Sitting of 27 February 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Hants (Northern or Basingstoke Division), in the room of the right hon. Arthur
1004
Frederick Jeffreys, deceased.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood)
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

RIVATE 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 on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Derby Gas Bill; Peterborough Gas Bill; Southampton Gas Bill; Tottenham and Edmonton 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.:—Charing Cross, West End, and City Electricity Supply Bill; London Electric Supply Corporation Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Bill; to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  Burry Port Gas and Improvement Bill; Pontefract Corporation Bill; Read a second time and committed.
  South Lincolnshire Water Bill; Read a second time, and committed.
  Huddersfield Corporation Bill [by order]; Read a second time and committed.
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill [by order]; Macclesfield and District Tramways Bill [by order]; Read a second time, and committed.
  West Middlesex Roads Bill [by order]; Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Leigh; and Widnes; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Report on the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Royal Colleges of Science and of Art, the Geological Survey and Museum, and on the work of the Solar Physics Committee for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Scheme under the Acts for the Management of the Crewkerne Grammer School Foundation, in the parish of Crewkerne, in the county of Somerset, founded by John Combe in or about the year 1499, regulated by a Scheme made under the Endowed Schools Acts on 21st July 1876, as altered by Schemes of the Charity Commissioners of 30th November 1877 and 23rd February 1883, and as amended by a Scheme made under the said Acts on 3rd October 1895 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Tables showing the extent in statute acres and the produce of the Crops for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PIERS AND HARUOURS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and The General Pier and Harbour Act (1861) Amendment Act, Session 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 61.)

  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum explanatory of the objects of the Notice of Accidents Bill."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 62.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Men Employed Building "Dreadnought" and "Britannia."
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what was the average number of men employed per week in building the battleships "Dreadnought" and "Britannia" at Portsmouth since 1st October, 1905, and what number worked overtime in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The proportion of labour employed on the "Britannia" and "Dreadnought," respectively, since 1st October has been 1 to 2·01. Practically no overtime has been worked on the "Britannia," as the time originally fixed for her completion, and the consequent contractors' dates for supply of material, fittings, etc., rendered it unnecessary; but she is in advance of her time, and will probably be ready two months earlier than the official date originally fixed for her completion. No reason existed in the case of the "Britannia" (being the last ship of an approved type) for asking the contractors to anticipate their contract dates for delivery of material, or for their work on the ship, hence there was no necessity for special overtime; but in the case of the "Dreadnought," the first vessel of an entirely new and very novel type, the Board of Admiralty decided, in order to try her at sea as soon as possible, to use every effort for her completion with the utmost despatch. With that object a large number of men, about two-thirds of the labour, employed on such work as the riveting of the hull and preparing of the launching ways, etc., have been working overtime, with the result that the ship will be completed for sea in advance of her original date, and at less cost than anticipated. It is not proposed, nor will it be necessary to have recourse to any such special efforts in future vessels, but in the case of the "Dreadnought" it was essential, in the interests of the public service, to take steps for getting her quickly to sea; very satisfactory results have thus been obtained, both in economy of construction and in rapidity of completion. The "Dreadnought" will probably be ready for sea in about fifteen months from the date of laying the keel.

  Sale of English Line of Nile Steamers to German Company.
  MR. FELL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of making inquiry respecting the sale and transfer of the English line of steamers on the Nile to a German Company, with the view to taking steps to see that the interests of this country in Egypt are not prejudiced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) We understand that the Hamburg-American Steamship Company has joined with the Anglo-American Nile Steamer and Hotel Company in establishing a service of steamers on the Nile, and that the new Company will be known as the Hamburg and Anglo-American Nile Company. The establishment of this Company does not appear to be open to any objection, and the matter is not one in which any inquiry on the part of His Majesty's Government would seem to be necessary or in which they could interfere.

  Decoration of Outer Lobby.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: To ask the First Commissioner of Works, when it is proposed to complete the decorative work by filling in the two vacant panels in the Outer Lobby.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) No provision for this work has been made in the ensuing year's Estimates, and I cannot

  Average Prices of British Cattle and Sheep per eight pounds, sinking the offal, at the Metropolitan Cattle Market.

  Period.

  Cattle.

  Sheep.

  Inferior Quality.

  Second Quality.

  First Quality.

  Inferior Quality.

  Second Quality.

  First Quality.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  1880–1892

  3

  5

  4

  8

  5

  3

  4

  7

  5

  8

  6

  3

  1893–1905

  2

  8

  3

  11

  4

  7

  3

  7

  5

  0

  5

  9

  The Board of Trade have been good enough to supply index numbers as to the prices of beef and mutton since the year 1871, from which it appears, taking
  1008
  undertake under present financial conditions to ask for funds for merely-decorative purposes.

  Effect of Restriction of Importation of Live Cattle on Prices of Beef and Mutton.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he has any official information showing the average prices of beef and mutton respectively in the United Kingdom prior to and since the year 1896, when restrictions were placed upon the importation of live cattle into this country; and whether the Agricultural Department has prepared any index numbers by which a comparison may be made between the variations in the prices of beef and mutton and those of commodities generally, say, during the past thirty years.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No official information is available to show the average prices of beef and mutton in the United Kingdom for the period to which the hon. Member refers, but the following table gives the average prices of cattle and sheep in the Metropolitan Moat Market for the years 1880–1892 and 1893–1905. The year 1892 has been taken, for the reason that Canadian cattle were first subjected to the requirement of slaughter at the port of landing in that year, although the requirement was not made a statutory one until 1896.
  that year as a base (100), the mean index numbers for beef and mutton are 97·3 and 105·5 for the period 1880–1892, and 85·3 and 96·9 for the period 1893–1905.

  The following Table gives the figures for each year from 1872 to 1895.

  1872.

  1873.

  1874.

  1875.

  1876.

  1877.

  1878.

  Beef

  103·1

  114·0

  110·9

  114·7

  111·6

  110·1

  111·6

  Mutton

  105·6

  113·4

  97·2

  116·9

  118·3

  116·9

  115·5

  Removal of H.MS. "Satellite" from the Tyne.
  MR. H. J. CRAIG: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that the contemplated removal of H.M.S. "Satellite" from the Tyne will not only inflict inconvenience on the men of the Royal Naval Reserve resident on Tyne, side, but also deprive an important port of a ship which is extensively used, both
  1010
  as a recruiting depôt for His Majesty's Navy, and as a drill ship for naval reserves of all classes, he will consider the desirability of retaining her in commission for a further period.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Admiralty have decided to lend H.M.S. "Satellite" to the Tyneside Division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, on the understanding that the

  1011
  expense of her upkeep and maintenance, together with any dock dues and local charges that may he levied, will be borne by the funds of the Division.

  Day of Rest for Metropolitan Policemen.
  MR. THORNE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if legislation is required to give the Metropolitan Police one day's rest in seven instead of one day's rest in fourteen as now prevails.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The leave of Metropolitan Police is not regulated by Statute, and could no doubt be altered without legislation; but I may say that the alteration suggested in the Question would involve a very large augmentation of the force, and that the cost would be so great that it could not be met without exceeding the limit of 9d. fixed by The Police Act, 1868, to the Metropolitan Police Rate.

  Equalisation of Rates Bill—Area Affected.
  MR. THORNE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will, when drafting the Equalisation of Rates Bill, make it apply to the whole of the Metropolitan Police area.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) It is proposed that the Bill should provide for an amendment of The London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894. Hence it must necessarily be limited to the Metropolis.

  Old Age Pensions and Indoor Relief.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give any information as to the approximate cost of maintaining the aged poor of the United Kingdom over sixty-five years of age by means of indoor and outdoor relief; and what is the average cost per head respectively of the two methods of relief.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I regret that I am not able to give the information asked for, and I fear that it would not be practicable to obtain it. The jurisdiction of the Local Government Board only extends to England and Wales, so that my Answer must be taken as applying only to that part of the United Kingdom.

  Indian Staff Corps Officers—Place of Residence awaiting Compulsory Retirement.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a recent ruling of the Government of India to the effect that officers of the Indian Staff Corps who entered the Indian Army on or after the 1st July 1881 shall, on vacating employment, be allowed the option of residing in or out of India until compulsory retirement on account of age; while residing in India officers will receive the pay of their rank, and while residing out of India they will be allowed to take any furlough admissible under the 1886 Leave Rules, and receive unemployed pay at the rate of £500 a year; whether, under this ruling officers who joined after 1st July 1881, and, in consequence of having won the distinction of early commands, are obliged by the rules to vacate their commands for a more or less considerable time before-their compulsory retirement, are forced to choose between spending the time in India or accepting £200 per annum loss if they wish to spend it at home; and whether in view of the fact that officers who joined before the 1st July 1881 could elect on the termination of their commands, to reside in or out of India on the furlough to which they were entitled, furlough pay being £600 per annum for officers of from twenty-four to twenty-nine years' service and £700 for those of twenty-nine and onwards, he will explain why this difference is made in the case of the officer who joined in 1881 and after between the pay they receive in India and in England while they are awaiting their compulsory retirement after relinquishing their commands, and say whether the ruling above quoted can be reconsidered.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The right of residing in or out of India after vacation of appointment has been extended to the officers who entered the Indian Army after the 1st July 1881. The conditions are, as regards officers under the Leave Rules of 1886, correctly stated in the second clause of the Question. As regards the remainder of the Question, I must explain that the officers appointed to the Indian Army before the 1st July 1881 possessed a prescriptive right to remain in the Service and a certain claim

  1013
  to continous employment; and, when the latter was taken from them in 1881 (on the occasion of the limitation of tenure of regimental command), they necessarily retained the right of residence in India on Indian pay. To these officers, at the time, was given the option of remaining in India on this pay or of completing their service at home on furlough pay, i.e., half Indian pay, or (during the period 1381–86) about £400 a year. In 1886 new Leave Rules came into force, and officers who elected those Rules necessarily became entitled to leave pay under them in place of their furlough pay under the older Rules. The above concession was expressly limited to the officers who entered before the 1st July 1881. The other officers have no right to remain indefinitely in the Service, and they were appointed after the limitation of tenure of command had been introduced, and therefore they have not the same claim to special treatment as those officers whoso conditions of service had been changed for the worse by the limitation. They have not hitherto been allowed the concession of completing their service for higher pensions after becoming unemployed, though the Regulations have contained a rate of unemployed pay applicable to them, viz., £360 a year, wherever residing, and it has no doubt been understood that they would not be compelled to retire before attaining the age for superannuation. My predecessor decided that the rate of £365 a year was insufficient, and fixed the unemployed pay at Indian pay while residing in India, and a special rate of £500 residing out of India for officers of over twenty-four years' service, and subject to the Leave Rules of 1886. I may add that £500 a year is the unemployed pay of a major-general, and that it would be unsuitable that general officers should draw smaller unemployed pay than officers of inferior rank. Officers under the Furlough Rules of 1875 are entitled to half Indian pay only while residing at home, whether they entered the Indian Army before or after 1st July 1881. I see no reason for reconsidering my predecessor's decision.

  Army Candidates and Irish Tailors.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the complaint of the Irish tailors that candidates for Army
  1014
  appointments almost invariably obtain their uniforms and outfits in London; whether he is aware that the military authorities furnish the candidates with official papers indicating different places in London to purchase their uniforms and outfits; and whether he will make inquiry, and arrange that Dublin and London shall be put upon equal terms in regard to such supplies.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The selection of a tailor in Ireland, as in England, is left entirely to the discretion of the individual officers who deal with them. Candidates on passing are informed officially by the War Office that they can have forwarded on application the price lists of all those firms in Great Britain and Ireland who have availed themselves of the opportunity of submitting their lists to the War Office for the provision of officers' outfits on cash terms. The reason of this practice on the part of the War Office is that it is attempting to insure moderation in charges. Commanding officers are, however, forbidden to order any young officer to purchase his uniform from any particular tailor.

  Irish Board of Agriculture—Position of Mr. Porter.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether Mr. Porter, of the Board of Agriculture, Dublin, was originally employed in the Army or Navy; whether he was in the employment of the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, for how long, and at what salary; how long and at what salary was he in the employment of the Land Commission; and whether Mr. Porter has been employed in any other Government Department in Ireland or England.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Mr. Porter was formerly a sub-lieutenant in the Navy, from which service he retired with a pension of £45 12s. 6d. He has been continuously in the employment of the Irish Government since 24th November 1887, when he was appointed as Lay Assistant Commissioner under the Land Acts. His salary in that position was £800, including subsistence allowance. His qualifications are stated in Parliamentary Paper 177, of 1891. On 21st December 1891, Mr. Porter was appointed to be

  1015
  Superintendent of the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission, at a salary of £1,000, including subsistence allowance. Whilst so employed his services were utilised, from 1892, in connection with the operations of the Congested Districts Board for the improvement of agriculture in the Congested Districts. His salary was borne on the Vote for the Land Commission, which department, at that time, managed the Congested Districts Board's agricultural operations. In 1900, Mr. Porter was transferred to the Department of Agriculture in pursuance of Section 22 (1) of the Act establishing the Department; but he continued to be employed upon the work of the Congested Districts Board up to the 31st March 1904. During the two latter years of such service one-half of Mr. Porter's salary was defrayed by the Congested Districts Board, the remainder being borne by the Department of Agriculture. A reduction from Mr. Porter's salary of the amount of his naval pension has been made throughout his service. I have no information that Mr. Porter was ever employed in any Government Department in England.

  Speech by Colonel Davies at Dinner of imperial Light Horse.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the speech made on the 29th January, by Colonel W. T. F. Davies, at the annual dinner of the Imperial Light Horse, in which speech the Prime Minister and his colleagues were spoken of in terms of opprobrium; whether Lord Selborne was present on that occasion; and whether he made any remonstrance at the use of such Ianguage.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The; Secretary of State has noticed the report of the speech to which the hon. Member refers. It is very natural that persons of excitable character who apprehend that their monetary interests may be prejudicially affected by the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Chinese labour should express themselves strongly, particularly after dinner. The Secretary of State does not propose to attach undue importance to such I criticism; though it be regretted that Lord Selborne should have been subjected
  1016
  to the annoyance of hearing it offered in his presence.

  Army Clothing Contracts.
  MR. NICHOLLS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will grant a Return from the Army Clothing Department depôt ofthe total cost of material issued for any contract to the contractor, and the total amount received by the contractor for the same clothing.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I fear the mischief arising from the publication of the information asked for would probably exceed the good which might result. There is, however, another mode of dealing with the evil which I think the hon. Member has in view. This mode the War Office is about to adopt as the result of a conference held last week with a labour deputation, which approached the War Office and the Admiralty on this and other subjects. If the hon. Member will speak to me privately I will tell him what steps are being taken.
  MR. NICHOLLS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will grant a return from the Army Clothing Department dopôt of clothing made at their factory, and compare cost with that made by contractors.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The full details as to the cost of clothing made in the Royal Army Clothing Factory will be found in the accounts of that establishment which are annually presented to Parliament. The further point raised by this Question falls within the Answer which I have already given to the hon. Member.

  Sittings of Foreign and Colonial Legislatures.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he can, in reply to this Question or by the issue of a Parliamentary Paper, state the daily hours and annual periods during which the representative chambers of the United States, of the principal European countries, of Japan, and of our self-governing Colonies meet in session, i.e., the approximate dates in the year when they are usually convened and discharged

  1017
  from their duties, and the hours of the day when such respective bodies ordinarily meet and adjourn; whether he can give similar information in the case of the House of Commons, say from the middle of the eighteenth century up to the present time; and, if it is not practicable to fully furnish this information without undue trouble and delay, will he give such of it as is more readily available to Government officials.
  (Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman.) The information asked for in the first part of this Question will be found in Parliamentary Paper Cd. 907. With reference to the duration of daily and yearly sittings of the House of Commons, I will see whether a Paper can be laid giving the greater part at least of the information required.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Discharges of Government Dockyard Workmen.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is proposed to re-engage the workmen recently discharged from Government dockyards.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): As far as the requirements of the dockyards can be foreseen at present, it is not anticipated that there will be any opportunity to re-enter the workmen recently discharged.
  A LABOUR MEMBER: Is it the intention of the Admiralty to discharge any men from the dockyards in March next?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  General Ian Hamilton's Book.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he authorised General Sir Ian Hamilton to publish a book upon the Russo-Japanese War.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. HALDANE,): The book in question was published
  1018
  before the present Government came into office. I had personally nothing to do with it.

  Soldiers in Civil Prisons.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of soldiers, if any, now incarcerated in civil prisons undergoing punishment for military offences, and the number of soldiers now undergoing punishment in civil prisons for civil offences; and whether any soldiers are now undergoing punishment in civil prisons whose sentence does not carry with it discharge from the Army.
  MR. HALDANE: The number of soldiers in civil prisons for military offences is twenty-one, and for civil offences 252. There are sixty-seven soldiers in civil prisons whose sentence does not carry with it discharge from the Army

  Australian Colonies and Irish Home Rule.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the petition to His Majesty in favour of self-government for Ireland, passed by the Commonwealth of Australia Federal Parliament, has been received; whether it will be printed and circulated for the information of Members of this House; and also whether a Resolution of similar; character has been received from the West Australian Parliament.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. CHURCHILL,): An address to the King from the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in favour of granting Home Rule to Ireland, and a Resolution of the Commonwealth Senate to the same effect have been received. The Secretary of State has not received any similar Resolution from the Parliament of Western Australia. I shall be very glad to lay the Resolutions on the Table of the House.

  Kaffir Labour at Transvaal Mines.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of Kaffir labourers employed

  1019
  in the Transvaal mines at the close of each of the years 1901–2–3–4 respectively and for each of the months of the year 1905 separately, so far as he has the facts.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The number of Kaffir labourers in the Transvaal in employment on last day of each month were as follows:—

  December, 1901

  15,306

  December, 1902

  45,698

  December, 1903

  73,622

  December, 1904

  83,639

  January, 1905

  89,895

  February, 1905

  97,882

  March, 1905

  105,184

  April, 1905

  107,756

  May, 1905

  106,864

  June, 1905

  104,902

  July, 1905

  103,623

  August, 1905

  100,081

  September, 1905

  97,721

  October, 1905

  96,392

  November, 1905

  96,283

  December, 1905

  93,831

  MR. BELLOC: Is it not the fact that Kaffir labour was steadily increasing until it was gradually displaced by Chinese labour?
  MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice of the Question.

  Cape Colony Franchise.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether coloured persons in Cape Colony are admitted to the franchise on the same terms as whites, and how many natives, British Indians, and other coloured persons are entitled to exercise the franchise.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The number of natives on the list of voters in 1902 was 19,505, of British Indians 399, of Malays 747, and of Chinese 67.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the population in the Transvaal of natives, of British Indians, and of other coloured persons, respectively; whether all these persons pay taxes for the support of the Colony; and what steps His Majesty's Government
  1020
  propose to take to secure representation for these persons in any Constitution that may be granted to the Colony.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The population of aboriginal natives in the Transvaal in April, 1904, was 945, 498: the number of all other coloured persons including British Indians was 23,891. They all pay taxes. In accordance with the terms of surrender, the question of granting the franchise to natives will not be decided until after the introduction of self-government.
  MR. HAROLD COXasked whether the term "natives" in the Vereeniging Treaty had any relation to British Indians.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I supposed it covered all but Europeans; but I will look into the point.

  Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
  COLONELLEGGE (St. George 's,): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the reasonable amount of notice required before a Chinese coolie can obtain leave to be repatriated at Government expense.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is not yet possible to make a statement on this matter. The regulations are being carefully considered.

  Transvaal Elections.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is expected that the elections in the Transvaal will take place.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The elections in the Transvaal cannot conveniently take place until the form of Constitution, the basis of the franchise and other fundamental questions have been determined, and the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to name a date.

  Transvaal Labour Ordnance.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the regulations by which Chinese coolies are kept in compounds are to be rescinded.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is not at pre sent proposed to rescind the regulations of the first Labour Ordinance by which the Chinese coolies are kept within the premises of the mines. They are not kept in compounds.

  Natal Disturbances.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any official information showing that, in relation to some disturbances in Natal, the kraals and crops of the natives implicated have been destroyed; and, if so, can he say how many women and children were rendered homeless and foodless by this action.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have no information, official or other, to this effect.

  Orange River Colony Franchise.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the conditions of electoral franchise in the Orange River Colony will be the same as those conferred on the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: This Question is among those which are now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and concerning which it is proposed to obtain further information.

  Transvaal and Orange River Colony Population.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the adult male population of the British and Dutch races, respectively, in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am unable to give figures. The census does not make any distinction between races of European origin.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: Will you take steps to get the information?
  MR. CHURCHILL: This is among the subjects as to which the Government propose to make inquiry.

  Gold Output in the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
  1022
  whether he can state the total value of the gold output for the months of December in each of the years 1901–2–3–4, respectively, and for each of the months of 1905 separately, so far as he has the facts.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The figures are as follows: Value of gold output in Transvaal—

  £

  December 1901

  224,692

  December 1902

  832,652

  December 1903

  1,215,111

  December 1904

  1,538,377

  January 1905

  1,578,847

  February 1905

  1,557,291

  March 1905

  1,699,991

  April 1905

  1,712,071

  May 1905

  1,767,438

  June 1905

  1,760,044

  July 1905

  1,778,112

  August 1905

  1,836,172

  September 1905

  1,763,973

  October 1905

  1,768,798

  November 1905

  1,799,595

  December 1905

  1,833,295

  Northern Nigeria Disturbances.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further authentic information to give about the disaster in Northern Nigeria; and whether any punitive expedition will be necessary.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In telegram, dated February 16th and received at the Colonial Office on the 20th, Sir Frederick Lugard, the High Commissioner, stated that a Mahdi had arisen near Sokoto and had completely defeated one company of (native) mounted infantry on February 14th; and that three British officers, mentioned by name, were reported killed. Of these, two were civilians and one a military officer. One medical officer was severely wounded. A further telegram has now been received from the High Commissioner reporting as follows:—"Further news from Burdon, Sokoto, states no room for hope that either of three British officers living; position of garrison quite safe, awaiting arrival of reinforcements; 150 will arrive about February 28th; local chiefs loyally co-operating in suppression. Disaster due to horses bolting, breaking square. Total native troops reported killed, twenty-five. Position of affairs gives me much less

  1023
  anxiety." So far as Lord Elgin can judge, the circumstances are not such as will necessarily call for a punitive expedition in the ordinary sense, but it will doubtless be necessary to reinforce the troops in the district and to take measures to arrest and punish the promoters of the disturbance. A further telegram has been received to-day from Sir F. Lugard saying that he has heard from Major Burdon that all the white men in or near Sokoto are safe except those already reported killed.

  Physical Deterioration Committee's Report.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary- of -State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee to the effect that a Bill should be brought before Parliament at an early date, having for its object the prohibition of the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to children below a certain age; and whether he is now in a position to say that this recommendation will be acted upon in the present session.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): I am aware of the recommendation in the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee, and I will give the matter my careful consideration; but I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to legislation.

