of the mining industry at the level which existed before the war; it has given employment to thousands of skilled white artisans who otherwise would not have got employment; and it has preserved the financial solvency of the Colony, which, after all, has to meet the interest on the Imperial debt which it has contracted. Moreover, we believe that this Chinese labour is, on the whole, in conformity with the wishes of the people of the Transvaal. As the noble Earl knows, 47,000 people in the Transvaal signed a petition in favour of it; the whole Legislative Council—which doubtless noble Lords opposite will despise to-day, but which has not changed its opinion in the least from the first day this problem was brought before it—voted in its favour, and I believe I am right in saying that all the Free Churches in South Africa are in favour of the maintenance of the policy of Chinese labour. The Majority Report of the Labour Commission, the Johannesburg Town Council, and many other bodies might be cited, but these are sufficient to prove our contention that we had with us—and this is the point upon which noble Lords opposite and we always quarrel—the support of the vast majority of the people of the Transvaal.
  Then, my Lords, consider what has been the effect of the importation of the Chinese with regard to this country. We have been able to keep up a constant flow of gold into this country from South Africa during the last two or three years. One-third of the gold output of the world has come

  757
  from South Africa to England. Noble Lords know perfectly well that increase of gold means increase of credit, and increase of credit means increase of trade, for gold is, after all, the ultimate reserve on which bankers base their credit. His Majesty's Ministers, speaking through the gracious Speech from the Throne, talk about the improvement in exports and imports, and it is mentioned as if it were due in some degree or entirely to the spirited speeches they have made on behalf of free trade. I venture to say that the satisfactory position of exports and imports is largely due to the fact that there has been a sufficient supply of gold, which has come from South Africa, and which could have been brought into this country only by the help of indentured Oriental labour.
  These are only a few of the considerations I might bring forward as showing the grounds on which our policy was based. We well knew that it would lead to misrepresentation, though I admit that we never thought that that misrepresentation could possibly sink to the level of calumny that it has; but between our duty to our Colony and the possibility of being misrepresented in the constituencies during the General Election we did not hesitate for one single moment. It is true we have suffered; we have been badly defeated; we have suffered not because our policy was wrong, but because it was a policy which lent itself to misrepresentation; and I venture to say that when the people of Great Britain realise that His Majesty's Ministers have made themselves responsible certainly for the financial dislocation, and possibly for the financial ruin, of the Transvaal, that they have seriously impaired the prospects of trade in the United Kingdom, and that they have wantonly offered an affront to the people of the Transvaal, the Tory Party, although it is only one week since the session began, will be already on the high road to regain, and I hope to retain, the confidence and support of the British public of which they have been so vilely robbed.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I beg to move hat the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned till to-morrow.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Tea o'clock.