  Licensing Act—Compensation Return.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will present a Return giving such information as to the operation of the Licensing Act, 1904, during the year 1905 as he is empowered to require from compensation authorities under the seventh section of that Act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have in preparation, and hope to issue before very long, a volume of licensing statistics. This will include the information asked for by the hon. Member, among much other material which will, I hope, be found useful.

  Examination for Factory Inspectors.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the fact that neither the preliminary nor the final examination for the office of factory inspector includes, as obligatory subjects, hygiene, chemistry, machine construction and drawing, applied mechanics, steam, and electricity; and whether, in the interest of efficient factory inspection, he can give any promise that the present form of the examinations referred to shall be revised.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The present scheme of examination for factory inspectorships is the result of a recent revision, the object of which was to bring it more into accord with the ascertained needs of the Factory Department. Those needs are so diverse in their character that technical and scientific training, valuable as it is, is not, taken alone, found to be sufficient to make a good inspector. Thoroughly good general abilities are always required, and the object of the present scheme of examination has been to obtain such men, by drawing upon as wide a field as possible of candidates with the best modern education which the country affords. The hon. Member will not have failed to notice that candidates of technical and scientific attainments are provided with an entry to the inspectorate by the inclusion of chemistry, physics and practical mechanism among the optional subjects of examination, while sanitary science is made an obligatory subject in the deferred examination; the reason being that this subject is found to be most thoroughly acquired in the course of the actual work of inspection. The highly technical questions connected with the use of electricity in factories are now dealt with by an electrical inspector specially appointed for that purpose. I do not therefore think that any further alteration in this examination is required, but should experience of its results show that modifications are necessary, I shall be prepared to make them.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not a fact that, according to definition, factories are places where power is used, and should not, therefore, a candidate for examination have the requisite knowledge of power?
  MR. J. R. MACDONALDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to use the January syllabus for the next examination?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think it will be used. In the last two or three days I have been asked to give a definite and final opinion on this matter. As, however, the question has been under consideration for fifteen months I am not prepared to give a final answer after fifteen days consideration of the subject. I will see how the system works and then form my own opinion.

  West Yorkshire Police and Passive Resisters' Goods.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the police of the West Hiding of Yorkshire are making a charge of one shilling daily for the storage of passive resistors' goods; under what authority they make such a charge; will he give directions for the return of the charges thus made; whether they have his sanction as being in accordance with the scale of charges fixed by the Act, 57 Geo. 3., cap. 93.
  MR. GLADSTONE: On the 11th January, 1905, a table of fees payable to constables of the West Riding of Yorkshire, containing a fee of one shilling per day for keeping possession of goods under distraint, was submitted by the Standing Joint Committee and approved by the Secretary of State acting under the powers given to him by section 23 of the Police Act, 1890. A legal question has since been raised, namely, whether the scale of charges fixed by the Distress (Costs) Act, 1817, (57 Geo. III., cap. 93), as extended by the Distress (Costs) Act, 1826, (7 and 8 Geo. IV., cap. 17) applies in certain cases to the exclusion of the fees approved under the Police Act, 1890. This question can only be determined by the courts of law, and I have no power to decide it or to give any directions of the nature suggested. I understand that the question has actually come before a county court, and that there is to be an appeal to the High Court.

  Alien Immigration Boards and the Press.
  MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the
  1026
  Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the representatives of the public Press are admitted to attend the proceedings of the Alien Immigration Boards; and, if not, whether he will take steps to assure such admission if desired.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe that in most cases, if not in all, the representatives of the public Press have not been admitted to attend the proceedings of the Immigration Boards. This is a matter which, with other points of procedure as settled by my predecessor, has been left by the regulations to the discretion of the Boards. It is engaging my attention.

  Maintenance of Parents—Imprisonment for Non-Payment.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that two labourers living at Wrangley, in Lincolnshire, named Harry Blythe and Charles Blythe, have been committed to prison for twenty-one days, for failing to obey the order of the guardians of the Boston Union, each to contribute 1s. a week to the guardians for the maintenance of their parent, and to obey the order of the magistrates to pay 2s. 6d. a week each for arrears; and whether, seeing that three out of the five magistrates of the North Holland Bench sitting at Boston, who made the order to commit, were Members of the Board of Guardians that prosecuted the case, he proposes, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent magistrates adjudicating in cases in which they are so interested.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry in the case and am informed that of the magistrates who issued the committal orders two were guardians. There appears to have been sufficient evidence that the defendants, neither of whom was married, were in a position to pay the monies due from them in respect of their mother's maintenance. The two guardians who adjudicated in the case appear not to have been more interested than any other ratepayers would be in recovering the debt due to the common fund of the Union; and the facts at present before me do not suggest the desirability of any new legislation on the subject.

  Administration of the Housing Acts.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether certain members of the staff of the Local Government Board devote their whole time to the administration of the Housing Acts, or whether the administration of the Housing Acts is carried out by members of the staff to whom is allocated other work connected with the Local Government Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOAED (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The work devolving on the Local Government Board under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts is, together with other sanitary business, dealt with in the Sanitary Administration Department of the Office. No members of the staff of the Board are required to devote their whole time to this work.

  British Insurance Companies—Suggested Official Audit.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of arranging an annual official audit of the manner, and securities, in which the capital funds of British insurance companies are, invested; whether he will also enquire; into the expediency of establishing a Government guaranteed insurance company enabling a moderate system of premiums for fire, life and accident upon the lines of an institution carried on by the responsible Government in the New Zealand Colony.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I fear I am not at the moment in a position to advise the adoption of either of the very far-reaching proposals suggested by my hon. friend.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point in the immediate future, seeing that this plan has been adopted in New Zealand?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is a good deal to be said for the first Question. I will consider it carefully.

  Merchant Shipping Bill.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am still in communication with representatives of the shipping interest on one or two points I wish to elicit their views on, before the draft is finally settled, but I hope to be able to introduce the Bill in the course of the next few days.

  Cleator Moor Postal Service.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will accelerate the mails to and from Cleator Moor, Egremont, Frizington, and other places in that neighbourhood, to enable the population in that district to receive their letters and communications before nine and ten o'clock each morning.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Some inquiry has recently been made on this subject, but it was found that certain proposals made by the District Councils concerned were impracticable. I am, however, considering whether the object in view can be attained in any other way.

  Irish National Schools—Building Plans.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a decision has been arrived at in the matter of the new plans for building national schools in Ireland; and, if so, whether he can say when the details of these plans will be published.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The matter is still under consideration.

  Epizootic Abortion in Cattle.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what progress has been made by the Departmental Committee on epizootic abortion in cattle; whether any interim Report will be issued; and whether any systematic inquiries have been made to ascertain the

  1029
  prevalence of the disease at the present time and during, say, the past ten years.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Sir EDWARD STBACHEY,): The Committee have obtained the use of suitable laboratory accommodation in the neighbourhood of London, where scientific experiments are being carried out with the object of determining whether epizootic abortion is contagious, and, if so, the nature of the contagion, and the manner in which the disease spreads. It is not proposed to issue an interim Report. No systematic inquiries as to the prevalence of the disease have yet been made, but there is no doubt that it is the cause of very considerable loss to stockowners, and that, outbreaks are of frequent occurrence.

  Cahersavane—Clooghvoola Road.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that application has been previously made to the Congested Districts Board for assistance in the construction of a road from Cahersavane to Clooghvoola, in the rural district of Caherciveen; and whether, seeing that its construction is urgently required, the Congested Districts Board will now undertake it.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BEYCE,): In October last the Board postponed the consideration of the application referred to until some members of the Board should inspect the route. No opportunity for such inspection has since occurred, but the first convenient occasion will be taken.

  Clare Land Commission.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the next Sitting of the head Land Commission will be held in County Clare.
  MR. BRYCE: The date has not yet been arranged, but the matter will come up for consideration by the Judicial Commissioner concerned on his return from circuit.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many districts in Ireland cases have been listed for five years before being heard?
  MR. BRYCE: I am not aware of that fact.

  Irish Police and the Dungannon Club, Carrickmore.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of placards, giving notice of a lecture about to be recently given in Dungannon Club, Carrickmore, were repeatedly torn down or defaced by the local constabulary force; (2) whether instructions were forwarded from Dublin Castle to have this done; (3) whether the constabulary were further instructed to send to Dublin Castle the name of any person whom they could identify as having posted the placards; (4) and whether he will arrange that the right of free discussion will be preserved in Ireland.
  MR. BRYCE: The local police, acting on their own responsibility, took down several of the placards referred to in the vicinity of Carrickmore. The reply to the second and third inquiries is in the negative. I trust that the right of free discussion in Ireland will be preserved.

  Thompson Estate, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Thompson (Clonfin) Estate, in North Longford, there are 600 acres of untenanted demesne lands at present let in grazing to surrounding occupiers; whether he is aware that this estate is insolvent and in the hands of the mortgagees, the Scottish Provident Assurance Company; and whether, as untenanted land for the settlement of evicted tenants in county Longford is scarce, he will direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the desirability of acquiring this estate for the benefit of evicted tenants in county Longford.
  MR. BRYCE: No application or request in respect of the sale of this estate has been made to the Estates Commissioners, and they have no information on the subject. They inform me, however, that they will communicate with the owners.

  Dr. Kenny's Estate, County Galway.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Congested Districts Board have purchased an estate from Dr. Kenny of Longford, county Galway; if so, a what date, and when may the tenants o small holdings in the neighbourhood expect that it shall be divided amongst them.
  MR. BRYCE: The Congested Districts Board's offer for the purchase of Dr. Comyn Kenny's estate at Longford, count) Galway, was accepted on 11th August 1904, but the property has not yet been vested in the Board. Until that is done the lands cannot be resold to the tenants. The matter is being expedited as much as possible.
  Asked by Mr. FIELD as to the reason for the great delay in re-selling to the tenants, Mr. BRYCE replied that the work of the Congested Districts Board was very heavy and that might account for it.

  Proposed Monument to Royal Irish Fusiliers at Armagh.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Armagh Urban Council refused permission for a monument to be erected in Armagh to the memory of the Royal Irish Fusiliers who were killed during the late South African war; whether he is also aware that a force of police was drafted into Armagh to protect certain persons in erecting and unveiling a monument to the memory of a man called Carbery, who was killed when fighting with the Boers against British troops; and will he say what was the cost to the ratepayers for the extra police, and what action, if any, does he propose taking in the matter.
  MR. BRYCE: On the 5th instant, the Armagh Urban District Council refused to grant a site opposite to the Court House for the purpose mentioned in the first part of the Question. On the 8th June, 1902, an extra force of 102 police was drafted into Armagh for the preservation of the peace in connection with the unveiling, in a cemetery, of a memorial to the person mentioned in the second part of the Question. The cost of the extra police, which fell on local rates, was
  1032
  £20 12s. 2d. The Local Government Board have no power to interfere with the discretion of the district council as to granting a site.

  Gort Outrage.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have received information of an attack made upon the house of a man named Kearney at Ballinderreen, near Gort, in the Athenry district, on the night of the 19th instant, or of the fact that six shots were fixed into the man's bedroom; and will he say whether Kearney grazes a farm from which the former tenant was evicted, and have the police any clue to the perpetrators of the outrage.
  MR. BRYCE: The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. Mr. Kearney is the occupier of a small grazing farm, but it is not an evicted farm. Three men have been arrested and remanded in connection with the offence.

  Attacks on Catholics at Desertmartin, Deny.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabu larly, has received an application from the clergyman of Desertmartin, county Derry, asking for additional police to protect the lives and the property of the people of the district; whether he is aware that during the past three months the houses of Catholics have been wrecked, shots fired through windows, and hayricks levelled to the ground, and that two men, named McKenna and McGeehan, are now lying dangerously ill, the result of being waylaid and beaten on the road; and if steps will be taken to protect the lives and property of the people in this district.
  MR. BRYCE: The Inspector-General received the application referred to on the 20th instant, and he is carefully considering what steps may be necessary for the preservation of the peace in this district, either in the way of strengthening the police force at neighbouring stations or forming a temporary post at Desertmartin. It is a fact that some

  1033
  offences such as are mentioned in the Question have recently been committed, and four men are at present awaiting trial for seriously assaulting the men McKenna and McGeehan. I think it better to make no statement on this latter case while proceedings are sub judice.

  Ballinacurra Sewer Works.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned the works in connection with the Ballinacurra sewer at Limerick; and, if so, will he use his influence with the Board of Works to have the loan advanced with as little delay as possible, so that this work may be carried out.
  MR. BRYCE: On the 16th instant, the Local Government Board gave their sanction to the Limerick No. 1 Rural District Council for a loan of £1,500 for the purpose mentioned. It is open to the council to contract for this loan in the open market or to apply to the Board of Works for it. I am informed by the latter Board that they have not received an application for this particular loan, but that in the case of another loan applied for by the same council they have found it necessary to point out that, owing to the repeated failure of the council to fulfil their undertakings on existing loans, the Board of Works will be precluded from making further loans unless they receive reliable assurance of punctuality in future payments.

  Irish Legislation.
  MR. FINCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the Bills he proposes to introduce this session.
  MR. BRYCE: I am not at present in a position to state what Bills I may be able to introduce this Session.
  MR. FINCH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are to be the instalments of the "larger policy"?
  MR. BEYCE: I suppose the hon. Member refers to the instalments connected with land purchase. I can say no more at present.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  LOUD CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if further grants of money will be proposed to facilitate the operation of the Land Purchase Acts.
  MR. BRYCE: There is, and will be, a willingness on the part of His Majesty's Government to provide such further sums of money as may be from time to time needed to facilitate the operation of the Land Purchase Act.

  Church Discipline Commissioners' Report.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any probability of the Report of the Royal Commission on Church Discipline being received within the next month, so as to be in the hands of Members prior to the discussion on the Church Discipline Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.; for Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Prime Minister last week to a similar question.

  Royal Commission on Canals.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to give the House any information regarding the promised Royal Commission on Canals, and particularly whether he can state its constitution and terms of reference.
  MR. ASQUITH (for Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): This business is in a forward state, and the Prime Minister hopes very shortly to make the necessary arrangements for taking His Majesty's pleasure thereon.

  Procedure Rules.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will make a statement as to the proposed alterations in the Procedure Rules.
  MR. ASQUITH: My best answer is to say that I propose to-morrow, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to move for a

  1035
  Select Committee to be appointed to consider the question of procedure in the House of Commons, and to report as to the Amendment of existing rules and any new rules which may be considered desirable for the efficient despatch of business.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the Committee have the power to inquire into the period of the session?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is the intention.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  John Michael Fleetwood Fuller, esquire for the County of Wilts (Western or Westbury Division).
NEW BILLS.
  POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Superannuation of Constables," presented by Mr. Herbert Samuel; to be road second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]
  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Returns and Notifications of Accidents in mines, quarries, factories, and workshops and under The Notice of Accidents Act 1894," presented by Mr. Herbert Samuel to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To make further provision for Local Government in Scotland; and for other purposes," presented by Major Anstruther-Gray; supported by Mr. Younger, Mr. Cochrane, Sir John Tuke, and Mr. Eugene Wason; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 7th March, am to be printed. [Bill 56.]

  BOROUGH COURT (DUBLIN) BILL.
  "To better define the jurisdiction am improve the procedure of the Borough Court of the city of Dublin; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Clancy; supported by Mr. Har-
  1036
  rington, Mr. Field, Mr. Nannetti, and Mr. Waldron; to be read a second time upon Friday, 30th March, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
  "To amend the Agricultural Holdings Acts, and to make other provisions as to the Tenure of Agricultural Land," presented by Mr. Channing; supported by Mr. Price, Mr. Reckitt, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Mackarness, and Mr. Luttrell; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT, upon the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, took the Chair of the Committee as Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CIVIL SERVICES AXD REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

  CLASS II.
  1. £130 (Supplementary), Friendly Societies Registry.
  MR. MORTONthought the Department ought to give an explanation why there was this increase of £130. It was in his opinion necessary to study economy, and he did not therefore think he need make any apology for drawing attention even to this small increase. He wished to know why it was that the original provision had not proved sufficient.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said the excess was due to the appointment of a second Assistant Registrar, rendered necessary by the great increase in the amount of work. The actual salary was £600 a year, rising by annual instalments of £25 to £700. He thought his hon. friend might rest assured that no extravagant expenditure would be incurred.
  Motion put and agreed to.

  CLASS VII.
  2. £36,000 (Supplementary), Temporary Commissions.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he desired to give the Financial Secretary an opportunity of giving the Committee any information he might have with regard to the work of the War Stores Commission and the prospect of the presentation of a Report. It was appointed by the late Government to investigate into and report as to allegations made by the Committee presided over by Sir William Butler; and it was also entrusted to inquire as to the responsibility of persons concerned in the waste of stores in South Africa. He understood that the Commission had appointed some representative of its number to go to South Africa to take evidence, but up to the present time they had not had anything in the nature of an interim Report. He wished to know whether any such Report had been presented. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, some information to justify the arrest a short time ago of a number of non-commissioned officers, but he should be glad to know what further action the Government proposed to take in the matter. The Commission dealt with a public scandal, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure them that the matter was present in the mind of the Government, and that a Report would be soon presented. He had another question to ask. He understood the Motor Car Commission had concluded taking evidence, and he wished to ask whether they could have any information as to whether a Report would be presented. Another very interesting Commission was the Local Government Board Redistribution Commission, appointed by the late Government, without any authority from the House, with a view to obtaining advice as to a Redistribution Bill to be presented. At the time their conduct was very much criticised, and it was generally recognised to be a political expedient and nothing else. He therefore thought they were entitled to ask how the money had been spent and whether the Commission was still in existence.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)said the Motor Car Commission had completed its labours and the Report was in course of preparation. The Redistribution Commission had also concluded its labours, but he thought the subject of its investigations was of a confidential nature, and he could not give that fuller information which hon. Members would like.
  MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the Members of the Commission, whether they are going to Report, and what they have done with the £1,200?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not know their names; I have not seen their Report; I understand the last Government have dissolved them; and I would suggest that there the matter should rest.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that in his opinion it was infamous to demand that the public should be asked to pay for this device for prolonging the late Administration. In the very last stages of the existence of the late Government they were looking about for some pretext for living a few minutes longer, and one of the devices hit upon was to start the question of redistribution, with special reference to the Irish representation. The whole object was to cut down the representation of Ireland and not to reform the system in either England or Scotland; and was it reasonable that the public should have to pay for the designs of a mere political club organised in the Conservative interest? It was a most extraordinary thing that the President of the Local Government Board should not know anything about the Commission. He could understand documents relating to foreign affairs being kept private, though they were always made known to successive Ministries, but by what right had the late Government withheld the documents of this Commission from the present President of Local Government Board, and how was it that he regarded them as deserving of being treated as confidential? He did not object to the late or any Government keeping private their documents if they did not ask the public to pay for them, but to compel the country to pay for a partisan document seemed to him to be the most impudent thing he had known

  1039
  since he entered the House twenty years ago, and, as far as he was concerned, he had no intention of allowing the documents to remain private, so long as the demand was made that they should be paid for by the public purse. If Mr. Balfour would arrange with the right hon. Gentleman to pay for this out of the funds of the Carlton Club, he would raise no further objection. He might then keep the documents for they would interest him no more, but they would interest him very much if he found the demand that they should be paid for out of the public purse was persisted in.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he thought the House was entitled to some further information from the President of the Local Government Board. Why was this called a private document? The appointment of the Commission was announced in the House, and the names of its Members were read out by a Minister, one of them being an officer of the Local Government Board, who gave his public time for the preparation of the Commission's Report. He could not understand the ground on which they were told that the document was a private one, that they had nothing to do with it, and that they were not to see it. There was at least one if not two officers of the Local Government Board on the Commission, and it could not surely be fairly argued that the House was to have no knowledge of the Report.
  MR. MORTONsaid that what they ought to know was who had had the money and how much they had each had; and, if the right hon. Gentleman could not that day give them the information, he thought they should postpone the matter. The transaction must be known to somebody in the Local Government Board, and they ought not to pass it over without receiving the fullest information, especially as they were told that it was a mere electioneering dodge. If anyone could prove that it was not, they would have the opportunity, but no one had risen yet on the Opposition Benches. He had no doubt that they were ashamed of the expenditure themselves. They had now a Liberal Government in power, pledged to economy, and he consequently hoped that they would have the fullest information on the matter, otherwise
  1040
  he should feel obliged to vote against the Estimate altogether.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid there was one point which had not been cleared up by the President of the Local Government Board. Had the Commission completed the work for which it was appointed, and had any member of the Government a complete Report as to the work? They wanted to know whether the country had got anything at all for the £1,200 they were now asked to vote. There might be schemes of redistribution hereafter. Would the findings of this Commission be of any further value? Would they be any contribution to any such scheme?
  MR. BYLESsaid it seemed to him that they would be creating a rather dangerous precedent, if they voted money spent by somebody, they did not know who, and spent in some way, they did not know how. He considered the only way was to move that the Vote should be reduced by £1,200.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he understood the matter did not come in the cognizance of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he was not in any way responsible for it. He did not think they could blame the Government at all, but this was the only opportunity they had of protesting against public money being spent in this fashion. The Commission originated in the failure of the late Government to pass certain Resolutions brought before Parliament, and it was appointed to give an indication to the public that they really meant business with regard to redistribution. It was evident that the late Government meant nothing by it; it was a Party expedient, and it was the duty of the Committee to protest against it. It was true that Mr. Gerald Balfour was nominally responsible for the matter, but he could not help expressing his surprise that no Member of the Front Opposition Bench had thought it his duty to say a single word on behalf of the late Government. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer must have some explanation as to how it came about that the expenditure was authorised. He would like to know the reasons which

  1041
  induced him to give his authority. Did he really believe the Commission was appointed in the public interest? The appointment of the Commission was an attempt to get round the House of Commons, and the matter was of importance from the point of view of precedent. How far was the Government going to be justified in spending public money without the authority of the House? This Commission was appointed to deal with a matter which was never accepted by the House. All that the House knew about it was that the late Prime Minister brought forward a series of resolutions before he had taken the trouble to study the procedure. The Commission was therefore an investigating Commission, just as if they had appointed a Commission of the Carlton Club; it was a mere fishing Commission appointed to gather sufficient information to justify the then Government in bringing in a Bill the next year. If they did not protest, where was the matter to stop? Would the Government be justified in appointing twenty Committees and in spending thousands of pounds without the authority of the House? He could imagine the protest that would come from the opposite side of the House if twenty Committees were appointed in connection with the Bills promised by the present Government. He thought the Members of the late Government, if they were not disposed to defend their own action in the matter, might give them the advantage of the information they had obtained. They were told that the papers were private, but why were they private? Perhaps the facts were against their own case, and that it was owing to that that the Report was to be kept secret. He would, however, appeal to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he had not some information to give them with regard to the matter.
  MR. VIVIANasked if it was not time that such questions as those relating to the redistribution of seats should be referred, not to a partisan Committee, but to some judicial Committee, representing all interests. There was a principle involved in the matter, and if they considered the question impartially and brought out a Report not partisan at all they would be taking a step forward. Then there was the question of spending money without the
  1042
  approval of the House. In extreme cases they might be inclined to excuse that sort of thing, but he did not see that this was an extreme case. He could understand also that if they were dealing with some great international question secrecy might be of vital importance in the public interest, but this was entirely a civil or domestic matter, and they ought to be placed in full possession of all the information.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had a great deal of sympathy with the principles enunciated by the hon. Member who had just sat down, though he differed from him in the belief he had that they applied to the facts of the present case. The Commission could not be described as a partisan Commission, for it was composed, he believed, entirely of officials.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There were two officials.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that at any rate two members of the Commission were excluded by their public service from being active partisans.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: The third gentleman is known to be an authority on local government.
  MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,continuing, said that it would also be found, when the name of the third gentleman was mentioned, that his appointment was not of a partisan character. Therefore, although he agreed that it would be not merely wrong, but something of a scandal if they appointed a partisan Commission when they sought information on which to found legislation, he absolutely denied, and he was sure he would be supported by Gentlemen opposite who knew the facts, that the Commission appointed was partisan. If the hon. Gentleman opposite objected to the appointment of Departmental Committees, he must use his influence with the present Government to alter their ways, for, although they had been in office only a few months, they had announced an unusual number of Commissions and Committees, the

  1043
  expense of which the House would be asked to authorise.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: We shall get the Reports.
  MR. MORTON: It does not follow that the money will be spent first.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that as far as the Government could tell, the House was committed to the expenditure before it was asked for its sanction. He did not complain, but the hon. Gentleman opposite below the gangway, if he wished the principles he had named to be followed, must exert very active influence on the Government. The first principle the hon. Gentleman had laid down was, he understood, that when a Commission had concluded its work, the information should be made available for the House, unless the public interest necessitated its being withheld. It was a fact that every Government and every Department had from time to time to appoint Departmental Committees, and in some cases their Reports were necessarily of a highly confidential character, and could not be published without injury to the public interest, and without, in fact, making it impossible to conduct similar inquiries successfully in future; but the Commission they were considering was not a Commission of that kind. It was a mistake to say that the House of Commons refused to pass the Resolutions submitted by the late Government. The Speaker ruled that it would be necessary to break them up into such a great number of propositions that it was impossible to proceed with the matter in the then state of business, and the Government accordingly appointed the Commission, not for a partisan purpose, but for the sake of gaining information which it was necessary to have if the seats in the House were to be redistributed more in accordance with the claims of population in the country. They appointed the Commission to ascertain the facts upon which they could subsequently ask the House to act, and if they had retained office they would of course have asked the House to act upon the Report, and would have supplied the information upon which their Bill was framed to the House. The responsibility had now passed from them, and it was no longer for them to say
  1044
  whether the information should be forthcoming or not. He had felt it his duty to explain that they had acted not only in consonance with an unbroken line of precedents, but in accordance with the common dictates of common sense.
  MR. LEIF JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commission completed its work or whether its work was broken off in the middle?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is a question which ought to be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood the force of what had been said on the Ministerial side of the House. They did not say that this was a partisan Commission so far as the individual members of it were concerned, but that it was appointed for partisan purposes, that it was in fact done to save the faces of the Ministers then in office. They did not dare face the House of Commons with their Resolutions, and they therefore held a meeting at the Carlton Club and decided to withdraw them. Then behind the scenes they appointed a Commission. What he wanted to ask the President of the Local Government Board was whether he would suggest that the £1,200 ought to be levied on the right hon. Gentlemen opposite instead of asking the House to vote the money.
  MAJOR SEELYasked if there was not a precedent against the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Surely he was right in saying that on a previous occasion a Commission or Committee was appointed to inquire into redistribution proposals by a Liberal Government and that, although they went out of office before the labours of that Committee were completed, they left those labours, in view of the fact that they were performed in the public interest, to their successors. If that was so, it was a very strong precedent. He urged that when public servants were appointed to do public work their Report should be brought before the House, except when it was against the public interest that that course should be taken.
  MR. FLYNNthought that Irish Members should protest against this waste of public money. It was not necessary to raise the charge that this was a partisan Committee, but he said that the action of the late Government was of a partisan character. There was no question of urgency and no demand from Parliament, or any considerable section of Members, for the step. The whole thing was sprung upon the House at the fag end of a session without notice. It was part of the selfish and woeful mismanagement of the House that a Resolution on this subject should be brought forward which resolved itself into twelve or thirteen motions. He supposed that the money having been spent, all they could do was to register their protest, but if there were any practical means of securing it he would say that the members of the late Government who appointed this Commission without the assent of this House should be called upon to pay the money. This was a warning that Ministers should look before they leaped. The whole scheme was hastily and ill-considered and upon a partisan basis. It reflected no credit upon His Majesty's late Government.
  MR. MORTONsaid the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had not told them what they wanted to know, and that was, who got the money.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no access at the present time to the official records. Perhaps those who have access to those records can answer the Question.
  MR. MORTONsaid the money was paid by the late Government, and surely they had got receipts for it. He thought this was an illustration of the careless way in which the affairs of the country had been administered by the late Government, under whom the expanses had increased by £50,000,000 per annum. What they wanted to know from the President of the Local Government Board, or some other official, was who had this money. These permanent officials were enjoying a handsome salary, but they appeared in addition to have got this money. The Committee were
  1046
  entitled to know how every penny of the public money had been spent.
  MR. CLANCYconsidered that there was a much more important question to consider than where the money had gone to, and that was where the Report was to be found. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he knew nothing about its contents, but if it was not in the office of the Local Government Board, where was it? Had it been taken away by some of the late Ministers and was it now to be found in one of their houses or in one of the clubs they frequented; or was it in the possession of the hon. Gentleman who ought to have it, the hon. Member for Waterford?
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it was perfectly obvious that from time to time Governments must change, and that there were a good many matters of legislation which required to be looked into and upon which the different Departments of the Executive were bound to collect evidence and make inquiries. He desired to point out to the House how exceedingly inconvenient it would be if, whenever a change of Government happened, it were possible for the new Government to propose to leave hon. Members who had been acting upon a Committee of this kind in the position that their expenses would not be paid. This was a storm in a tea cup, and an attempt to cast discredit, upon the late Government for matters in which they were acting strictly within their rights. The desire seemed to be to call into question expenses incurred in a perfectly regular manner. Hon. Members had asked where was the Report, but it was conceivable that there was no Report, and their demands, therefore, were perfectly futile. It was perfectly obvious that there was no use in cross-examining the President of the Local Government Board as to where the Report was, becaus he said he knew nothing about it. The discussion, therefore, seemed to him to be altogether absurd.
  MR. JOHN BURNSexplained that whatever money was disbursed in connection with the investigations of this

  1047
  Committee, hon. Members could rely upon it that it had been properly paid by the Local Government Board. It would be a mistake to imply that anybody had anything to do with the expenditure in the way suggested. This Committee was appointed by the last Government, and the present Government was in no sense responsible for it. The Committee was appointed, presumably in the public interest, for a definite public object, to deal with the question of whether or not there should be a redistribution scheme. Of its scope he knew nothing, and that also applied to its object, although they might have their suspicions. As to its conclusions, he was a child in these things, and he knew nothing about them, and he could not tell whether the Report was at the Local Government Board or not. He had been otherwise and better engaged than in searching through the archives of his office to find out what the late Government had done in regard to redistribution, and he had not seen the Report. He believed the Committee sat and did some work, and reported in some way, though he knew not what way. The expenses they incurred were the amount included in the supplementary Estimate now submitted. If hon. Gentlemen thought that by postponing this question they would be able further to elucidate the questions which had been addressed to him, he should be pleased to comply with their request, but so far as he was concerned, and until he was released from what seemed to be his duty as President of the Local Government Board that afternoon, he construed that the document was confidential, and it seemed to him that it would be unjust to his predecessors, unless the Department was released from the confidence attaching to the document, to publish it. To publish it would be unfairand unbecoming, but in the event of the late Prime Minister's being returned that day for the City of London, and questions being put to him on the subject—he could not conceive that the right hon. Gentleman could have anything to hide in the matter—if the right hon. Gentleman was willing to assent to the publication of the document "Barkis is willing," and he was ready to assent to its production. He had nothing to add to what he had
  1048
  said to the effect that this document must be regarded as confidential, and pending further inquiries, he might ask to be allowed to adhere to the terms of the answer he made yesterday.
  MR. WALTER LONGthought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made a very fair proposal, namely, that until the late Prime Minister returned to the House he should not be released from what he considered his obligation of honour towards his predecessors. He was sure that everyone would respect and sympathise with the feelings which led the right hon. Gentleman to adopt that view, although with great respect he took a somewhat different view from him in regard to this matter. He knew nothing more than the right hon. Gentleman about the Report. He did not know what it contained, nor did he know if the Report was a concluded one. The suggestion, however, that the Report was to be of a partisan character was one, however, which must be repudiated at once. It was a Report asked for by the Department, not in a partisan sense, but in order to obtain information which was necessary, if redistribution proceedings were to be continued, and the suggestion that it was partisan in any way must fall upon the gentlemen composing; the Committee. He could say of the Local Government Board that there was no Department in the country to which one could go with such confidence to get not an ex parte, but an independent statement. Therefore he was convinced that there could be no reason whatever why, if there was a Report, it should not be made public. He gathered that the President of the Local Government Board had been occupied in very important duties and had not had time to ascertain whether this Report was in the Department or not. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should make inquiries in the Department. He would find whether the Report was there, and it was in his own discretion and that of nobody else to decide whether that Report was to be made public. There were many Reports prepared in our public Departments which, in the public interest, could not be published,

  1049
  but he did not know whether that consideration applied to this case or not. He was quite sure that Mr. Balfour was not desirous of any secrecy whatever in the matter.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the valuable suggestion had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the Committee should postpone the further inquiry into this Estimate. He hoped it was not proposed to postpone it for an indefinite period. It might well be postponed until the President of the Local Government Board had found out whether the document was supposititious or whether, if it was in existence, the right hon. Gentleman could see if it was to the advantage of those by whom the Commission was appointed or those who sat upon the Ministerial side of the House. The question for the Committee was what was the object for which this £1,200 was paid. It was a mere flea-bite to the last Government, but in the present Government they were all financial reformers, and they desired to check all these extravagances; and unless they commenced with these little items of £1,200 here and £3,000 there, presented on this Estimate, they would never accomplish that financial retrenchment to which they were all pledged. Another point was that there were two gentlemen put on this Committee who were public servants, and were earning salaries in other directions. If some one on the Treasury Bench who was responsible for the conduct of the Government would look into all the payments the Committee were now asked to consider, they would see that all the people put into these Commissions were public servants. It had become almost a scandal that public servants should be withdrawn from the ordinary business of their departments and put on Committees or Commissions and made the arbiters upon questions which were closely connected with the duties which they themselves were called upon day by day to discharge. It appeared to him that the whole of the expenditure of the State was controlled by persons whose business was not to decrease the expenditure but to take
  1050
  charge of the services of the State themselves.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid he did not believe for one moment that any hon. Member of the Committee would suggest that he had received any of this money, in spite of what his hon. friend had said, and so far as the Report was concerned he would very much like to see it himself if it existed. The late Government originally intended to proceed by way of Bill for redistribution, but they ultimately decided to proceed by Resolution. That Resolution was brought forward in the form of an en bloc Resolution, but it was found that it could not be put en bloc and it was abandoned, because there was no time to discuss it. In justice to an absent Member it was due to Mr. Gerald Balfour that he should recall to the memory of the Committee the fact that that right hon. Gentleman stated several times that the course the late Government proposed to take was to appoint a Committee of three, of whom two were members of the Local Government Board staff and the third an eminent King's Counsel. Mr. Gerald Balfour stated distinctly that the result of the inquiries of those gentlemen would be confidential to the Government, and that on the information the then Government would be able to modify or mature the Resolution before the House into a Bill, and that then they intended to appoint Boundary Commissioners whose Report would be public property and would be brought before the House. In his recollection the propriety of the Government's course was not contested, and it was only fair that the course pursued by the Government of the day should be at the public expense
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that what the Committee were now asked to do was to pay £1,200 for a Report which no one knew anything about, or whether it was in existence. In his opinion the only way to deal with this item was to postpone further inquiry till the Report stage, and if it were then found that there was no such document in existence, he for one would refuse to pass it. The point put forward, that this document was confidential, was not sound.

  1051
  It would have been if this had been a departmental Committee, but inasmuch as this was not a departmental Committee it could not be said that its Report was confidential.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the suggestion made by the hon. Member was a reasonable one. There was an obvious desire in some quarters of the House to know more of this Report if it existed, and a desire upon the part of those who sat on the front Opposition bench for further investigation, and therefore, if the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion to reduce the Vote, he would agree to postpone its consideration.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that as he had not yet moved his reduction he had nothing to withdraw. When the Vote came up for Report he hoped and believed they would have an opportunity given for its discussion. He had asked another question which he thought the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to answer with regard to the War Stores Commission.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that Mr. Justice Farwell had unfortunately been ill, and, in consequence, certain delay had taken place in issuing the Report. He was expecting that the Commission would finally report about the end of March, but it might be delayed a little beyond that time. Their investigation in South Africa had been undertaken by a barrister, Mr. Reeve, who had, he believed, executed his work with extreme skill and energy, and certain arrests had been made in consequence. There had been, however, no official communication yet received upon this or as to whether the trials of the persons charged had taken place.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he had gathered that a large number of people had been prosecuted, and he would like to know whether in each case the individual who was responsible for giving or conveying bribes was also going to be prosecuted, because it seemed to him that that person was very much more guilty than the poor non-commissioned officer who might have received a bribe.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he could only repeat that no Report had yet been isssued by the Commission.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that various arrests had been made.
  MR. MCKENNA: No; I understand so.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: Then he cannot say whether they have been in this country?
  MR. McKENNA: They have not been in this country.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDONsaid he understood certain officers were placed under arrest in this country. Could the Financial Secretary of the Treasury find out who they were and whether arrests were still being made, and, if so, whether any decision had been arrived at?
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he had been informed that there had been certain soldiers suspended, but he did not understand that any soldier had been placed under arrest.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give fuller information on the Report stage?
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he could not promise that, because the Commission was a statutory one, and there was no authority for asking them for information on the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDcalled attention to the item of £100 for travelling expenses for the London Locomotion Commission. Were they expected to believe that the expenses were exactly that sum? It was time that with regard to a number of those items the House should have some information as to the basis on which they were framed.
  MR. MCKENNAthought the hon. Member would agree that it would be very undesirable to introduce a supplementary Estimate, say for £60 or £70, which might not be certain to cover the

  1053
  amount, which was, however, not very arge. It referred to a considerable number of people, and although each item might be small the total was roughly put at £100. Of course, if the money were not spent it would be surrendered at the end of the year and would go to the reduction of the National Debt.
  MR. MORTONsaid, regarding the total cost of the London Locomotion Commission, that the £1,700 was, of course, in addition to the large sum of money previously voted. What had been the total expenses of the Commission? Who comprised the Advisory Committee, the fees and expenses of which on the supplementary Estimate amounted to £850. These Commissions of Inquiry, especially Royal Commissions, were very expensive, and it would be advisable, if they were to economise public money, that more details should be furnished as to how the money was expended.
  MR. McKENNAsaid the Advisory Committee was appointed early in 1904. A provision was made in the Estimates of last year of £10,000 for the expenses of the Board, but the whole of that was not expended. This £850 was a re-vote of the sum not exp nded last year which was carried to the Sinking Fund. As regarded the total cost of the Commission he would give the figures later on.
  MR. MORTONasked what was the Feeble-Minded Commission referred to in the Estimate. How had the sum of £3,450 against it been expanded.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that the expenses covered the investigations of doctors receiving £3 3s. a day for a day's work of eight hours.
  MR. MORTONsaid he observed an item of £1,200 for the Poor Law Commission, but there was not the slightest explanation of what it was for. The supplementary Estimate also showed that the total original Estimate for temporary Commissions was £32,804, and a further sum was now required of £36,000. It was an example of how the money of the country was spent, and how to a very large extent it was wasted.
  MR. MCKENNAhoped his hon. friend would understand that these Estimates were prepared by the late Government and the information for which he asked was to a certain extent not in the hands of the present Government. The policy of the appointment of these Commissions would be better explained by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Poor Law Commission was appointed List year, and the Chairman was Lord George Hamilton.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if any fresh appointments had been made to the Feeble-Minded Commission since the present Government came into office.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid a number of requests had been communicated to the Government to enlarge the scope and personnel of the Commission, and these requisitions had been considered by the Government. The additional names had not yet been decided upon.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Has any fresh appointment on the Commission been made since the present Government came into office?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Not definitely.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £10,000 Vote, Milan Exhibition, 1906.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that there was an extraordinary note at the bottom of this Estimate which stated that—
  "The expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor - General. Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended on the 31st March, 1906, will not be liable to surrender on that date."
  That was rather an unusual note. This Grant-in-Aid was given and they were not to have access to inhumation as to the way in which it was to be spent. He hoped the present Government were not responsible for this Estimate. He did not think that a proviso of this sort ought to be inserted in any Estimate, and it was a perfect farce to ask them to take an interest in the Estimates if they prevented the officials of this House from taking the necessary precaution to

  1055
  see the money was not wasted. He hoped they would have a satisfactory explanation.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that applications of this kind were constantly made to the Treasury, and very constantly they had to be refused. The number of exhibitions during the last ten years had been large, and the amount of money expended was serious. He wished to suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury that the sporadic and irregular manner in which grants were made to these international exhibitions ought to be made a subject of inquiry by this Parliament. He noticed that the Treasury were responsible for the granting of this £10,000, but he could not help thinking that the Treasury was the wrong Department to deal with these grants. Such matters ought to be accounted for to the Treasury by the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was most in touch with the Consular service. The Treasury was essentially the wrong Department to deal with expenditure of this character. Matters relating to international exhibitions ought to be arranged almost entirely by the Board of Trade. When an application of this character was made to the British Government, it generally came from an irresponsible body of merchants in the particular country where the exhibition was being arranged. A Commission was appointed which contained a great number of ornamental names of persons who never attended, and they had no records before them and no continuity of policy. Sometimes it was the Chamber of Commerce, and in another case it was the Royal Engineers, and so on, and he thought the Government would do well to consider if some small permanent body could be set up to whom all such applications might promptly be referred. They would then have a body to whom all these applications could be made, and from whom applicants could receive skilled and professional advice. These applications often come late in the day, and then there was a scramble for sites, with the result that the commercial and industrial activity of this country was seldom shown to advantage. He would no doubt be told that he
  1056
  was asking the Government to set up a new department which would cost money, but if the Secretary to the Treasury would investigate this question he would find that the unbusinesslike way in which the Commissions had been managed was such that the waste of expenditure would run into scores and scores of thousands of pounds. If they had a small permanent body, he could name three or four competent people who would undertake to do the directing work gratis, and for the sum of £150 or £200 a year, they could allocate specially some skilful clerk from the Board of Trade for this purpose, who would record all the information, keep the accounts, be in touch with all these matters, and who would be able to advise the Treasury whenever these applications were made. In nine cases out of ten the applications ought to be promptly refused. He did not ask the hon. Member for an answer at the present moment, but he trusted that he would undertake to look into this matter in a sympathetic manner, because he was convinced that it was the best measure they could adopt to prevent extravagance in this matter of international exhibitions.
  MR. PAULasked why this money should not be accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He should like to know what right the Government or the Treasury had to withhold any information from the Auditor-General, who was a public officer, quite independent of the Treasury and responsible only to this House.
  MR. R. DUNCANthought they ought not to spend the taxpayers money upon exhibitions in countries which kept our goods out by prohibitive tariffs.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he entirely agreed with the general observations of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs and the hon. Member for Northampton with regard to the advisability of all public accounts being submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. But the circumstances in this case were very exceptional. The grant of £10,000 had been made, and he did not take any

  1057
  responsibility for the expenditure of the money and the grant was a final one. As a rule a certain method was adopted. They usually retained control, and if the amount granted was not found sufficient there was generally a fresh demand made upon the Treasury to increase the amount. That course had been adopted in the case of other exhibitions. In the present case they had decided once for all that the grant should be £10,000 and no more, and the grant having been made it was entrusted to the Commissioners to expend the money. As a matter of fact they had stipulated that an audit should be made and shown to the Treasury, but they did not ask that the accounts should be audited by a department of the Government. The noble Lord made some ingenious suggestions as to a department being set up for the special consideration of applications for grants for foreign exhibitions. He would remind him that at the present moment foreign exhibitions were in the Department of the Foreign Office, and Colonial Exhibitions in the Department of the Colonial Office. Neither, he thought, were in the Department of the Treasury. They were accounted for by the Treasury, but the applications were not primarily settled or decided by the Treasury. The expenditure was controlled by the Treasury. He did not quite gather from the noble Lord whether he proposed that the department which he would set up should be independent of the Treasury with regard to control of expenditure, because if he made any such proposal as that, he could not even pretend that it would be considered with sympathy. There could be only one department of the State to control expenditure. If they were to sub-divide control it would be impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to make up his Budget for the year.
  LORD BALCARRES: I did not suggest anything of the kind.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that in regard to the suggestion to appoint a special officer of the Board of Trade to take control of the management of exhibitions, he would submit the matter to his right h m. friend the President of the Board of Trade who, he had no doubt, would
  1058
  give it his most sympathetic consideration. A grant to the exhibition of Marseilles was refused on the ordinary lines regulating the Treasury procedure in granting these sums. In the present case Milan was made an exception to the ordinary rule. As a general rule a grant was sanctioned only in a case where a foreign exhibition was conducted by the Government of the country where it was held and where it was held in the capital of the country. The Milan Exhibition was not primarily undertaken by the Italian Government and it was not to be held in the capital of Italy. Special representations were made to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer who, for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman thought were sufficient, and which he himself had no doubt were sufficient, agreed to this special grant's being made. He thought the House would be perfectly agreed that the sum in question was not excessive. In the case of Marseilles no special reason was shown why the Government should depart from the usual rule, and accordingly the request was refused.
  MR. AUSTEX CHAMBERLAINsaid the Financial Secretary of the Treasury had perfectly correctly stated the rules upon which the Treasury had been accustomed to act in this matter, not only during the short time he himself presided over that office, but also under his predecessors. He thought the hon. Gentleman would find, as he and his predecessors had found, that there was considerable difficulty in dealing with the applications received for grants to exhibitions. The Treasury had tried to limit the number of applications it would receive and to maintain the rule under which grants were made. The rule was that the exhibition was to be national and held in the capital of the country where it took place. But it had been recognised that to the rule there must occasionally be exceptions, and exceptions had sometimes been made for political and other reasons. By political reasons he meant where it was thought desirable in the national interest that there should be the interchange of courtesy which representation at such an exhibition involved. This led to special grants being made for the exhibitions at St. Louis and Chicago.

  1059
  The exhibition at Milan was a national exhibition, the first national industrial exhibition held in the Kingdom of Italy. Although it did not fulfil the other Treasury condition of being held in the capital, it was pointed out with unanswerable force by parties interested that Rome was not the natural place for an industrial exhibition, that Milan was the industrial capital, and that for an exhibition of this kind must be considered the capital of Italy. Therefore, though in the first instance he refused to make any grant to this exhibition, because it did not literally fulfil the regulations they had endeavoured to maintain, he, on the further representations which were made to him, and on receiving assurances both from the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade of their interest in the matter and of their desire that the British Government should be officially represented, and especially on being advised by the Board of Trade that this was a matter that concerned the trade of the country, he undertook to allow a grant and not to present a Supplementary Estimate this year as the hon. Gentleman had done, but to propose to the House of Commons in the regular course of the Estimates in the next Parliamentary year a grant similar to that which had now been laid before the Committee. He took no exception to the very natural course which the hon. Gentleman had pursued. He supposed that the hon. Gentleman desired as far as possible to wind up all the liabilities of the late Government in these Supplementary Estimates, and he did not for a moment criticise that decision. He need not say that if the Vote were challenged he would give it all the support in his power, for it embodied a proposal he had intended to make to the House. As to the procedure which had been commented on, he thought the hon. Gentleman opposite had fairly explained the reasons which had led him to adopt it. It was customary to treat a grant-in-aid in this way. A grant-in-aid was not an Estimate in the ordinary sense. It was a definite contribution made once and for all, and with that contribution the liability of the Government ceased.
  MR. DALZIEL: Is the money limited to expenditure on the British part of the exhibition?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was limited to representing British trade in a particular Exhibition—in this case Milan Exhibition. If the whole of the money was not required for the purpose for which it was voted, the balance would be surrendered to the Exchequer. What was more likely to happen was. that not only would the £10,000 be spent in securing a fitting representation of British trade, but that a considerable sum would be raised by Chambers of Commerce, or from private sources, for the same purpose. In regard to the general question as to whether the Treasury was or was not the best Department to deal with these applications, he entirely concurred with the hon. Gentleman opposite that the financial control of the Treasury must remain complete. It must be for the Treasury to say whether they would give a grant in any particular case or not. The suggestion of his noble friend was not to traverse that control, but there was something in the suggestion that when applications of this kind were made—and they were not infrequently received—it might be of service to the Treasury to have a small permanent Committee who would examine the claims put forward in support of each exhibition and digest the cases for the Treasury. Probably the Committee would themselves be able to decline to submit a considerable number of the applications to the Treasury. He thought that generally the Treasury would not go behind their Committee, but the responsibility and control of the Treasury to grant or refuse applications would still remain complete. He viewed this expenditure for representing British trade in foreign exhibitions with very considerable suspicion. He shared the view of his hon. friend, who expressed doubt as to whether the money was well expended in securing the representation of British trade where heavy tariffs were constantly limiting the trade which that expenditure was intended to promote. He was inclined to think that the money spent for this purpose was of little use except in cases where the exhibitions were of a character, or situated in places to attract visitors on a large scale from what were known as neutral markets—South American markets for instance. He did not pretend to dogmatise on this

  1061
  matter, but it was a conclusion which he had been tempted to arrive at through communications he had had at different times—long before he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as when he held that office—from gentlemen engaged in British industry and commerce. He thought, for instance, that our participation in an exhibition in Paris probably did not lead to any great extension of our trade in France—certainly not to any permanent extension. If it led to a momentary extension, local manufacturers very soon found out what was going on, and they undertook to supply their own market. But an exhibition in Paris was visited by possible customers from other countries where we did not suffer from the same restrictions. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord in no unfriendly spirit, and with no idea of depriving the Treasury of any of the control it possessed now, and which it must always possess over the national expenditure.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with the matter of this grant in a fair way. The suggestion of the noble Lord was very absurd, and he was surprised that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given it his support. The Treasury must take the responsibility of dealing with applications, and if they wished to get advice they could get it from the experts of the Departments. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished that advice he could get it without putting the responsibility on any such sub-committee. He thought that the control ought to be complete; but his hon. friend behind him misunderstood the present situation. If a grant were given by municipalities, as was sometimes the case, to an exhibition of this kind, it was donated on a certain ground; he did not think the municipality could ask for the details as to how that sum was expended, but they must be satisfied that any amount not expended for the purpose for which the original sum was voted would be returned. He must say, however, that the foot-note was misleading.
  MR. MORTONthought that these accounts should go before the Auditor-General, because, unless they did, how could it be known that the money was properly expended? He was sure that the understanding of the House was that the details of the expenditure of every sum voted, except the Secret Service Fund, should go before the Auditor-General, who was an independent official, and whose salary could not be discussed by the House, and that he should be allowed to see them. Even in regard to the Secret Service money there were certain officials who certified that it had been expended in a certain manner. It would not do to say that a lump sum was given to a Commissioner who was told "You can do what you like with it."
  MR. PAULsaid he had followed the very clear statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on matters of policy, but even after the exposition of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh there was a constitutional point which he wished to put. If the Auditor General wished to see the details of the expenditure under these grants-in-aid, what right had the Treasury to withhold them or any part of them?
  MR. DALZIELthought there had been very little defence of this Vote before the Committee. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he had viewed the Vote with suspicion, and he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, holding these views, had consented to it. At the same time, this country ought to be represented in all great exhibitions abroad, because they undoubtedly led to an extension of trade. What was the use of the Treasury making a rule which they were going to break on an occasion? The late Chancellor of the Exchequer broke it because certain strong representations had been made to him in regard to it; but up to the present time he did not see how an exception had been made in regard to the Milan Exhibition. He did not adopt in any respect whatever the suggestion put forward by the Treasury that it was their duty to give a grant-in-aid and then to have nothing more

  1063
  to do with it. Surely the Treasury was strong enough to say "We give a certain amount for a certain purpose; we will not give any more," and to adhere to that condition. If any money was given at all, the Public Accounts Committee should be able to demand of right to know how the money was spent. If that were not done a premium would be given to bad expenditure and a waste of public money.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINasked to whom this grant-in-aid of £10,000 was to be paid? Who was to take charge of the money, and how was it to be spent? Was it to be expended on an exhibition of British industry in Milan, or was it going to cover the expenses of the Commission going to Milan? Was this a Commission belonging to the British Government, to represent British trade interests at that exhibition? Another question he had to ask was, whether among these exhibits there were any from Ireland? For Ireland would have to pay its share of the cost of the Commission. He wanted to know in what way Ireland would benefit by all this expenditure?
  MR. McKENNAthought that the hon. Member's Questions were reasonable. The fund was granted to a commission or committee, the members of which were nominated by the London and other Chambers of Commerce, the Chairman of which was Lord Brassey, and the hon. treasurer Mr. Felix Schuster. His hon. friend was a little mistaken in regard to the auditing of the accounts. It was quite true that the Auditor-General did not audit them in detail, but he would see that the £10,000 was given to the Commission in a lump sum, not to do with it exactly as they pleased, but for the purposes for which the Commission was appointed. The practice was that the details of expenditure were audited by an auditor appointed by the Commission itself, and that audit ought certainly to be sent to the Treasury.
  MR. MORTONsaid that therefore the audit provided by Parliament itself was no audit at all.
  MR. McKENNA: I do not agree to that.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether it would not be a salutary rule if a public audit went with all Votes of public money in such cases?
  MR. McKENNAsaid that his hon. friend behind him had stated the usual practice of the House. In this case the Comptrolle and Auditor-General, although he would audit the payment of the £10,000 as a whole, would not audit the details of the payment, but the Treasury would accept the audit of the Commission itself, and if the whole of the £10,000 had not been spent, they would expect repayment. Where public money was going to be spent abroad, it did not seem to him undesirable that they should make the grant in a lump sum, and get rid of all responsibility, by keeping the audit to the persons to whom it was paid. Chambers of Commerce would be able to make representations to the Committee.
  MR. JOYCEinquired if Irish Chambers of Commerce could make representations.
  MR. McKENNAsaid there was no limit upon the Chambers of Commerce who could make representations to the Committee. If Chambers of Commerce wished to make representations the would be communicated to the Committee.
  MR. R. DUNCANspeaking with the most earnest desire for the industrial interests of England, Ireland, and Scotland, doubted the wisdom of facilitating the exhibition of the products of this country in foreign lands which were trying to exclude our imports by tariffs. We sometimes exhibited the results of long and painful trials and costly experiments, and so educated producers who would give us no chance whatever of effecting sales in their markets. This was not good business.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid he was very reluctant to intervene, and he did not know whether his hon. friend had moved a reduction of the

  1065
  Vote or not. If it had not been moved he hoped it would be, because a more unsatisfactory mode of audit could not be conceived than that which appeared to have been adopted in this case. They were told that the Commission would in due course audit the expenditure, but he did not understand that the gentlemen who would have the expenditure of this £10,000 would be under any obligations to furnish any vouchers to the Commission. It was most dangerous that a large or even a small sum of money should be paid for public purposes and to deprive the public of the protection of public audit.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid he did not quite understand the explanation. The hon. Gentleman, as he understood, said that if there was any sum over it would be surrendered. Did that mean that that amount would run over to another year, and if there was any money left it would be surrendered?
  MR. McKENNAsaid his hon. friend was correct in his supposition.
  Vote agreed.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  4. £9,000 (Supplementary), Customs.

  CLASS III.
  5. £1,600 (Supplementary) Irish Land Commission.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had put down a Motion to reduce this Vote by £100, not with the object of reducing the Vote, he need hardly say, but with the object of endeavouring to obtain some information as to the regulations issued by the Chief Secretary. On looking into the Vote he had some doubt whether it would be in order to call attention to the regulations, and he should be glad to have the Chairman's ruling.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Any discussions of the regulations issued or to be issued by the Chief Secretary would not be in order on this Vote, which is merely for interest and sinking fund on the landlord's bonus.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Perhaps I may be allowed to put a question to the representative of the Irish Office as to whether these regulations will be laid upon the Table.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said the Chief Secretary would be in his place in a moment to answer the question.
  MR. CLANCYsaid perhaps the Chairman would consider the advisability of straining the rules in order to allow the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement upon the subject of the regulations—his own regulations; they formed such an interesting subject that he did not think it would be too much to ask the Committee to relax its rules in order to allow them to be discussed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must adhere to my ruling upon that.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLthought there ought to be some explanation of this question. Last year it would be remembered that the House in Committee of Supply cut off £100 from the Irish Land Commission Vote. The Government of the day were defeated. He should like to know how the Land Commission had managed to get on without that £100. If it could do without £100 perhaps also it might be able to do without £1,000, and perhaps the expenditure of the Land Commission might be reduced. The Attorney General or the Solicitor General might explain what this money was needed for. He had been asked by several Irish Members what this Supplementary Vote meant, and he himself would like to know how the Land Commission managed to get on without the £100.
  MR. MCKENNA: The explanation of this particular sum of £1,600 is a little bit complicated. It is purely financial, and it has nothing to do with the policy of the Irish Government. The Committee will remember that under the Act of 1903 a bonus was given amounting to 12 per cent, upon the purchase-money to the landlords, and

  1067
  the money needed for the payment of this bonus was obtained by the issue of Irish land stock. An Estimate is made at the beginning of the year by the National Debt Commissioners of the amount of money which will be required for the purpose of the bonus. As the market dislikes having issues of Irish land stock made frequently in the course of the year, the practice is to issue the amount once and for all at the beginning of the year. As a result of that the National Debt Commissioners hold at the beginning of the year an amount of money in their hands which they do not immediately need, but which they expect will be required in the course of the year for the payment of the bonus. The Committee will remember that the interest and payment of the sinking fund on the bonus money is borne upon the Votes, and it is in respect of certain portions of this interest and sinking fund that the Supplementary Estimate is now asked for. The National Debt Commissioners hold the money for the issue of the stock in their hands from the beginning of the year, and they endeavour lend that money until it is required, in order that they may get the interest thereon in reduction of the amount of the Vote. Last year they were perfectly successful in their operation, and no Supplementary Estimate was required; but this year when the National Debt Commissioners proposed to lend the money they found the Japanese had applied for and taken off the market all the Treasury Bills the Government offered. They found also that another medium of loan by them—loans in respect of advances on credit of Ways and Means—was closed to them as, owing to the Finance Act of last year and the issue of Exchequer bonds, the Government was under no necessity to borrow money for the purpose of Supply. Consequently the National Debt Commissioners were unable to lend the money, and as a result the amount put in the Votes in respect of the bonus fell short of the actual sum required by £3,200. £1,600 of that has been made up by savings out of the Votes, and the balance, £1,600, is the sum which is now asked for. I do not know whether I have made the matter sufficiently clear.
  MR. MORTONsaid the present Government when in Opposition knocked £100 off the Irish Land Commissioners. Now they were putting it on again. He hoped the present Government would economise in dealing with our money in the management of Irish affairs. It should be understood that it was the money of the country which was being spent. He asked the present Secretary to bear in mind with regard to this matter that if he could reduce the cost of the government of Ireland by about a half he would get a better Government.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTrose to complain of the delay in the operations of the Land Commission in subdividing holdings under the Labourers' Act.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that question does not arise on this Estimate.
  MR. McKENNAsaid his hon. friend had asked about the £100. The deficiency which had to go upon the Vote9 would have been £3,200, but there had been a saving on the general expenditure of £1,600. Out of that saving he had put down £100.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,)said it might not be regular under the Ruling of the Chair to go into the general question, but he might be permitted to answer the Question of the right hon. Member for S. Dublin with regard to the land regulations. The new regulations had already appeared in the Gazette, and there could be no objection at all to laying them on the table of the House.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS V.
  6. £500 (Supplementary), Diplomatic and Consular Services.
  MR. BOLANDcalled attention to the question of the publication of the diplomatic and consular reports which, he complained, were of no use to Ireland in the form in which they were published, although, he said, they could be made most useful. He pointed

  1069
  out that the reports gave no statistics as to the imports and exports to and from Ireland as distinct from England, but that the Consuls lumped all the figures together in a way that was perfectly bewildering; with the exception of the reports of the Consuls at Boston and Philadelphia he had seen none which were of real use to Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMANdid not think the question to which the hon. Member referred was in order upon this Estimate.
  MR. MORTONasked why there should be so large an increase as £2,600 for the delimitation of the Anglo-German boundary east of Lake Victoria. Why had the Estimate for that purpose been exceeded by £2,600?
  THE SECRETAHY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GRBY,)said that the excess amount of this Vole was caused by the fact that the Anglo-German Boundary Commission had undertaken more work than was originally anticipated, as well as occupying a longer time. The Joint Committee was despatched in July, 1902, for the delimitation of the Anglo-German boundary east of Lake Victoria, and in 1903 the British Commission found an opportunity of doing more work in the same region. It was cheaper to under-take the work by a Commission near the spot than by sending out a separate Commission. Finally, the Commission was detained a little longer than had been anticipated.
  Vote agreed to.
  7. £54,683, Newfoundland Fisheries Indemnity.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid the point at issue in this Amendment was an important one. Under the recent treaty with France we were conferring a great boon upon the people of Newfoundland, and he contended that the Newfoundlanders ought to pay this indemnity and not the people of Great Britain and Ireland. Many people argued that this was an Imperial matter, but who were the people who benefited? By the Treaty of 1783,
  1070
  the French were confirmed in certain eights over a large portion of the coast of Newfoundland. So strong was the confirmation that the English King undertook to prevent his subjects from disturbing the French fishermen by competition with them. In other words only a portion of the island was ours absolutely; our rights on the French shore were subject to the superior rights conceded to the French. The people of Newfoundland when local self-government was conferred upon them, acquired only such rights as we before possessed. But they had never been content to accept that limitation, and had constantly been trying to oust the French. He did not altogether blame them. They believed there were minerals there, and believed that their position would be improved if the French were excluded. From the British point of view, however, their demand was extremely disagreeable, because it put us in the position of either appearing to evade our treaty with France or of being compelled to coerce our own Colony. In 1891 Lord Salisbury introduced in the House of Lords a Bill for coercing the Colony of Newfoundland because it refused to carry out the terms of the treaty with France. Lord Salisbury then pointed out that it was impossible to come to a settlement with France because of the unreasonableness of the demands of the Colonists. Now at last the Colonists had secured everything they asked for, but doubly at our cost. In the first place, in order to induce the French to go out of Newfoundland this country had conceded to France territory in the Colony of Gambia, a group of islands off the coast of West Africa, and a large slice of Northern Nigeria—all for the sake of 200,000 Newfoundlanders. In the second place the private rights of French fishermen had to be dealt with, and it was agreed that we should pay compensation, which had been fixed by arbitration at £54,000. This sum Parliament was now asked to pay in order to compensate the French fishermen for abstaining from fishing on the French shore of Newfoundland. But who benefited by that? Clearly the Newfoundlanders, and therefore they ought to pay. It was said that the Colony was poor,

  1071
  but he found that the Chief Justice of the Colony, writing not long ago, spoke of his own Colony as a "large and wealthy Colony" of British subjects. He repudiated the argument that because there were some poor people in Newfoundland that therefore the island should have something for nothing. It seemed to him an absolutely immoral doctrine. At whose expense were they to have it? Were there no poor people in England or Ireland? Irish fishermen would be taxed in order to increase the profits of the Newfoundland fishermen, who were probably much better off than were the Irish fishermen. This question also raised the whole issue of the way in which the late Government and former Governments lavished money on any Colony that chose to hold out its hand. In 1881 the Civil expenditure of the Colonies was only £72,000; in 1897 it was £294,000, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham discovered the Empire, and took charge of the Colonies, and during his administration the expenditure rose to nearly £1,500,000. This was one of the items of that huge expenditure placed upon the people of this country by the policy of always voting money whenever a Colony chose to ask for it, and though it might be said that this particular sum was small, he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would speak with contempt of a sum of £50,000, and would be glad indeed to lay his hand on it. He ventured to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the stand he had taken with regard to economy generally, because it was not only from the Colonies, but from every quarter that little or big sums were being demanded, and, except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was no one to protect the money of the taxpayer or the credit of the country. It was said that this country could not go back—that the money had been already paid out of the Treasury chest and the chest must be filled up again. Yes, but there was nothing to prevent this country demanding from the Colony the repayment of money they clearly owed to us. He would like to press this point upon the Government, and, further, to urge that a
  1072
  a stop should be put to the practice of allowing the Colonies to have everything they chose to ask for. We had for too long been pouring out our substance for the benefit of people whose natural resources were at least as great as our own, and whose burdens were very much lighter, but who, in spite of that fact, contributed not one penny to the expense of maintaining the Empire.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not for a moment question the right or propriety of my hon. friend in raising the merits of this question, but, at the same time, it is too late in the day now to go back on what has been done. It was arranged and understood and settled in the last House of Commons that the compensation which should be found due to the French fishermen for giving up the rights on the Treaty Shore of Newfoundland was to be paid by the House of Commons. The actual amount follows the general agreement with France, and that has been settled in the terms described by the agreement between the British and French Governments. The question whether the amount should be paid by the House of Commons or by the Colony is one which, I assume, was considered carefully by the late Government when they made the arrangements which have resulted in the present payment. I suppose what influenced them in deciding that it was the House of Commons they would ask to make this payment and not the self-governing Colony of Newfoundland was that they were engaged in a large operation of policy with regard to France, and that what they were making was not a settlement of individual matters each on its merits, but the settlement of one Imperial matter against another Imperial matter, the object of the whole being to arrive at a good and friendly understanding with the French Government. And so they regarded the whole as a matter of Imperial policy, with regard to which the conduct of negotiation, and even the adjustment of details, should be kept entirely in the hands of the Imperial Government. If they had made the payment of this money dependent on a vote of the Colonial Legislature, it would

  1073
  have been necessary to carry with them step by step, in all the negotiations which resulted in the entente, the consent of the Colony. That would greatly have impeded the negotiations between his Majesty's Government and the French Government; and I would ask the Com mittee—if it be the case, as I am sure it is, that in this House of Commons the entente and understanding with the French Government is as popular as it was in the last House—not to press points of detail of this kind, which undoubtedly must raise difficult questions between the Imperial Government and the self-governing Colony. I think we have gone too far now to ask the Colony to pay this money. The last House of Commons passed an Act in which it was enacted that any sums payable by way of indemnity or for expenses incurred should be defrayed by Parliament. That was an announcement by the last Parliament to the Colony that we and not they would be responsible for the payment of the money when the actual sum had been determined. I do not think it is possible for this House of Commons to reverse what was done by the last House with respect to the Colony of Newfoundland. For the present House of Commons to resolve to go to the Colony and say, "We think the last House of Commons was too generous to you, and we mean to ask you to pay this £54,000 which the last House of Commons gave you to understand the Mother Country would pay"—that would be an unfortunate start in the relations of the present Parliament and the Colony. It would not be good business, and it would not be good policy. But I agree with my hon. friend to this extent—that I think the Colony ought to recognise that in dealing with this matter of Imperial policy we have dealt with them very generously; that the Mother Country has set them free from what was a great embarrassment and concern and difficulty. The old Treaty of Utrecht was originally a matter of Imperial policy, the new understanding with France has been regarded as a matter of Imperial policy, and Newfoundland has derived great benefit from the French rights being put into a form which is no longer embarrassing I hope the Colony will recognise, after this Vote is passed,
  1074
  that the Imperial Government has desired to deal very generously with them, and that in this matter of Imperial policy they have found Imperial interests so handled by the Mother Country as to confer considerable benefit on the Colony.
  SIR HOWARDVINCENTthanked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for his admirable statement. He had not heard the whole of the speech by the hon. Member for Preston, but he was there to hear the hon. Member's concluding remarks, and he certainly disagreed with them. Newfoundland was the oldest of the great self-governing Colonies, and he knew from experience that the Colony laboured under the disadvantages of a very poor soil and a treacherous climate. The treaty as regarded the French shore of Newfoundland was decided without any consultation with the Colony. It dealt with a great grievance which had existed many years and might have caused severe complications involving us in misunderstanding, if not in warlike operations. The late Government in doing away with this long-standing grievance, this perpetual sore between the fishermen of Newfoundland and the French fishermen, did an enormous service to the relations between England and France. He was astonished that any hon. Member who had studied the subject at all should speak of our oldest Colony in the terms which had been used by the hon. Member for Preston.
  MR. MORTONdid not agree that the money should be paid by the Colony. The Colony had nothing to do with creating the difficulty or the trouble. It was an Imperial matter, and he was pleased that the late and the present Governments had agreed that this was a proper sum to be paid from Imperial sources for the settlement of a grievance which had caused the expenditure of large sums of money otherwise, and had been a trouble, which, it was to be hoped by this Vote, would be ended. He hoped this country would be able to settle all its difficulties with foreign countries as easily as this one had been.
  Vote agreed to.
  8. £8,567, Samoa Arbitration Claims.
  MR. MORTONsaid he would like to know something about this new item of expenditure before it was passed.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid his hon. friend had described this as a new item, but it was a very old story. In 1899 a state of civil war arose in Samoa, and the representatives of the British and American Governments on the spot took steps to deal with it. A certain amount of damage was done to property, and it was claimed that the British and American Governments were responsible for the damage caused by the action of their forces. The Germans also had a considerable number of subjects there who claimed for damage to their property. Although the arbitrator did not fix any sum, he established that the British and American Governments were responsible for the damage, and the British, American and German Governments were left to settle the matter as to the actual figures of the damages out of court. That took a considerable time, and it was only last April that the Foreign Office were in a position to estimate what the actual amount would be, and consequently they did not know that it would have to be paid out of the revenue for the present year. That was the reason why it was not included in the annual Estimates last year. It was agreed on behalf of Germany that something like £8,000 should be paid to German subjects, and this had been paid by the United States and this country. The United States had subjects whose property was damaged and so had this country, and it was agreed that each country should pay the claims of its own citizens. The British claims amounted to £3,635. Other small claims had been paid to Danish subjects, and that was how this item had arisen.
  MR. MORTONsaid he was exceedingly obliged to his right hon. friend for his very clear statement. He was sure it would be acknowledged that he was entitled to that explanation before his money went.
  Progress reported.
  MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair.
  Resolutions to be reported To morrow; Committee to sit again To morrow.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
  Ordered, that a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Barnard, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Dalziel, Viscount Helmsley, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Lea, Colonel Lock-wood, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. McKillop, Mr. Power, Mr. William Redmond, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Thorne, Mr. Walrond, and Mr. Osmond Williams.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
  And, there being no further Business set down for the Afternoon Sitting Mr. Speaker left the Chair until this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  THE LAW OF TRUCK.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEin moving "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary to put an end to fines and deductions from wages," said ii was perhaps a happy chance that the first occupation of time on the part of private Members of this House in the beginning of a new Parliament should be an occupation of time on behalf of a labour question of a practical description. This particular question of Truck was one of a severely painful kind, and it was also in the position of being ripe for further legislation. Timid legislation had been repeatedly tried in connection

  1077
  with this question and had repeatedly failed, and the time had come for heroic legislation. The question affected every class of labour in this country, including labour in shops and, for certain purposes, even agricultural labour, and the time had come when stronger remedies must be tried than had been tried in the past. The first Truck Act, the Act of 1831, was so good an Act that had it been enforced in modern times, had it not been killed by judge-made law, the country would have had very little to complain of. The abuses that had grown up under that Act, and which now could only be changed by heroic legislation, would have failed to have come into being at all. The Truck Act of 1831 if it was read by any Member of this House who had no acquaintance with it, either as a lawyer, a sucking statesman, or as an employer or one employed, would be satisfied with that Act. He would say it was a reasonable Act, and that there was little to complain of in it. Our legislation with regard to Truck seemed on the surface to be better than that of any other country of Europe, but the Truck Acts of Germany and those of Belgium and Russia, which were held to be the worst, were far better Acts than ours in the working. The principle of the Truck Act of 1831, which was the governing Act, forbade the payment of wage otherwise than in current coin of the realm: that was the first principle. The second principle was that the whole wage arranged should be paid with certain exceptions, which were distinctly named, such as for "miners' explosives," the exceptions to be agreed to in writing, and to be a sum not more than the actual value of the article, or cost, or loss, to the employer. That was a thoroughly clear law, and would have been satisfactory had it been acted upon, but it had unfortunately been upset by decisions in the Courts of law. Fourteen years after the Act of 1831, the first great case was decided, and decided against the intentions of that Act. The Act was virtually upset by a decision in the Courts of law where it was decided in a most extraordinary fashion that under the Act of 1831 it was legal to make deductions for "frame rents" in hosiery. Nothing came of that decision, which
  1078
  was in 1845, immediately, but in 1859 the full mischief of it was seen. In 1859 a case came before the Court in which there was a large number of fines and deductions. There were deductions for fire, for gas, for power, and what were called fines for discipline, for unpunctuality and so forth. All those things were involved in that case, and a most extraordinary result followed the first decision given with regard to it. The first decision was on the lines of the case of 1845. Then there was that appeal, which in the feeble state of the Trades Unions of that time had not followed the decision of 1845, and that appeal was heard before six judges who were divided three to three, with the result that the appeal failed. Two of the judges by whose action the appeal was dismissed said they felt great difficulty, but did not like to disturb the decision of the 1845 case after so many years. The third judge was Lord Bramwell, and anybody who remembered Lord Bramwell with his extraordinary intellect and absence of legal "tie" when he chose to put it on one side, would be amazed at the decision at which he arrived. Lord Bramwell used the argument he (Sir Charles Dilke) used to-day. Lord Bramwell explained how the Truck Act had I been killed, and, having explained that there was therefore no law of Truck, said that he had to construct one out of his own inner consciousness, and the judgment of Lord Bramwell was one of the most remarkable that had ever been delivered from the Bench. The judgment in 1845 held good in the teeth of the statute, because in the appeal case of 1859 three judges decided in the way that he and others held to-day, and two judges agreed, but thought it ought not to be carried to extremes, while Lord Bramwell used the language to which he had referred. So things stood until the Trades Unions came into their own in 1874. In 1874 there was a weak Liberal Government followed by a weak Conservative Government, and one of the results of the power of Labour in 1874 was the carrying through this House unanimously of a sweeping Truck Act in respect to one particular trade, the hosiery trade. That abolished the whole of what were commonly called deductions: it abolished all fines and

  1079
  deductions with one exception. It was an Act applicable to a single trade and was not universally acted upon in connection with that trade. It was not known. It was procured through the instrumentality of the late Mr. Mundella, and was supposed to be applicable to Nottingham. In 1887, in the time of the Conservative Government, an Act was passed, and in 1889, in spite of the Act of 1887, the Home Office, although armed with that Act, failed, in every case they undertook, in trying to upset the judgment which had been referred to. After their failures in 1889 they stopped taking cases and said that, pending legislation, they were unable to do anything. In 1895 a Truck Act was proposed by a Liberal Government and brought in and passed by a Conservative Government in 1896, and most of the Members of the House were ed by the legal advisers of the Home Office to support that Bill. Unfortunately, that Act had been a complete failure; its utter breakdown had been recognised. In 1897 the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Leicester brought in a Bill to repeal the Act of 1896, the first clause of which was—
  "The Truck Art of 1896 is hereby repealed."
  It was a very ingenious Bill, and he did not think he was far wrong in saying that two of the most illustrious lawyers in the present Cabinet drew that. Bill. That Bill, which was on a different principle to former Acts, did not succeed. The great case of 1889 was the case of Redgrave v. Kelly, in which case the Home Office had the advice of the Treasury lawyers and the whole of the legal talent of the Government at its back. It failed, and the Act of 1895–6 was prepared on the basis of the breakdown of that case, and they all had had good hopes of the result, I He would now state to the House, without any attempt at adornment, a few of the cases which had been taken in recent times under the Act of 1896—the recent Act, together with the Act of 1831. He would take cases from Belfast, Birmingham, Edinburgh and London, and only cases for the year 1903, cases which had been taken by the inspectors of the Government themselves, and in regard to which answers had been given in the Home Office Reports or in this House.
  1080
  In Belfast there were three cases of soiling handkerchiefs in hemstitching, a work carried on largely by young girls at a small wage. In the first, a girl was fined 5s., her wage being 1s. a day. In the second case 1s. 5¾d. was stopped for soiling four dozen; the girl's wages for the work being 3d., she working at the rate of 9d. for twelve dozen. The third case was that of a girl aged fourteen. She had 8¾d. stopped, her wages being 2s. 10d. per week. Those three cases were held to be "reasonable," and the cases taken by the inspector at Belfast were dismissed. The next case he would take was one at Birmingham in the steel-pen trade, a case of "waste." In that case a girl was fined £2 for wastage, her wages being 12s. a week. The Edinburgh was a hosiery case; the case of a disciplinary fine for unpunctuality. The girl was absent for an hour: she was absent once, and once only. She was ill, and it was not contended that she was not. She was fined 7½d., her wages being 7s. a week. Although the German law was supposed to be the worst truck law in existence a case of this kind could not happen in Germany, because there no person could be fined more than a certain percentage. The last case was the London case, a case at the Guildhall of pressing n the tailoring trade. There a woman was fined £2 5s., and the extent of the fine was so huge in proportion to her wages that it was spread over two years. The only other class of cases he would like to mention were cases of an entirely new description which had come up lately; they were quite different to the others and more important; but they did not press in the same way, as those mentioned previously, on feeble women's industries. The first of this series was me that arose in 1904 at Oxford, where it was held legal to make stoppages for printed books containing the particulars required by law. That applied to the tickets upon which the particulars were put which a beneficent Government insisted upon. The case in the Potteries in 1904 was even more curious: in lat it was held to be legal to make deductions for fees of certifying surgeons under the Acts. It was proved in court that the employer made a profit

  1081
  of £1 5s. the month, and inspectors had reported cases in which a profit of 100 percent, was made on stoppage for certifying surgeons' fees. The most striking case of all was a Stroud Valley case, in which there had been deductions for insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In some cases twice and even thrice the amount of the insurance had been stopped. The Home Office took the case under the Act of 1831 and were defeated, and the decision was upheld on appeal.
  But in 1905 in an appeal case of an inspector, "Squire v. the Midland Lace Co." in the King's Bench Division, before the Lord Chief Justice and two other Judges, the appeal failed, but the Court expressed the unusual opinion that the Truck Law should be amended, and in answer to a Question in the House on the 4th May the right hon. Member for St. Augustine's Division of Kent said the Home Office admitted the necessity of amending and consolidating the Truck Acts, and that they must be amended by this House. In May, 1904, the Home Office admitted that there must be an amendment of the Truck Acts. If he and those who acted with him had chosen to put down the Motion which was put down last session, and the session before, simply stating that in the opinion of the House drastic and immediate improvement of the law of truck was necessary, that Motion, he thought the Government would admit, would have been carried without a division in the House. It would be impossible to resist such a Motion, but some of them who had had this matter before them for years had thought that it would be more courageous on their part to try to commit the House, not to a vague resolution, but to put before the House the policy which he was sure alone would succeed. He was aware that there were difficulties, but they had been driven to this view by the failure of every other measure. If they were driven to make some exceptions to the rule, then he thought those exceptions should be voted on and clearly explained. Some people thought that it was necessary to preserve fines for the purposes of discipline, but the evidence of the Home Office inspectors was conclusively
  1082
  on the other side. The most experienced inspectors took the view that the best governed factories were those in which there were no fines, and the Home Office had also taken that view. The Home Office Reports had said that all cases of serious misconduct or injury to employer's property could be dealt with by other Acts of Parliament, notably the Employers and Workmen Act. If in a fiery mining district a man smoked down below, he was not fined under the Truck Acts, but under other Acts of Parliament, having been brought before a police court for an offence against the Mines Act. As he had said, also, the Employers and Workmen Act covered the great majority of these cases. A Board of Trade return stated that a most frequent cause of strikes was the system of excessive fines, and in factories, he need hardly say, the fines inflicted for purposes of discipline were a frequent source of tyranny. In shops these fines were pushed to a most absurd extent, and he had seen a book of over seventy disciplinary fines which were in existence in one shop. He had heard of another case in which the disciplinary fines were over 100. These fines pressed most heavily not upon the great trades but upon the less organised trades, such as the sweated women trades. As to the question of the exemption of the mining industry, some thought that the effect of the abolition of fines would be to break the miners' agreements. That point was raised in 1897 against the Bill of his hon. friends the Member for Leicester and the Member for the Ilkeston Division, but it was quite wrong. The miner is paid by weight of mineral obtained, and the deductions were from the weight of mineral and not from the wages. He had there a legal opinion which was perfectly clear on that point. An appeal had been made by an hon. friend of his on behalf of the Northern Miners' Permanent Relief Fund, and no doubt a distinction could be drawn in favour of deductions which went towards public purposes or to public bodies; but he saw great danger in introducing special clauses of that kind. There was an amazing case, the name of which he could not mention, because the matter was hushed up, with a view of recovering the money. It was that of a poor

  1083
  girl. A large sum of money was deducted for many, many years for hospital treatment, and it was found that not a penny of the money had gone to the hospital. He mentioned that as showing the danger of making an exception in cases where the money went to a good cause. If, however, it was necessary to make an exception to their general principle, let the exception be explained and distinctly made known to the House at the time it was made. He begged to move.
  MR. SHACKLETONin seconding the Motion said he thought the House would thank the right hon. Baronet for his clear exposition of the law of truck. He seconded this Resolution, because he was asked by his association, of which he happened to be acting secretary, to do so. His society was the Weavers' Association, and they had come to the conclusion that they should not be liable to fines of any description. It might be asked whether the Association was not strong enough to deal with the matter itself, but they did not want to have a strike every time a man resented a deduction from his wages. It was because they wanted to avoid strikes in the future that he seconded the Resolution. The abolition of truck gave the impression that wages were to be received in full, and the average workman was not aware of the legal decisions which had taken away the rights he thought the Truck Act had given him. They wanted to get back to the idea their forefathers had when they passed the Truck Act, that the workman should be handed over in money exactly what he had earned. If the system of fines were abolished the workman would still be liable for any damage he had done, and it would not mean that for every misdemeanour or fault of the operative the man must be discharged. He would be willing to pay what he recognised as a reasonable claim. He asked the House not to believe that the fines were necessary for discipline in the mills. There were no fines in any of the mills of the operative spinners, and there was no lack of discipline. At the election the Cotton Operatives Association made this a question and saw the candidates, and a good percentage of
  1084
  the men returned were willing to support the operatives' demand. At that time he knew that some of the candidates and some of the manufacturers expressed the view that the abolition of fines would relax discipline and go against the progress of the cotton industry; he claimed, on the contrary, that the system of fines had hampered its progress. But the men and the employers were on an equal footing, and the men would not be unreasonable in carrying out the law. He was willing to consider the claim of the miners to exemption; but he hoped the law would be clear that as a general rule fines should not be deducted, and especially those which simply went into the pockets of the employer. He maintained that where it was necessary to organise subscriptions for charitable objects the public spirit of the operative was good enough to secure that. When the workmen got his wages from the overlooker subscriptions could be got without any pressure.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary to put an end to fines and deductions from wages."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  MR. BELLthought that they were indebted to the right hon. Baronet for raising this question. Speaking for the railway employes of this country, he would point out that, although they were not subject to the same kind of deductions as those which had been mentioned, they had been subjected to fines for trivial offences. Four or five years ago, the London and North Western Railway adopted a far more severe and oppressive mode of punishment. Where the men were formerly fined 1s., 2s., or 2s. 6d., they were nw suspended for one or two or even six days, and instead of having to pay 1s. or so the men lost 5s. or 6s. or 7s. a day. This system was far more oppressive upon the workmen than that adopted by other companies. On the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway during ten consecutive weeks from March 16 to May 18 last year at one station and in one Department alone—that of the Locomotive Department at Wigan—no less than ninety-five fines were imposed which amounted

  1085
  to £13 5s. 3d. There were also eighteen cases of suspension, amounting to ninety-eight days. Nearly all these were for trivial offences. The Midland Railway had also adopted this system. An engine-driver for smoking a pipe of tobacco upon his engine would formerly be fined 1s. or 2s., but recently the company had abolished this system of fine and adopted the system of suspension, so that the driver would nowadays lose 7s. or 8s. wages. The London and North Western, moreover, posted up a list giving the name of the individual, the offence he had committed, and the number of days for which he had been suspended. He found that in one week on the London and North Western Railway twenty-seven men were suspended sixty-three days, and seventeen of them were engine-drivers. The offences were most trivial, such as sticking with his goods train in the tunnel, extravagant use of stores when getting the engine ready, and the smoke nuisance. Upon another date he found that twenty-three men were suspended thirty-three days, and seventeen of them were drivers. Two men were suspended one day each because their engine happened to be blowing off steam in the station. It was almost impossible for an engine-driver who kept his engine up to the standard to avoid steam blowing off. Possibly some old timid lady might be alarmed on the platform by the steam blowing off, and if she complained the man would be suspended a day and thus fined from 7s. to 8s. according to his wages. In two other instances men were fined, or rather suspended for one day, for allowing the engines to omit smoke. Therefore it amounted to this—that a driver was suspended if he did not keep up steam, and in order to keep up steam to the standard he must consume a certain quantity of coal, and possibly in so doing the engine would emit a certain amount of smoke, and for this he was suspended. It was almost impossible for the men to know what was right and wrong, or what to do or not to do. Upon another date he found that thirty - nine men were suspended for fifty-nine days, and twenty-five of them were drivers, and ten of the offences were for allowing their engines to emit smoke. He thought
  1086
  hon. Members would agree with him that the emitting of smoke was not such a serious offence as to justify punishment to the extent of 6s., 7s., or 8s. it was not necessary to inflict heavy penalties of that kind in order to enforce discipline. The treatment of the men by this company was such that people would hardly credit it unless they were acquainted with the facts as he knew them. There was one case in which a driver was concerned in a collision over which he had no control and he was suspended. Inquiries were held by the company's officials, and it was shown that this driver was not at fault. After he had been suspended for six days he was not allowed to resume his duties until he had signed the following form—
  "I,—do, this—day of—agree to forego all claim, if any, from the London and North Western Railway Company or wages during the time I have been suspended from duty from—to—,on condition that I may be allowed to resume, work."
  He ventured to think that the House would agree with him that that was a form of tyranny and punishment which no great corporation of respectable employers would tolerate for one moment. With regard to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, he was both for and against it in a sense. If penalties had to be inflicted for disciplinary purposes and if the effect of abolishing fines would be to substitute suspensions, he would rather see the fines retained. He felt sure that with all these heavy punishments inflicted by the railway companies upon their employees they got no more discipline and no more care than if they adopted less severe methods which would encourage the work people to take more interest in their employment. He knew that when a man had been suspended for paltry offences like those which he had described, he felt so aggrieved that he did not euro whether he did his best for his employer or not. He hoped that the exposure which he had now given to the London and North Western Company's plan of enforcing discipline and the system of fines and suspensions adopted also by other great corporations would lead them to consider the adoption of some other method

  1087
  as an experiment which would induce the work people to take a greater interest in their work. He hoped the Home Secretary, when dealing with this subject, would consider whether something could not be done to prevent the harsh punishments to which he had referred, which were really an evasion of the Truck Act.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSONthought it would be as well if sea-faring men were included in any Amendment of the law, because he knew that in several large shipping companies the seamen were fined without any trial whatever. It had recently been brought to his notice that on some large Atlantic liners the stewards at the end of the voyage were charged as much as 15s. for lost linen and cutlery. It did not matter whether the responsibility could be fixed upon any particular person or not, for the whole lot were fined to make sure. He thought that was a very hard case indeed. If the Truck Act was applied to sea-faring men they might be able to get some relief in this direction.
  MR. FENWICKsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean that there certainly was a case for a very strong remedy being applied for the removal of fines and deductions. It was very difficult for a layman to distinguish what was truck and what was not. In his own county they had deductions for various things, and he was not quite clear in his own mind as to whether they would come under the Truck Act or not. In the counties of Northumberland and Durham and Cleveland they had had for over forty years what was known as the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund for widows and orphans, and it also provided superannuation allowances for aged and infirm miners. Deductions for this purpose were made at every colliery from the wages of the miners. Would such deductions be regarded as truck? If so he would very much regret that any action which this House might take should interfere with an arrangement like that, because before they adopted the plan of having these deductions made from
  1088
  the wages in the office of the colliery the contributions of the workmen were very often neglected through carelessness, and when accidents happened it was frequently found that the workman, had allowed his contributions to lapse, and when the widow expected relief it was often found that no compensation, was forthcoming. Now that these contributions were deducted in the colliery office no such cases occurred; it had added considerably to the stability of the fund, and therefore he should regret any action which would interfere with or put an end to an arrangement of that kind. There were other deductions which might be regarded in the nature of fines, but they were arranged between the representatives of the workmen on the one hand and representatives of the employers on the other, and every precaution was taken to see that they were reasonable in their character, and that they are properly carried out. In the counties of Northumberland and Durham nearly all these deductions had been arranged at the request of the workmen themselves. No arbitrary deductions had been forced upon them by the employers, and he should protest very strongly against any employer forcing fines or deductions from wages in accordance with his own sweet will. As the miners stood upon terms of perfect equality with their employers in this respect, they were probably in a peculiar position as compared with other industries and other districts. He was not objecting so much to the terms or the principle of the Motion of his right hon. friend, but he was very anxious to guard and protect the interests of his own county and constituency in regard to a system which had grown up as the result of the experience of the past and been very successful. The miners had recently adopted nursing societies and paid their own nurses to attend serious cases of accidents and sickness. In order that the contribution for such purposes might be regular and sufficient to maintain these nursing institutions, appeals had been made to the colliery proprietors to stop a certain amount from each workman's wages to be handed over to some recognised official representing the workmen, and this system had been adopted and proved

  1089
  very economical because the cost of collection was saved. Nearly all these cases were matters of mutual and voluntary arrangement, and he did not know how far the Motion of his right hon. friend would affect that arrangement. He agreed with the suggestion that they should select certain cases of deductions and legalise them and place them outside the operation of the Truck Act altogether. That was an arrangement which he should certainly favour himself. He hoped, however, that nothing would be done to upset an arrangement which in his county had worked so well in the past, and which gave every prospect of working well in the future.
  MR. SEDDONsaid he hoped that if any alteration was to be made in the Truck Acts the Home Secretary would consider the case of the shop assistants. He knew that to a certain extent they were included, but the majority of those engaged in the distributing trade knew nothing about it. Shop assistants had inflicted upon them a system of living-in which would not be tolerated by any other workers in the country. The system of living-in was a vicious one, and carried with it the necessity of sleeping often under conditions inimical to good health, and it was not at all in the interests of the people who were compelled to submit to it. He had before him a list of fines inflicted in some of the shops of this great city which proved that the ingenuity of the employers had been taxed to the utmost to select cunning fines which were cruel in their operation. There was a fine of one shilling for not turning out the gas in the bedroom at the proper time. For exceeding time at meals the fine was 2d. and exceeding time for washing hands there was also a fine of 2d. A customer was not to be allowed to leave the shop unserved unless the shop walker was acquainted, and for breaches of this rule there was a fine of 6d. He could go on for longtime enumerating fines which would not be tolerated amongst any other class of workers. Speaking for something like three-quarters of a million of people, he thought the time had come when the Home Secretary should make a very determined attempt to include the shop
  1090
  assistants of this country in any future legislation for the protection of the workers. The system of living-in was, in itself, a contravention of the spirit of the Truck Act. They were told that the original conception of the living-in system was a very healthy one; that it carried with it the idea of guardianship for boys and girls coming from the country, who would be exposed to the evils of large towns and cities. That might be true of the past, but only the vicious part of the system had been perpetuated. Today the system of living in had degenerated to such an extent that it had become part of the business concern, and its only merit now was that it was an adjunct to the profits arising out of the business. The assistants were compelled to sit at a common table, they were subject to be called away at any time from their meals. The same class of food was given them, week by week, all the year round, with no variation except the day upon which the food was given. Another evil was that the living-in system gave to employers the right to give to their assistants food which, if sold to the public, would subject the salesman to the rigour of the law. A short time ago a case of this kind was tried in Bradford. It was proved conclusively that a large employer of shop labour had placed before his assistants food which was unfit for human consumption. A prosecution took place at the instance of the Bradford Corporation, and the stipendiary magistrate ruled tint, while the food might not be fit for sale, it was fit for the assistants who were boarded by their employer. ["Shame."] Another evil was the insufficient accommodation provided for the assistants who had to live and sleep in. He hoped the Home Secretary would be able to give the same supervision to the living-in accommodation provided by large business establishments for the assistants as was extended to common lodging-houses. If the Home Office obtained such a power, he felt sure that a large number of the swell West End houses would soon find themselves brought into Court. This evil had become a public scandal and a grave danger to the health and well-being of the shop assistants, and it was a positive danger in case of

  1091
  fire. The system of fines and deductions was a blot upon our civilisation and it pressed very heavily upon the slender earnings of the workers. There fore, he beseeched the Home Secretary when making any alteration in this Act to include the workers in the whole of the distributing trades.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought the Home Secretary would have risen before this and given them some information as to the views of the Home Office upon this subject. This was a subject which was really worth the serious attention of the House, and one which must be dealt with sooner or later by the Government of the day. The original object of the Truck Act was to secure that the full amount of the wages should be paid to the worker. According to one of the best judges who ever presided in the English courts, Lord Bowen. the clear intention of the Truck Acts was to ensure to a workman his entire wages in actual current coin of the realm, unfettered by any obligation that it should be spent in any particular manner or in any particular shop—
  "The Legislature," said he, "endeavoured to secure that the workman might have in his hand the actual amount representing his wages, in order that he and his family might freely carry it home without impediment in the open market."
  That would undoubtedly be the case if there were no qualifications. Not very long afterwards it was established that fines and deductions might be made other than those not specified in the Act. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland put a case which was almost, if not entirely, covered by the deductions now made legitimate by the Act of 1831, with the qualification that under Section 23 the workman must himself in his own hand sign the warrant of the employer to make good that deduction. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet that the proper method of dealing with this matter was first of all to say that there must be no fines or deductions, that the entire amount of the wages must be paid in current coin of the realm, and that no portion of the wages must be withheld. In the case of contributions to provident and medical funds, an exception might be made, but these exceptions
  1092
  should be specified in the Act of Parliament, and should be only permitted when the workman authorised them in his own handwriting. How was it fines and deductions were first allowed? It was said they were not deductions at all from the wages. It was said by judges that they were a contract entered into, and that, therefore, the calculation of the fine was a mere step in the ascertainment of the wages. He thought the time had come when this system should be put an end to. It was true that the workman was protected in many instances by powerful unions, but it was equally true that in many cases where trades were not so well organised the workmen were not well treated. In certain specified cases, when the workmen might probably be induced to contribute either to a provident or medical fund, it would be unfair not to allow him of his own free will to enter into an arrangement. But it was monstrous that the system of fines should continue, because the very foundation of a system of fines was this—and it was fundamentally wrong—that the employer himself should be the judge not merely of non-attendance, but in the case of damaged goods. That was constituting the employer the judge in his own quarrel. Immediately a judicial system of fines was allowed, there was no practical prevention of their being part of the contract. What was the use of telling a workman who went to a factory that he could look at the list of fines? What he wanted was work and wages, and immediately the list of fines was put before him, if they were within the four corners of the Act, the workman took the contract. The only proper system was that which had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet, that there must be no fines and no deductions, subject to qualification. It was not in the Motion, but he understood from the right hon. Baronet's speech that he was willing to include such a clause. The deductions allowed ought to be very limited. There was a great deal to be said on this subject, but the speaking had all been on one side of the House. The Home Office, whose views the House was entitled to have, ought at the earliest possible opportunity to bring in a Bill, and not merely an amending Bill. It

  1093
  was no use bringing in a Bill to amend the existing Acts. Such a course would be a great inconvenience to all concerned, and would simply give a lot of work to lawyers. It should be a Bill which any ordinary intelligent man might understand. Therefore he urged the Home Secretary to advise the Government when the time came—and he hoped it would be very soon—to introduce a Bill directly dealing with the subject, and the foundation of that Bill should be that the whole of the wages must be paid without fines or deductions, that if deductions were to be allowed they ought to be of the most limited character and should be specified in the Act. and then allowed if only authorised by the employees of the. particular trade.
  THE TINDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. HERIBERT SAMUEL,): This question belongs to a class of subjects in which, I believe, the new Parliament will take a special interest. Many Members have come to the House in the hope that they will be privileged to take some part in legislation to remedy industrial grievances precisely such as those mentioned tonight, and I do not think the Home Office will fall short of these expectations. Perhaps those new Members will see with some, disappointment, though not with surprise, the desolate condition of the Front Opposition Bench. The question of fines and deductions may seem to many of comparatively trivial importance, but it is these small, petty, but irritating grievances which frequently make all the difference between a state of comparative contentment and a state of constant bickerings and bitterness. It is often easier to bear a great hardship than a small injustice. Certain it is that these grievances cause a very real discontent, often disproportionate to their weight. My right hon. friend the Home Secretary is convinced that legislation on the subject is necessary, and legislation will certainly be introduced. The Act of 1896 aimed at securing that fines and deductions should be fair and reasonable, but the Act has failed in its purpose. Much, however, has been done. The inspectors have done their best with it, and figures show that in many respects
  1094
  large improvements have been made; I but the inspectors have been greatly hampered by the limitations of the Act, and an extraordinarily large number of prosecutions under it have failed. In 1904 no fewer than 40 per cent, resulted in failure. As to deductions for premiums for insurance against liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is clearly the intention of Parliament that the burden of insurance should rest on the employer. It has been mentioned that employers in various parts have deducted from their workmen sums of money for the purpose of paying the premiums of insurance, and cases have been quoted in which, though the premium was only 8s. the employer deducted 17s. per £100, and when the factory inspector prosecuted it was declared by the Court that such deduction was not illegal. The Factory Acts and the rules and regulations mule by the Home Office have placed burdens on the employer, but in many cases, especially in the Potteries, the burden of carrying out those regulations has been thrown on the workpeople in the form of compulsory deductions from their wages. Employers have engaged persons to sweep the workplaces and keep the sanitary appliances in order, and have recouped themselves for the expense by means of these deductions. Here again prosecutions have been undertaken by the factory inspectors, and the deductions have been declared not to be illegal. In the boot industry many factory owners near Bristol make charges in the form of deductions for standing-room, light, and tools. Cases have been taken to Court by the inspectors. In the case of one woman, whose working wages were 14s. 6d. a week, the deductions amounted to 2s. 1d. for thread, standing-room, and use of machine, besides a penny to the doctor, and when this case came into Court, the defence was urged that the employer made no profit on the thread, and that as regarded the shilling for standing room and use of machine, he urged that considering the prime cost of the machine, £5, and the running and depreciation, and the light, rent, and rates of the factory, the charge, was not excessive. Taking all these matters into consideration the Bench held that the employer was right, and the case was dismissed.

  1095
  In the Potteries there are many survivals of a bye-gone system. Because fathers and grandfathers used to bring their own lanterns and candles to light them at work, now that gas has taken the place of such primitive methods workmen are required to pay for it. Because the grandfathers of the present generation paid assistants to turn their lathes and bring their materials, now that the steam engine does the same work, in a great many of the factories in the Potteries the workpeople are compelled to pay for providing and running the engines. It is impossible to tell whether deductions under some of these heads are fair or not, because the inspector has no power to call for the production of the gas bill or the rent-book of the factory owner, and it is impossible to say to what extent the workpeople are imposed upon in these ways. The right hon. Baronet also mentioned the extreme hardships that occur in relation to charges made for damaged goods. Workpeople are often compelled, for some slight fault in a garment, to purchase from the employer the article at its full value. Occasionally they are able to dispose of it, and the loss might not be so great, but this is not always the case. During the South African war there were many cases of khaki suits made for the soldiers being defective in some slight measure, and the unfortunate out-workers were compelled to pay their value without being able to recoup themselves. The reports of the factory inspectors are full of instances of fines which ordinary magistrates would consider unreasonable and unfair. An old woman, who was paid 6s. a week for cleaning a factory, was charged 1s. 6d. out of that amount for the rent of a dirty dilapidated room belonging to her employer, and an extra shilling a week for being late in the morning, so that the sum she received, after the deductions, was 3s. 6d. a week. This case was prosecuted by a lady inspector, and the magistrates dismissed the claim on the ground that these deductions were not unreasonable, and the employer promptly dismissed the woman. These things ought to be impossible. They are not impossible at the present time, and therefore the House must legislate to make them
  1096
  impossible. I have not exhausted the number of instances in which general grievances arise. The Act says that fines must be for specific acts or omissions.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: That is done now. It will not do at all.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I venture to point out that it is not done now. I am not saying that the Act, as it stands, is sufficient to carry out the express purpose for which it is made. In a certain factory a notice was exhibited that workers must observe due order and decorum in the factory, and should in all respects obey the lawful demands of the manager, forewoman, or superintendent, and that they were to be subject to fines if in any degree they infringed any part of so sweeping and vague a regulation. The case was taken into Court, and it was urged that it was not a specific statement of acts and omissions for which,fines should be inflicted, but the Court of Appeal held to the contrary, and that case was sufficient to rob the Act of 1896 of its utility. Then, again, there are three large groups of workers wholly excluded from the benefits of the Act. There is the case of the shops, where there are frequently as many as 200 rules to be observed, and for the infringement of which an assistant may be fined. He would be indeed an immaculate being who could tread his way through without breaking a single rule. Shops under the Truck Act are a peculiar instance of the hiatus of the law. Inspectors under the Act may enforce the Truck Act, but may not enter shops. Shop inspectors may enter shops, but cannot enforce the Truck Act. There is, therefore, no proper source of inspection, and shop assistants cannot take action, for fear of dismissal without a character. The whole of the cotton industry is exempted at the request of those engaged, which is not perhaps altogether wise. Thirdly, the great class of out-workers is excluded from all the Truck Acts, although they are the most poverty-stricken of all, the least organised, and the most open to oppression, and the class which should especially receive the care and solicitude of the House. The Court of King's Bench in a recent

  1097
  decision, in almost unprecedented circumstances, made the suggestion to Parliament that it was high time that the Act should be amended if only to bring in this great body of out-workers. I do not believe that good employers will object to legislation to get rid of the abuses that prevail. Harsh treatment does not make a good workman, and the great majority of employers are far too considerate and far too sensible to permit injustices of the description I have quoted in their works. But the Truck Acts, like the Factory Acts, have no concern with the majority who do right; they are intended for the reproof and correction of the minority who do wrong. For these and similar reasons my right hon. friend has decided to bring in a Bill to amend the Truck Act, but not this year. The Government has the Workmen's Compensation Bill and the Trade Union Bill to deal with this Session. But my right hon. friend intends to introduce and hopes to pass a measure to amend the Truck Act in the next session of Parliament. The interval between now and then might be properly used for an inquiry into the whole subject and for collecting further information. I wish it were possible to accept the easy and simple solution which is proposed by the right hon. Baronet straight off and without further examination, but as the right hon. Baronet himself recognises, the matter is not so simple as it appears at first sight. With regard to the system of deductions, such as was mentioned by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland in the case of miners, the employers are used as a collecting agency, so to speak, for a number of institutions in which the miners are interested. If the Motion of the right hon. Baronet were carried the whole of this system, which largely prevails in the mining districts, would be swept away, to the great disadvantage, I believe, of both employers and employed. Then in the case of goods which are given to outworkers and damage is done, the House will need to be quite sure, before prohibiting any form of deduction, that they are not precipitating a system which may be still worse. Supposing it were found that employers, whose work was damaged, were unable to get any re-
  1098
  dress except by prosecution, a system might arise whereby employers would refuse to give out work unless the workers paid a deposit to cover any liability that might fall on the employer in consequence of damage to goods, and that might cause a great hardship to be inflicted on out-workers. We must be sure, too, that legislation would be able to be enforced and would prevent secret arrangements between employers and employed that damage when done should be paid for in the form of deductions from wages. For my part I hope the inquiry will prove the possibility of prohibiting all sorts of fines, but sweeping and hasty legislation in that direction might have undesirable consequences. We find in the factory inspectors' reports that large numbers of the better managed laundries have abolished fines altogether, and that the discipline of the workers has not at all been affected. We find that the manager of the London and North Western Railway, Sir F. Harrison, said before the Commission on Accidents on Railways that—
  "fines of small amount which generally used to be the custom are a very objectionable and very irritating kind of punishment."
  That railway company decided to abolish fines altogether.
  MR. BELL: In my remarks just now I pointed out that the general manager of the London and North Western Railway had adopted a more severe form of punishment by suspension, which was far more expensive to the workman.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: That you can see, is what may be the unforeseen result of sweeping legislation of this character. The hon. Member for Derby, who represents the railway servants, has pointed out that the result of the abolition of fines has been to impose far heavier punishments on the workmen, and far greater financial results. I gather from him that if he had his choice between the system of suspension on the one hand and fines on the other, he would rather have the fines with their irritation than suspensions with their heavy loss. Further, there is the

  1099
  question of offences committed by workpeople in the form of breaches of special rules made for their own safety and the safety of those who work with them. The Home Office is constantly instituting special rules to secure greater safety in dangerous trades. Occasionally workers transgress against these rules. They must be compelled in some way to conform to the proper requirements of the law. Are they to be prosecuted in every case, however trifling? Of course they must be prosecuted in grave cases, but trifling cases might possibly be met more expeditiously and more satisfactorily by fine than by prosecution. The matter has also to be considered whether by abolishing fines you will not be making employment far less secure—whether it will not become more usual for employers to dismiss workpeople for small and trivial offences. I believe that in great shops where fines are not in vogue the position of the workmen is far more precarious. I do not wish to prejudge the inquiry. For my own part I again express the hop e that it may be possible simpliciter to abolish all fines, but I do suggest that this House would be ill-advised to decide to-night without inquiry that all fines and all deductions should necessarily be abolished in every case. In these circumstances it is impossible to accept the Resolution of the right hon. Baronet in the form in which it now stands. It is too wide in one direction, and in another direction it is too narrow. The hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire observed that no amendment of the Truck Act could be in any degree satisfactory which did not take into consideration the system of "living-in" in shops. Here again you have the survival of an old system. In industrial establishments employing scores and hundreds of assistants you have the old system which existed when the shopkeeper employed just one or two assistants wild lived in his home as members of the family and dined at his board. This system may, and I believe docs, give rise to very grave abuses. The assistant must live in the employer's boarding house. The food may be bad and the accommodation inferior. There may be no privacy and many irritating restrictions, but he cannot change his lodgings without losing his situation. On
  1100
  the other hand, the system has its advantages. There are many of these places in which I believe the accommodation is excellent, and in which the employer makes, and seeks to make, no profit, and where the assistants are quite content. Then there are numbers of young women who come to London and who are engaged as shop assistants who would rather find lodgings with a respectable firm than be compelled to go perhaps to somewhat doubtful lodgings. There is also the special case of the seaside towns and watering places. They in the summer have a largely increased staff of shop assistants, and it is the custom to take these extra assistants to lodge in the shopkeeper's house because in many cases lodgings are specially difficult to obtain and are specially dear. It would cause extreme inconvenience if, by a simple enactment, you were to sweep away this system wherever it prevails. Further, it is necessary, as the hon. Member has pointed out, that any amendment of the Truck Acts should endeavour to consolidate and simplify the Acts which now stand on the Statute-book. I hope that may be possible. I cannot give any pledge on the subject of sweeping away all the Acts as they now exist and re-enacting truck legislation de novo. But the failure to comply with the Acts is often due to the failure to comprehend them. They are a maze of narrow and tortuous legal paths in which few find their way, and it may be necessary to cut a clean straight road through this tangle of legislation. There has been no inquiry into the working of the Truck Acts for the last thirty-five years, and my right hon. friend proposes forthwith to appoint a Committee to investigate these various questions. It will involve no delay, because in any case I hope that the inquiry may be completed before the next session of Parliament begins. Such an inquiry should not be made by a merely departmental and official Committee, and my right hon. friend was inclined to recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this matter. But there are three reasons why such a course might not be satisfactory. This is a matter in which the assistance of women is required in regard to the question of deductions from wages,

  1101
  out workers, and all those things specially calling for such assistance. A Select Committee would be deprived of such assistance, because we are not yet privileged to number ladies among our members. Secondly, it is desirable that the inquiry should be concluded within this year for the reason I have given I doubt whether it can be conclude within this session. Thirdly, it is ad visable that the Committee should have at its disposal the great store of information on this subject which the Home Office has collected. Therefore, as a present advised, my right hon. friend will propose the appointment of a Depart mental Committee in name, but not in composition, with its chairman and the majority drawn from outside the department concerned, and including women among its members. I trust that under these circumstances my right hon. friend the mover of the Resolution and the hon. Member for the Clitheroe Division will not think it necessary to press this Resolution in its present form, assured, as they may be, that the Government is as desirous as they are of securing at the earliest possible date a comprehensive, well considered, and effective amendment of the Truck Acts. I believe that this House has given to the nation no greater boon than that beneficent, code, so gradually and laboriously created, of industrial law which is to be found in the Factory Acts, the Mines Acts, the laws affecting the working of railways, compensation for accidents, and the Truck Acts, and the House may be confident that those who are now responsible for the Home Office will not be found lacking either in the will or the ambition to carry to its proper development so much of this social reform as is entrusted to their charge.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid he should be sorry if this interesting debate were brought to a close without a few words being said from the Opposition side of the House. Those words would be entirely sympathetic with the position taken up by the Undersecretary. There was every reason why he and his friends should be sympathetic in this matter, for a great mass of that large body of legislation which had been passed for the improvement of the condi-
  1102
  tion of the working classes had been given to the country by the Conservative Party. [Laughter, and cries of "Oh."] Only those laughed who did not know the history of these matters. The Factory Acts were in a great measure owing to the Conservative party. [An HON. MEMBER: Ashley.] Lord Ashley was a staunch Conservative. While he did not wish in any degree to draw a distinction between parties in the matter discussed to-night, he could not help congratulating himself and those who thought with him that the Acts of 1887 and 1896 were both owing to a Conservative administration. Bat it was said that they had been a failure. At all events they had been the best efforts made in that direction, and if they had not been completely successful, they had failed, not through the weakness of the legislation, but by the difficulties which from time to time had arisen in giving effect to these Acts. What did more towards abolishing the abominations of the truck system in this country than any dozen Acts was Mr. Disraeli's novel "Sibyl," which brought home to the people the horrors of the system. He was glad indeed it had been decided that a Bill should be introduced. A Committee was to be appointed—he present Government was already fruitful in Committees—and he did not in the least object to the careful discussion and consideration of important matters like this, but he confessed he thought that on this matter the facts were pretty well ascertained. If it was really intended to appoint a Committee, he loped it would be done promptly, so that the Committee might report and a Bill be introduced dealing with the matter before the end of the present session. If the Committee sat during the present year, and if the Bill came fresh to the House next session, it would not get the consideration which it would other-wise receive. He thought a great deal would be gained if the. Bill could be laid before the House before the close of this session. It could be examined between then and the beginning of next session. He ventured to commend that course to the consideration of the Government. His hon. friend opposite might be quite sure that he would have no lack of support in this House in endeavouring

  1103
  to deal with the difficulties which did exist. That there were difficulties no one who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Derby could doubt. If this Resolution were to be proposed to the House in the form in which the hon. Member desired, it would not only forbid fines and deductions from wages, but suspension from duty as a punishment for small offences. If it did so, it would have the very serious defect which was pointed out by the Under-Secretary, who spoke on behalf of the Government, that employers unable to inflict small penalties for small offences might be obliged in self-defence to dismiss a man when the offence he had committed was one which might have been met by a small fine or by a slight suspension. That was a practical difficulty which he had no doubt would be carefully considered by the committee to be appointed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): The hon and learned Gentleman opposite seems to think that there is no necessity for the Committee which we propose to appoint, but I would really suggest to him that there is one subject alone which has been referred to to-night in the interesting and instructive speech of the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire—the subject of "living in"—require inquiry before being dealt with. I do not propose to indicate any opinion at present in regard to the system of living in, or what changes might be proposed to accommodate those who now live in these places. I rise now for the purpose of making a suggestion, because there has been practical unanimity on the part of all who have spoken to-night. My hon. friend the Under Secretary, in his very able and interesting speech, has really indicated the spirit in which the Government will approach this question, and it is desirable that we should agree on the Motion before the House. I, therefore, propose practically to accept in principle the Motion of my right hon. friend, but to add at the end—
  "Other than such as may be specifically legalised by Parliament."
  I hope that that will meet with general support.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words 'other than such as may be specially legalised by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he was not sure that the words suggested by the Home Secretary would do much to get over the difficulties in this matter. In the Mines Regulation Act there were certain subjects specified and rules laid down for ascertaining what the deductions ought to be. Everything was provided that the ingenuity of man could suggest to ensure that fines for dirty coal should be fair and legitimate. It was also provided that deductions should not be made until mutually agreed upon between employer and employed. There was also an inspector fully empowered to enforce the provisions of the Mines Act, but in face of all that he could give instances where the Act had been practically a dead letter. He instanced a case in which the miners refused to accept a scale of deductions which they considered exorbitant, with the result that they were locked out for six weeks. They resumed work under the scale proposed by the employer, and a case was taken into Court to test the legality of the scale. The Court held that the fact that the men went back to work knowing the scale to be in existence, was proof that they had accepted it. No matter how much they might safeguard fines and deductions, there would be difficulty. It seemed to him that there was one safe guiding rule in this matter, namely, that no fines or deductions should be allowed which in any way benefited the employer. Deductions for hospitals, infirmaries, doctors, pick sharpening, and other things, could be made without difficulty if handed to a committee of workmen to be applied to the purposes for which they were made. He suggested that the difficulty might be got over if there was no possibility of bad and greedy employers getting advantage from fines imposed under provisions made to safeguard the interests of the workmen. If that idea could be embodied in the Resolution now before the House, and introduced into the Bill, it might lead to a solution of this very difficult question.
  MR. J. JOHNSONsaid the workmen's representatives were all deeply grateful to the right hon. Baronet for bringing this question before the House. He had done this at considerable labour to-himself, and he had certainly conferred a signal benefit on the Labour Members of the House. The right hon. Baronet had instanced some glaring cases of hardship from the infliction of fines and the making of deductions. When he came to the House he had considerable doubt as to the advisability of carrying the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman in toto, but after the speeches to which he had listened, his trepidation on the matter had disappeared. He thought a Member should not be always anxious to get what he conceived to be the precise form of the particular legislation he desired, and that he should waive, to a certain extent, special interests in order to fall in with the general concensus of opinion. In view of the hardship which the system of deductions inflicted on the weakest members of the community, on women and girls, it was incumbent on the Government to take the earliest opportunity of introducing legislation on the subject. The Under-Secretary in his very able statement had given evidence of his sympathy. He was thankful id so to the hon. and learned Member on the Front Opposition Bench for his sympathy, although he might add that it came very late in the day. All the facts, regarding the hardships suffered by the workpeople of which they had heard that evening must have been under the cognisance of the late Government for the last ten years. He did not want to say anything derogatory of the magistracy, except that they showed so little fellow-feeling when cases between workmen and employers came before the Bench. It required an overwhelming case before the workmen got the benefit of any doubt. He only wished that they, as workmen, should make an earnest endeavour to get some
  1106
  of their own kith and kin on the magisterial Bench, in order that they might have a little more humane interpretation of the law, not in favour of the workman, but in favour of justice and right. The glaring instances which had been given that evening by the right hon. Baronet and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department were such that there ought to have been some disposition on the part of the Government to restrain the magistrates from giving such verdicts and sentences. He hoped that the workmen in this House would, in season and out of season, press this Government, or any Government, to introduce legislation that would restrain capricious employers of labour from inflicting fines which were not only a deterrent of the employés, but cut into the very means of their existence. He, and all his fellow trade unionists, were highly, gratified at the tone which the debate had taken, and or the words of sympathy which they lad not been in the habit of listening to or many years; and he trusted that these would be followed by legislation which would improve the conditions of life of the working people of the country.
  Mr. CRKMEEsaid the hon. Member for the City if London who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench had claimed that preceding Truck Acts and all other measures for the benefit of the working lasses of the country had been passed by he Conservative Party. That was a mistake. The Amending Truck Act of 887 was the work of Mr. Bradlaugh, and Mr. Bradlaugh was certainly not a Member of the Conservative Party. There were Members of the present House who took part in the debates on that measure and who made serious efforts to amend the Bill on the lines of the Resolution now under discussion. He himself had moved several Amendments to the Bill with that object in view, but the Conservative Government of the day resisted

  1107
  them, and unfortunately the failed so that when the Bill became law it was so limited in its operation, as to be practically useless.
  MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid there was another matter which he wished to bring to the recollection of the hon. and learned Member for the City of London, whom he might congratulate on having now a colleague in this House, when he stated that all the beneficial working class legislation had been passed by the Conservative Party.
  SIR E. CLARKE: I did not say all.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: Nearly all.
  SIR E. CLARKE: I said the greater part.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: Well, the greater part. To his mind that was only one of the fictions which it was thought worth while by some people to circulate from time to time from the platform, and he rather thought it need not have been introduced into this debate. He wished to make one or two observations on the subject of the Resolution before the House, which he had studied for many years. The hon. Member for the Newton Division for Lancashire2 who had made a very interesting speech, fell into a slight error when he said that the Truck Act did not apply to shops, that the factory inspectors were not allowed to enter the shops, and that they could not put the Act into force. He wished to point out that under the existing law the inspectors under the Shop Hours Act only were at liberty to enter shops, but the Act was almost a dead letter because there were so few of these inspectors. The only method of enforcing the Act was to see that the terms of notice or contract and the list of fines were put up in the shops. If an inspector proceeded against an employer for neglect to put up particular notices or
  1108
  the terms of the contract signed by the workpeople, the employer, through the solicitor defending him, almost invariably pleaded guilty, but said that it was merely a technical offence, and a merely nominal fine was imposed. That was the only means of getting at an employer at all, although it might be the case that a workman had been fined a hundred times in sixpences to recoup half a crown. He put this point before the Government so that there might be in their minds the danger which resided in the words of the Amendment to the Motion of his right hon. friend. Those words would not save the situation, and he thought they would have gone the whole hog and abolish fines altogether. From the first part of the able speech of the Under-Secretary he imagined that he could come to no other conclusion than that the hon. Gentleman was going to abolish fines altogether; but then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was not an easy question to decide whether it was harder to bear fines or to have dismissal or suspension. Enough, however, had been said to show that this subject was eminently one fitted for the consideration of a Committee, and he was glad to hear that such a Committee was to be appointed.
  MR. R. DUNCANsaid that as an employer of labour he could heartily endorse much that had been said during the debate, but it must be remembered that if there were bad employers as well as good, there were also bad trade unionists as well as good trade unionists. He knew that many employers desired to raise the standard of living amongst their workpeople, and to see them industrially organised. He himself wished that what were called casual labourers were better organised. He had no objection to arrangements as to fines being made jointly by employers and employed, and that if fines were retained, that they should be devoted to

  1109
  the charitable institutions of the district. The latter was a principle which if more generally acted upon would meet the case, and was already practised in the Clyde district.
  Amendment proposed—
  "That the words 'other than such as may be specifically legalised by Parliament,' be added to the Motion."—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that these words were very much on the line of the suggestions he had thrown out at the end of his speech, and he could therefore offer no objection to them.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary to put an end to fines and deductions from wages other than such as may be specially legalised by Parliament.

  VOTING DISQUALIFICATION (POOR LAW) REMOVAL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SCHWANNmoved the Second Reading of the Voting Disqualification (Poor Law) Removal Bill. Everyone, he said, knew that the working classes attributed great value to the possession of a vote as had been shown at the late Parliamentary election; but if a man accepted poor law relief he lost his vote. The Bill before the House did not recommend any extreme measures. It seemed to him simply just and natural that the man who, being in distress through loss of health, or old age, got relief should not lose thereby his vote. The Bill was presented to the last Parliament and received support from all parts of the House. He
  1110
  hoped that it would not now receive any opposition from either side, and therefore he moved that it be read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: May I ask if this is a Government measure?
  MR. SCHWANN: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to ask whether the Bill applied to those over a certain age who received poor law relief or whether it applied to all cases. A Poor Law Commission was sitting at present on this question, and it appeared to him that it would hardly be fair to that Commission if this Bill were passed without full explanation. He himself had been quite unable to hear what the hon. Gentleman had said in explanation of the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that they had not heard from the hon. Member who brought this Bill forward any description of the different kinds of people who came on the poor law for relief. Undoubtedly from time to time a number of deserving people were obliged by necessity to seek relief from the poor law—men who had broken down through disease or who had been overtaken by old age. He could understand in cases of that kind that it would be unfair and unjust that these men should be deprived of their rights as citizens. But on the other hand, there were tramps, vagrants of all kinds, and objectionable characters who sought poor law relief, and fortunately the law at present deprived them of their right to the exercise of the franchise. He could understand that there would be an unanimous feeling in all parts of the House to grant a Second

  1111
  Reading to the Bill if it made a discrimination between these two classes who obtained poor law relief; but if there was no discrimination, and having regard to the fact that a Commission on the question was sitting, he thought it was inopportune to bring forward this Bill in such an incomplete and unsatisfactory condition. This was a subject which ought not to be dealt with by a private Member or in a piecemeal manner, and he trusted that the Bill would not be persevered with that night.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid it was a matter for extreme regret that the time was so limited in which they could discuss a measure, the substantial object of which the majority of the Members in the House were in favour of. It being now only a few minutes to twelve o'clock, it was impossible to give the Bill the consideration I which it deserved. There was much to be said for the argument of the hon. Member opposite who contended that such a measure should not be a private Member's Bill, but that it should be brought forward by the Government. It would have been better if they had had an opportunity of knowing to what classes of people this Bill would apply. For instance, in the memorandum attached to the Bill it was said that the Bill was intended to apply to workmen employed on relief works; but that class of person did not now labour under any disqualification. Under the Unemployed Workman's Act of last session a workman was entitled to exercise his vote in a proper and legitimate way. Again, a man in receipt of medical relief from the board of guardians did not in consequence thereof lose his vote either for a Parliamentary or municipal election.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.
  Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  By virtue of an Act passed in the twenty-fourth year of the reign of His late Majesty King George the Third, intituled, "An Act to repeal So much of two Acts made in the tenth and fifteenth years of the reign of His present Majesty, as authorises the Speaker of he House of Commons to issue His Warrant out the Clerk of the Crown or making out Writs for the Election of Members to serve in Parliament, in the manner therein mentioned, and for substituting other provisions for the like purpose."
  I do hereby nominate, appoint, and mthorise—The right hon. George Finch, the right hon. Thomas Burt, the right hon. Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Sir James Kitson, and Sir John Brunner, being Members of the House of Commons, or any one or more of them, to execute all and singular the powers given to the Speaker of the House of Commons for the time being, for issuing Warrants to the Clerk of the Crown, in the cases as in the said Act specified.
  Given under my hand and seal, this twenty-seventh day of February, in year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and six.
  JAMES W. LOWTHER,
  (L. S.) Speaker.
  27 February 1906.
  In pursuance of Standing Order No. 1, "Sittings of the House."
  I hereby nominate—The right hon. Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Edward Blake, Sir William Holland, Mr. Charles Fenwick, and Mr. Alfred Hutton, to act during this session as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  JAMES W. LOWTHER,
  Speaker.
  27 February 1906.

Preamble
The Lord Middleton took the Oath.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Tables showing the extent in statute acres and the produce of the crops for the year 1905.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Report for the year 1904 on the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Royal Colleges of Science and of Art, the Geological Survey and Museum, and on the work of the Solar Physics Committee.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS), SESSION 1906.
  Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, Amendment Act.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHS STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, 1906. NO. 136).
  The Telegraph (Inland Written Telegram) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations, 1906, dated 1st January, 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
  Scheme for the management of the Crewkerne Grammar School Foundation, in the parish of Crewkerne, in the county of Somerset, founded by John Combe in or about the year 1499, regulated by a scheme made under the Endowed Schools Acts on 21st July, 1876, as altered by schemes of the Charity Commissioners of the 30th November, 1877, and the 23rd February, 1883, and as amended by a scheme made under the said Acts on the 3rd October, 1895. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 17.)

  THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONIES.
  The adjourned debate arising out of a question put by Viscount Milner—namely "Whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies could give the House any information as to the form of the proposed Constitutions of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State"—was resumed by
  LORD BURGHCLERE,who said: My Lords, I am sure that none of your Lordships, on whichever side of the House you sit, or whatever your political opinions may be, could have helped listening to the speech of the noble Viscount who initiated this debate last night with respect and admiration. Moreover, whatever our opinions as to the conclusions of the noble Viscount may have been, I am certain we could not help feeling considerable sympathy with so distinguished a public servant, whose first speech in Parliament was made, to a certain extent, in defence of a much attacked policy in which he has played a large part. The noble Viscount told us that he approached this subject in no partisan spirit. That is an attitude we should have expected from one who has occupied the positions which the noble Viscount has filled in the past; and I am sure the noble Viscount could have felt no reason for complaint in the speech of my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who explained the policy of His Majesty's Government in a spirit not unduly hostile towards the noble Viscount.
  If I understand the speech of the noble Viscount aright, as far as the establishment, or I would say the ultimate establishment, of constitutions in these two colonies is concerned, there is no difference in particular between my noble friend the Colonial Secretary and the noble Viscount; for the noble Viscount himself told us that the complete self-government of these Colonies, on a basis of political equality of all white men, was the only possible, and, I think, desirable, goal of the policy which he himself initiated in South Africa. Therefore, my Lords, if His Majesty's Government and the noble Viscount are agreed in this ultimate policy, the only point in dispute between them, as I understand it, though

  907
  I admit it is a very important point, is as to the psychological moment at which responsible government should be given. His Majesty's Government think that that time has arrived, while the noble Viscount takes a somewhat Cassandra-like view of the present situation.
  We all listened to the somewhat pessimistic forebodings of the noble Viscount with the attention which remarks from one speaking with his high authority undoubtedly deserve; but I think I am right in saving that there was one somewhat remarkable omission in the speech of the noble Viscount. Whilst he told us what his own opinion on the subject was, he did not indicate to us the opinion of our British fellow-subjects in the Transvaal and in the Orange River Colony on the question of the immediate grant of free institutions. After all, if this experiment should be a failure, our British fellow-subjects in South Africa will be the ones who will suffer first.
  VISCOUNT MILNER: Hear, hear!
  LORD BURGHCLERE: Therefore, if they, in conjunction with the Boers, are at the present moment desirous of having free institutions granted to them, the objections of the noble Viscount lose some of their force. I admit that the Orange River Colony presents a problem of considerable difficulty, but surely it does not pass the wit of man to devise some protection in the franchise for the British minority if protection is necessary in the circumstances of the case. The noble Viscount dwelt very much upon the irritated feelings of the Boers. It is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that there is a great deal of irritation, and natural irritation, among the Boers at the present moment; but the question for the Government and for the country is this, whether you are likely to allay that irritation by putting off the granting of free institutions till the Greek Kalends. For my part, I venture to think that; with a strong and capable governor such as I know Lord Selborne to be, with a considerable force at his back, we may, notwithstanding the warnings of the noble Viscount, to which I myself listened with the greatest respect, contemplate the
  908
  proposal of His Majesty's Government with considerable hope and confidence.
  The vital question, and the question which His Majesty's Government are perfectly right in. considering with the closest attention, is the question of the franchise in the Transvaal. That is a subject on which we have not yet received a decisive statement from His Majesty's Ministers, and which they are no doubt considering.
  I understand that there are two parties there, and that it may be possible, under the franchise, to bring about a most unfortunate state of ascendancy for one party or the other. But I would express the hope that in giving this franchise there will be no gerrymandering, in order that one party or the other shall have superiority in the Legislature of the Transvaal. I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to create a franchise which will alleviate, and not accentuate, those unfortunate racial differences which exist in that country. If this was capable of being mathematically accomplished, a very unexpected state of things might take place. Both parties might be returned in equal number, and then a block, an impasse, would be created to public business. I venture to think that if that did happen, the state of things then brought about would lead to a compromise between the two parties and might tend towards alleviating rather than emphasising the racial differences to which I have referred. I am certain that all those who think that the proper moment has arrived will welcome two more self-govering Colonies, for the granting of free institutions is the only method of binding together the Empire.
  I had no intention of speaking to-day. I came down to your Lordships' House yesterday expecting the usual debate to take place, and I merely mean, to intrude for a few moments on the subject of Chinese labour. I was rather sorry when I saw that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Harris, was to speak directly after the noble Viscount had initiated the debate. I had rather hoped that the attention of your Lordships would have been concentrated on the most important subject of establishing this Colonial Legislature, and that the

  909
  question of Chinese labour would be deferred till another day. But when I listened to the speech of the noble Viscount I recognised how impossible it was to keep the subject of Chinese labour out of the discussion. It appears that this burning question, which seems to have usurped in popular opinion the fiscal question, is so far-reaching that, according to the noble Viscount, even the institution of free legislatures in the Colonies depends, and depends absolutely, on the maintenance of Chinese labour in South Africa. The noble Viscount told us that the key of the situation was the prosperity of the Transvaal Colony. He then told us that the prosperity of the Transvaal depended upon cheap labour in the mines; and it therefore follows, I think, by a sort of apostolic succession that you would be unable, according to his idea, to give a free legislature to either the Orange River Colony or the Transvaal without the maintenance of Chinese labour.
  I have never in your Lordships' House spoken on the subject of the employment of Chinese coolies in the mines of the Transvaal, but I confess that, like other noble Lords, I have frequently spoken on that subject on platforms in the country; and as we are accused, not for the first time, of being afraid to repeat in Parliament what we have stated on the platforms in the country, I should like in a very few words to be allowed to tell your Lordships what I have said on this subject on the many occasions when it has been my good fortune to speak at political meetings. The Liberal Party has been accused in Parliament, in the Press, and on the platform of having won the late general election by misrepresentation on the Chinese labour question. I hope I shall not offend noble Lords opposite when I say that I view that accusation with considerable calm. I have heard it before. I have had some experience of general elections during the last twenty-five years of political life, and I cannot call to mind a single general election, and perhaps not even a single by-election, when the Party who has lost has not accused the winning Party of having won by misrepresentation.
  910
  Misrepresentation in political life is a sort of inevitable formula.
  So far as I am concerned, I associate myself with my noble friends the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. I have never used the word "slavery" in connection with Chinese labour, because I did not think it was the right word to describe it. But I do not say this in any Pharisaical spirit, or as putting myself up as better than those who did. Any one who thinks this is slavery has a right to say so. The fact is, the whole of this question of misrepresentation arises from the fact that there are in this country, as in other countries, a certain number of warm-hearted, high-minded people, with a passionate love of the liberty of all people, whether white, black, or yellow, and those people look upon all coloured indentured labour with considerable suspicion; and when that indentured labour is coupled with an Ordinance so loosely drawn and administered that within eighteen months it had to be twice amended; when also it gives rise, as is admitted, to illegal and cruel punishments and other irregularities, how can you wonder that they condemn the conditions of labour under this Ordinance in the strongest possible terms? I heard a noble Lord opposite accusing them, and such as them, of fighting under the flag of slavery. I venture to think, with all submission, that these people were fighting under the flag of liberty. Though it is quite possible that the premises upon which they founded their opinion were mistaken, I think, with all submission, that those who hold such strong opinions on this subject would be far better employed in exposing the flimsy fallacies of this misrepresentation than in indulging in acrimonious censure of those who were actuated by honest, if they were perhaps mistaken, convictions.
  In saying that I never applied the term "slavery" to this Ordinance, I admit that I am at once open to the not very courteous retort made by an hon. Member in the other House to my noble friend Lord Crewe that—
  "Lord Crewe must remember that he had not to be elected to Parliament."

  911
  That is perfectly true; but if the noble Lord had not to be elected himself, he was very busy on many platforms in the country getting other people elected. No doubt there has been in the constituencies during the general election a sort of efflorescence of argument on this subject. If so, I regret it; but to my mind it is an inevitable effect of our Party system. For myself, I venture to tell your Lordships that I belong to an old-fashioned Party who think that it is far better to understate your argument than to overstate it, because, in the case of over-emphasis, of exaggeration, of argument, your opponent, when he has got a bad case, naturally diverts attention from his inability in this direction by fixing the attention of the public on the alleged exaggerations you have made. I do not know whether that has occurred lately, but I have known it occur over and over again in political life.
  I regret that there has been this overemphasis. The noble Marquess opposite, the Marquess of Salisbury, declared the other night in the debate on the Address that His Majesty's Government had attained their present position only by the obvious misrepresentations about Chinese labour of their followers in the country. I must say, with all due deference to noble Lords opposite, that I never heard such a bad compliment paid to a political party by one of its own leaders. I have had some experience of the situation. I have been on many platforms and in many constituencies, but I have never been in one in which there has not been an able Conservative candidate, with all the sources of information on this subject open to him; and yet the noble Marquess tells the House that these candidates were absolutely unable, with all the knowledge at their back, to refute the flimsy fallacies that were put forward by the Liberal candidates. Never in the course of my life have I heard such a sweeping condemnation of an historical Party and its leaders! As to Chinese labour, your Lordships will admit that when the question was originally introduced no one seemed to desire it. Every one deplored what, not to offend noble Lords opposite I will describe as
  912
  the necessity for the employment of yellow labour in South Africa. The noble Marquess himself deplored the necessity of its introduction; and, unless my memory serves me badly, the noble Marquess the leader of the Opposition also regretted the necessity of its introduction. Sir Arthur Lawley, in receiving a deputation of Boers in South Africa, declared that he did not want it. There were many, and obvious, reasons why yellow labour was repugnant to the people of this country. It is well known that these large aggregations of Chinese in white Colonies bring about conditions which are, to say the least, undesirable. The most reverend Primate has dealt with this subject in your Lordships' House and out of it, and by letters, and I will not go further into it. There was another objection to the introduction of Chinese labour. Nobody wanted to make South Africa a Chinese province—I do not mean politically, but by population; and therefore it was one of the objections to yellow labour that it was absolutely impossible, under the conditions under which it had to be introduced, for the Chinese to go to South Africa as ordinary settlers. They could not be settlers when they came in, and therefore it is no exaggeration to say that they did not go to South Africa as free men.
  What I have said on platforms on this subject is this—that the Liberal Party opposed the introduction of Chinese labour in South Africa, that they washed their hands of it, that they refused responsibility for its introduction, and reserved to themselves the right, if they came into power, to review the whole subject. I ventured to say also that the probable result would be that when they did come into power they would alter the Ordinance so as to bring it into consonance with the best traditions of the British Empire, and then leave the Transvaal to settle what is purely a domestic question. I went further, and said that if His Majesty's late Government took upon themselves the responsibility of introducing yellow labour after the warnings they had received from the other side, they could only properly do so if they could prove three propositions—first, that no other

  913
  labour was available; secondly, that the prosperity of the Colony demanded the instant working of the mines; and thirdly, that the people of the Transvaal agreed to it. I venture to say, as a man in the street, that these three propositions had not been proved by His Majesty's late Government when they brought in the Chinese Ordinance. I am glad to say that I am not alone in that opinion. I even receive some support, if I put the right interpretation upon his words, from Mr. Chamberlain himself. My noble friend the Secretary of State yesterday gave us some quotations from speeches of Mr. Chamberlain, but he did not bring that history up to date. He omitted to quote what I think is the most important speech of all, the speech which Mr. Chamberlain made on Friday last in the House of Commons, in which he said, speaking of his interview with the mine managers in the Transvaal—
  "I told them that they must exhaust every means in their power to secure labour from other sources, and that even when they had done that, as long as I remained at the Colonial Office I would never consent to the introduction of Chinese labour, unless I were persuaded that it was the desire of the people of the Transvaal."
  No one, I am sure, would accuse Mr. Chamberlain of having anything but the most ardent desire for the prosperity and welfare of South Africa; and, speaking in the Transvaal, with all the knowledge of his power as Colonial Secretary, he said deliberately that he did not desire the introduction of Chinese labour. If the prosperity of South Africa depended entirley upon Chinese labour, and Mr. Chamberlain, speaking with all the authority and knowledge that he had at that moment, said he did not desire it, then I venture to think it follows that either in Mr. Chamberlain's mind there must have been some other course which His Majesty's Government might have adopted, or the prosperity of the mines did not necessitate instant working. Then Mr. Chamberlain said—
  "Unless I was persuaded it was the desire of the people of the Transvaal."
  We have not been persuaded that it is the general desire of the Transvaal. His Majesty's Government are now going to give the Transvaal, by free legislature and responsible Government, an opportunity of saying whether or
  914
  not they desire that Chinese labour shall be employed. I may be told that these remarks by Mr. Chamberlain were made before the Ordinance was brought forward, but I find that this is also his present opinion, for Mr. Chamberlain said, a little later on in the speech—
  "I do not myself think"
  that is now at the present time
  "that Chinese labour is desirable in the mines of the Transvaal."
  As I have said, I am glad to find that His Majesty's Government are in accord in this direction with Mr. Chamberlain, because they propose to set up a freely elected and responsible legislature which will be able, as Mr. Chamberlain desired, to decide the domestic question whether Chinese labour should be employed or not. I myself believe that that is the proper course to adopt. But I am bound to say that the constitution of these legislatures must form a most anxious, arduous, and difficult task for His Majesty's Government. At the same time, although I see difficulties, although I understand the difficulties, I have considerable trust and confidence in the wisdom and moderation of my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in the wisdom and moderation of Lord Selborne, and I think we may look forward with hope, perhaps with confident hope, to the success of this new and critical departure, which His Majesty's Government have agreed to adopt. I am certain that my noble friend the Secretary of State will be guided in the conduct of this difficult question, as all other Secretaries of State, from whatever Party they come, have been guided, not by the exigencies of Party system, but solely by a desire for the closer union of the self-governing Colonies and the prosperity, honour, and peace of the Empire at large.
  EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, as a soldier sitting on the Cross Benches in your Lordships' House, I do not consider it my business, as a rule, to take any part in debates on political subjects; and I certainly would not do so on the present occasion did I not feel that were I to keep silent I should justly lay myself open to the reproach of having

  915
  deserted men to whom the success of the late war was in a great measure due, and whose help to me personally during that war was of the greatest value.
  The noble Viscount who opened this debate in a remarkably instructive and interesting speech, worthy, if I may say so, of the great cause which he has at heart, spoke in strong terms of the disastrous effect which a change in policy would inevitably have on our position in South Africa. But, strong as those terms were, in my opinion they are justified by the existing state of affairs in that country; and while I deeply regret that the noble Lord should have good cause to fear calamitous results from such a change, I must declare myself as entirely in accord with the views expressed by him.
  Moreover, I venture to assert that any such change as the noble Lord so greatly dreads would be at variance with the opinion held by every one intimately acquainted with, and who has recent experience of, South Africa and its people, or who can speak with any authority as to the relative positions of those who are for and those who are against us in that country. You are not now legislating for a Colony composed entirely of men of British blood, nor for one composed of mixed races who have become welded into one loyal whole by the passing of years; but for a Colony the majority of the inhabitants of which were in arms against us quite a short time ago, and of whom a certain number do not even take the trouble to conceal their disloyalty, not to say their animosity toward Great Britain. The demands of these men are stated in the plainest possible terms in the letter addressed by Mr. Steyn to Mr. Stead, which was published in The Times a short while ago; and those demands would be met in full if Chinese labour were dispensed with under the present conditions of the country, and if the basis of representation in the Transvaal were altered to the detriment of the British residents in that Colony.
  In the autumn of 1904 I revisited South Africa; and, from the knowledge then gained, I arrived at the conclusion that the acute crisis was over, and that, so far as the white races are concerned, the
  916
  country was gradually settling down. I came across many farmers, both in the Orange River Colony and in the Transvaal, some of whom had been sent across the seas as prisoners of war. They showed absolutely no bitterness of feeling. On the contrary, they received me in a friendly mannner, and expressed themselves as quite willing to fall in with the new order of things. They invited me into their houses, and told me with evident pride that their children were getting on well with the English language. Their wives were equally friendly in their welcome. The one complaint which the farmers made was the absence of means by which their produce could be taken to the nearest market, and they begged me to do all I could to get the construction of railways pushed forward.
  But at the same time in each Colony, except Natal, agitators were busily engaged in endeavouring to create dissatisfaction, and in stirring up mischief through the local Press; and it is these same agitators who are now fomenting a feeling of disloyalty to the British Crown. Surely we do not intend to forsake the men who came forward in the hour of our need? The return which I hold in my hand shows that no less than 46,858 South African Colonials took part in the war. Of these 1,473 were killed or died of wounds; 1,607 died of disease, 3,333 were wounded, 1,230 were captured by the enemy, and 544 were returned as missing, making a total of 8,187—a very heavy casualty roll, my Lords, nearly 18 per cent, of the number engaged. The message from those who fell is inscribed on many a tombstone in South Africa—it runs as follows—
  "Tell England, ye who pass this monument, that we in serving her rest here content."
  The services of these men, as I have already stated, were of the greatest possible value. They took part in almost every engagement. They saved the day at Wagon Hill, and they were far and away the most useful scouts and guides we had. These men, and many others of our race who have settled in South Africa since the war, have at least as great a claim to be considered as the Boers; and surely it would be an act of injustice to establish such an order of things in the new Colonies as

  917
  would place the balance of power in the hands, not of those who fought for Great Britain, but of men who fought against us and who it is not in human nature to suppose can in so short a space of time be altogether loyally disposed towards our flag. Unless, therefore, the franchise in the Transvaal is settled on a fair basis as regards the British portion of the population, our late opponents would have an entire and most unfair control over the great industries in which so much British capital has been invested, and on the sympathetic encouragement of which the future prosperity of the whole of South Africa so materially depends.
  Sound statesmanship I conceive to be that which establishes, as far as is possible, order and contentment in the land. I fear there will be neither order nor contentment in the new Colonies if we make them over to men many of whom have never disguised the fact that their sole desire is to drive us out of the country—a desire which they will assuredly endeavour to fulfil on the first favourable opportunity. I cannot believe, my Lords, that, after a war which cost us so many valuable lives and an expenditure of 240 millions sterling, the British public would knowingly consent at this juncture to a change in policy; for if they did, it would be an absolutely convincing proof of their forgetfulness of the past, of their complete ignorance of what is best in the interests of their own country, and of what is of infinitely greater importance, their discreditable abandonment of men who fought and bled for us, and who are amongst the most loyal of His Majesty's subjects.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I have only recently returned from South Africa, having spent a considerable portion of the last eighteen months in that country. I have had the opportunity of travelling over most of Cape Colony, through the Orange River Colony And through the Transvaal as far north as the Zambesi. I have also visited Natal and the native territories and Basutoland, and I could not justify to my conscience, after what I have heard and seen in South Africa, and after
  918
  what I have heard since I came back, being altogether silent on the present occasion. There are three points I should like to impress on your Lordships—the profound divergence of opinion which exists between what we hear in this country and what we hear in South Africa; the evils that arise from Colonial affairs being made the sport of Party politics at home; and the absolute necessity, if South Africa is to prosper, of a consistent and continuous policy with regard to it. I speak in the interests of no Party. I doubt if there is a Member of your Lordship's House who is more detached from Party than I am; but I do wish to bear witness to what I have seen and heard.
  Now, my Lords, take this question of Chinese labour. Here it has been represented as a question between white labour and coloured labour. In South Africa every one knows, and no one disputes that it is a question, not between white labour and coloured labour, but between Chinese labour and native labour. Here it has been represented as a question affecting the interests of the mining community in the Transvaal. In South Africa I venture to say you will not find any one who does not assert and believe that the development of the mining industry is of absolute importance not merely to the Transvaal, but to the whole future of South Africa. Here we have heard a great deal said about the ill-treatment of the Chinese. In South Africa I was not able to find anyone, with but one exception, who believed for a moment that the Chinese were ill-treated, or who saw any of the moral objections to the use of the Chinese which have been brought forward in England. They might not like the employment of Chinese; but they thought it a necessity. They knew that it was impossible to work the mines by white labour for various reasons, which those who are acquainted with South Africa know, and which I need not detain your Lordships by referring to this evening.
  I took some trouble to ascertain whether the mines might have been worked by the Kaffirs without recourse to Chinese labour. When I was travelling through the native territories I had an

  919
  opportunity of meeting the agents employed to recruit the Kaffirs for the mines. Their general and universal opinion was that, though a larger number of Kaffirs might have been recruited, the supply would have been insufficient. The natives had been very much spoiled by the war; they had become rich; they had got all they wanted; they did not wish to work; and owing to the wise provisions of the noble Viscount who introduced this debate yesterday for the development of railway and agricultural work, and for other objects of national benefit, the supply of natives was insufficient to work the mines. Therefore, if the mines were to be worked, you were compelled to have recourse to other sources of labour. I do not think that the noble Earl who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies will altogether dispute this fact.
  In regard to the treatment of the Chinese, the Nonconformists in South Africa, such members of Roman Catholic missions as I had occasion to see, and the English bishops, all disapproved of the kind of things that have been said in England. I took the opportunity to visit a Chinese compound myself at a time when visitors were not expected. I conversed with the Chinese through their interpreter; I saw their houses, their food, their baths, and inquired as to their wages. I can only say that many labourers in England would be glad if they were as well off. I do not think, so far as one had an opportunity of ascertaining, that there was anything the Chinese labourers dreaded more than being repatriated to their own country.
  One other word with regard to Chinese labour. We have heard something about the outrages consequent on the introduction of that class of labour. I think that most people in South Africa will say that, in view of the number of Chinese now employed, the outrages have been remarkably few. I am satisfied that they would have been much larger in extent had the labourers been of other nationalities. This is not merely an opinion; it is the result of some knowledge of the facts. Some time back a large number of European navvies were employed in railway work at Potchefstroom in the Transvaal. Their conduct
  920
  was such that no decent woman ventured out of the house on Sundays, and the men had, in point of fact, to be sent back. I do not wish to emphasise that; but in I regard to the question of Chinese labour I am obliged to say that I do think the amount of misrepresentation, I will not use a stronger word, that has taken place in England on that subject passes all that is permissible, even in times of political excitement.
  But, my Lords, this question of Chinese labour does not stand alone as showing the divergence that exists between opinion here and opinion in South Africa. We appear to think, and I think there has been evidence of that feeling during this debate, that we understand the affairs of South Africa better than the Colonists themselves; that it is our duty to guide them in the paths of virtue, and that, although they are men of our blood, they are not altogether to be trusted in respect to many matters. It is impossible to conceive an opinion more directly at variance with the opinion entertained by the Colonists themselves. They say, and they say, I think, with a great deal of truth, that Colonial affairs excite very little interest in England except when something particular attracts attention, and when that is the case they are then made the sport of political Parties. They say that at otter times their affairs are treated with neglect and indifference; and, my Lords, is it possible, when we look back at the history of South Africa, to deny that there is truth in this allegation?
  No one will accuse me of indifference to the welfare of the native races. We are all agreed that slavery should be put down, but there is no one who knows the history of the suppression of the slave trade in South Africa who will not say that the measures taken to deprive the Boers of their slaves were unjust and ill-considered, and that the method in which it was done laid the seeds of that antagonism between the English and the Dutch races which we have had so much occasion to deplore. No one, I think, will question his ability or his honesty, but no one, I think, can contend that the action taken by a relation of my own, the late Lord Grey, in trying to force convict labour on South Africa, was wise

  921
  in view of the prejudices of the Colony, What are we to say of the recall of Sir George Gray—possibly the best Governor the Cape ever had—for trying to federalise South Africa, the very thing we are endeavouring to do ourselves? What are we to say of the measures taken by Lord Carnarvon and Mr. Froude to effect that federalisation—measures which were certain to rub up the Colonists to the greatest degree? What can we think of the insistence by the Colonial Office—or was it the Foreign Office?—that the Orange Free State should be separated from the English Crown and given its independence, when it begged to be retained. What can Natal think of the refusal of the British Government to buy Delagoa Bay for a comparatively small sum of money, and at a time when no one in Europe would have objected? What can they think, also, of the refusal of the Colonial Office to take steps to prevent a settlement of Germans in West Africa? What can they think when they remember that it was owing to Mr. Cecil Rhodes that Germany did not acquire a strip of territory right across South Africa which would have prevented the development of that country under British influence, and the completion of that railway from Cairo to the Cape which was the dream of Mr. Rhodes? I do not refer to these things in order to revive extinct controversies, but to show how much reason we I have to be careful in our dealings with I South Africa.
  Looking back upon it in the light of past experience, is there anyone who will deny—there is certainly no one in South Africa who will deny—that ever since the surrender after Majuba Hill a war with the Boers was practically inevitable. I have the less hesitation in saying so because at that time I was one of those who was disposed to think Mr. Gladstone's Government was right. We did not know, the public did not know, then how deep was the feeling of resentment in the British colonists, who, after the professions of the British Government, had been handed back to the Boers. We did not know the contempt for our courage and consistency that that surrender excited among the Boers themselves. Still less did we know that one of the chief reasons for surrender was the
  922
  fact that the Government had received letters from President Brand informing them that the Orange Free State were about to join the Transvaal. I was not able to find anyone in South Africa who did not think that what made the late war inevitable were the transactions of 1881 and 1882, and by no means the policy of Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Milner.
  To come to the present, it seems almost an impertinence for anyone to add to the words which fell from Lord Milner, for he has had a greater opportunity of knowing the true facts of the case than one in my position can have; but I do not think anyone can travel through South Africa without seeing that responsible Government for the Orange River Colony means the handing over of I that Colony completely, under existing circumstances, to Dutch influence. It means abandoning all control over the schools and converting them into hotbeds of sedition and propaganda of Dutch as against English ideas. It means the abandonment of any control over the importation of arms, and it means putting the English farmers and settlers in a most precarious and dangerous position.
  There is a Member of your Lordship's House—a noble Duke—who, I believe at the suggestion of Lord Milner, has invested a very large sum of money in making it possible for English farmers to settle in the Orange River Colony and to farm the land. Much has been done in the same way by the Land Settlement Commission under the auspices of the South African Government. Do you think those farmers will be grateful for the creation of a state of things which will make their position difficult and precarious? Do you think it will encourage others to settle in the Orange River Colony and in the Transvaal? Yet, my Lords, if there was one thing more true than another in what fell from the noble Viscount last night, it was the statement that the key to the future situation of South Africa is to be found in the creation of a strong English influence in the Orange River Colony and in the Transvaal to counterbalance Dutch sympathies, and, I am sorry to add, the prevailing disloyalty of Cape Colony

  923
  I do not wish to be accused of bitterness, but the truth must be spoken, Lord Roberts has already alluded to it. There is great disloyalty among the Dutch population, and can we be surprised at it? If I were a Boer I should not be conciliated at the present time. Why should I? You are not going to conciliate Boers by concession; you will conciliate them by continuous good government. They are quite clever enough to know that good government means their own prosperity; but you will not conciliate them now or at once, and you will conciliate them least of all by encouraging them to think that the British Government cannot be of the same mind for more than five years together, and allowing them to suppose that they have only to set one Party against the other to get what they want. At this moment I do not know to what extent, but to some extent at all events, the Boer leaders are making speeches about Chinese labour. Does anyone in this House suppose that the Boer leaders care anything about slavery, or about the condition of the Chinese? They are perfectly indifferent to servile conditions, to slavery pure and simple; but they are slim enough to know that Chinese labour is a convenient instrument to force prematurely the giving of responsible Government, through which they hope they may be enabled to gain by the ballot box what they have not succeeded in obtaining through the war.
  What makes the situation more serious—and I do venture very earnestly to impress upon His Majesty's Government the necessity of very carefully-considering the steps they are about to take—is the fact that things in South Africa are improving. There is a better feeling; there is great hostility, but it is diminishing. The noble Viscount who introduced this subject to your Lordships last night has laid the foundations well and wisely, and Lord Selborne is building on those foundations well and wisely. I had occasion a very short time ago to trek from Mafeking to Pretoria, a five days journey, and it happened to be almost immediately after Lord Selborne had been making a tour of that part of the country. It was pleasant to English ears, and it was specially pleasant to the
  924
  ears of a friend of Lord Selborne's, to hear what was said of him and the admirable work he was doing in that country. No one had any object in saying what they did not think to a simple traveller like myself; but it was the universal opinion that England could have sent out no better representative than Lord Selborne; and it was also the universal conviction that if only things could be left alone, and South Africa could be excluded from these miserable Party quarrels, a brighter day was dawning for South Africa, and there was a hope, at not too distant a future, of the conciliation of the English and Dutch elements throughout the country.
  One word in conclusion. Lord Milner has been made the subject of violent attack. The noble Viscount is perfectly able to take care of himself, but as one who has tried to inform his mind and who has recently come back from South Africa I wish, on this occasion, to express my sense of the profound debt of gratitude this country owes to Lord Milner. When he went out to South Africa he had the intelligence to see what was at stake, and he had the courage and the resolution, in the face of much obloquy and much personal attack, to see that what was essential for the security of the Empire was attained. Though Lord Milner and Mr. Chamberlain are more than competent to take care of themselves, there are others whose homes are not in this country, and who are not here, who are also made the subject of violent attack. Only the other day in the other House of Parliament these men were called bloodthirsty moneygrubbers and were accused of having engendered the war. My Lords, let me tell you—Lord Roberts has already alluded to the subject—who some of these men are. They are the inhabitants of Johannesburg, they are those who raised, and many of them formed part of, that gallant regiment, of which the noble and gallant Earl on the Cross Benches has spoken—the Imperial Light Horse. Let me repeat what fell from Lord Roberts. Outside Ladysmith, on Wagon Hill, there is a monument put up by their comrades to those members of that regiment who fell on that memorable

  925
  6th of January. The words of the inscription are—
  "Tell England, ye who pass this monument, that we who died serving her rest here content."
  My Lords, they were content to die, and Englishmen in Parliament are content to call them bloodthirsty money-grubbers. I pray that we in England may not be unworthy of those whose graves are to be found far and wide throughout South Africa, but that we may put Party spirit aside, and with one consent think only of that which is for the real welfare of South Africa, for the extension of the British Empire, and for the honour of the British name.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, it seems to me that throughout the whole of this debate there has been a strange air of unreality. What is the course followed by noble Lords opposite? Questions are asked and then they are going, I suppose, to run away from their Questions. If even half the things said against us on this side by noble Lords opposite were true, they ought, in common decency, to have the courage of their convictions, and take the opinion of the House upon the question. Why do they not do that? They do not do it because they know that it would only emphasise the ineffectual strength of their majority here as compared with their insignificant minority in another place and in the country.
  The noble Viscount who has just spoken has in the most categorical way, and I am perfectly certain that he was speaking what he believed to be true, told your lordships that he had made inquiries from various responsible persons and from various responsible sources, and that he could not himself discover that the Chinese coolies had been subjected to any ill-usage at all. In the course of my remarks I am not going to make general charges or general statements, but to prove by the Blue-books, which I do not think my noble friend can have seen, that abuses of a very strong and grave kind have existed under this Ordinance. The noble Duke on the Front Bench opposite informed the House, I understood, that he had in
  926
  his possession various very disgraceful cartoons on the subject of Chinese labour. I have spoken on many platforms, I have attended a great number of public meetings, but I do not happen to have seen those cartoons myself, and, therefore, I cannot speak about them; but it is really idle to say that this feeling against Chinese labour was created by any extravagant cartoons.
  I do not think that your Lordships have sufficiently appreciated the very strong feeling that has existed, and still exists, in the minds of the majority of our fellow-countrymen against this Chinese labour. Reference has been made to Mr. Chamberlain. The Chinese cartoons evidently did not have any effect in Birmingham. Mr. Chamberlain has survived them, and he is, perhaps, the only great and distinguished Minister on the other side of the House who it can be justly said has a great democracy behind him. What is Mr. Chamberlain's feeling as regards this Question of Chinese labour? Mr. Chamberlain said only quite recently in the other House—
  "I for one am inclined to think that a good number of the votes—it is impossible to say what proportion—were undoubtedly given during the election upon this question—were given, not induced by the posters and pamphlets of which we have heard so much, out by sympathy with the view that this was the first step, or at all events a very important step, for introducing cheap competition with British labour."
  And Mr. Chamberlain himself, in the course of the same speech, went on to say—
  "I do not believe that Chinese labour is desirable in the mines of the Transvaal. I think that it may be necessary—I should certainly hold that that was not disproved—but, on the other hand, I say a perfectly reasonable man, bringing honesty and intelligence to bear on the subject, may very fairly take the other view."
  We cannot forget that it is imbued in the minds of our fellow-countrymen that this question of Chinese labour is not a mere domestic question confined to the Transvaal, but that if the principle is to be admitted in one portion of His Majesty's dominions it may be applied elsewhere. What did the noble Duke the Duke of Marlborough) say with regard to that? A debate took place in this House on March 18th. 1904, initiated

  927
  by my noble and learned friend Lord Coleridge. In the course of that debate the noble Duke said—
  "If an employer in this country was anxious to secure the services of foreigners under a system of contract no objection could betaken. Why should the thing be inherently wrong when the employer is in South Africa and the employee is a Chinaman? If the industry had been cotton or wheat growing, no one would have said that the demand for labour was based on morally bad principles, but because the individual concerned is yellow and the industry is gold-mining, a prejudice is created, not against the principle itself, but against the the nationality of the individual and the nature of his work."
  Now, I think if that extract from the noble Duke's speech had been, and perhaps it was, published in the form of a pamphlet, it is quite sufficient reason for the Conservative Party losing every county seat in the county of Oxfordshire. The noble Duke, speaking on behalf of the late Government, admitted that in their opinion alien labour, labour under the same conditions as exist under this Ordinance, might be and could be perfectly defensibly introduced into this country and applied not only to mining but to agriculture. That follows from the noble Duke's statement, and that is precisely what the people of this country felt in regard to it. They felt that it was not entirely a domestic question, and that if it was to be applicable to one portion of His Majesty's dominions it might be applicable to another.
  But, my Lords, there is a further very grave objection to this Ordinance. We find it stated in the Blue-books that these Chinese coolies were defrauded of their proper wages under the Ordinance. I refer to a despatch from Sir Somers Vine to the Governor, from Johannesburg, under date October 28th, 1905. This is very important, because in another place there were long and frequent discussions as to securing that the pay of the coolies should be proper and adequate. Let me quote from this despatch—
  "The Labour Importation Ordinance, 1904, Form I., Contract of Service, Section 6, reads as follows:—'If, however, within six months from the date of the said labourers' arrival in the Witawatersrand district the average pay of the labourers employed by the said employer under the said Ordinance does not equal 50s. for thirty working days, the rate should be increased from 1s. to 1s. 6d. for each working day often hours.' According to the above Contract of Service the wages of the first batch of 601
  928
  coolies on day pay who arrived at the mine at the end of September last year should have been raised in April, 1905; the wages of the second and third batches of 1,711 coolies on day pay who arrived approximately during the lass week in November, 1904, should have been increased in June, 1905; and, finally, the wages of the last batch of 746 coolies on day pay who arrived at the mine on January 2nd and 3rd ought to have been raised in July, 1905. But no rise in wages was made on any of the above dates, and the average pay of the labourers was far below 1s. 8d. at the end of June, 1905. The first batch of coolies, whose wages were due to be raised during April, advanced reiterated complaints to the effect that the mine was not paying to them the rate of wages as per term of contract. I wrote to this effect to the mine secretary on May 26th, 1905. I received an answer from him on the same day stating with reference 'to the increase of wages he (the Secretary) had arranged with the general manager to go into the matter at once.' Unfortunately, however, this matter, as far as my knowledge goes, was never taken into consideration."
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Will the noble Earl tell us what Paper he is quoting from?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am quoting from Cd. 2,788, pages 49 and 50.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Last year's Blue-book?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Yes. Sir Somers Vine goes on in the same despatch to say that the neglect on the part of the management to make good just complaints advanced by the coolies through him made his position as compound manager most undesirable and untenable, and it was owing to this that he felt compelled to resign. Now, my Lords, let us examine what is contained in these Blue-books respecting the ill-usage of the coolies. The first despatch to which I would refer is dated March 5th, 1904, from the Colonial Office to the Foreign Office. A question was arising then between our Government and the Chinese Minister respecting the protection of the Chinese coolies against possible rough usage. The despatch proceeds—
  "Mr. Lyttelton telegraphed to Lord Milner upon the five points especially referred to by the Chinese Minister. As regards the first of these points, Lord Milner replied that the proposal that the Consul or Consular Agent of the country of the immigrant shall have power to visit the mines and make representations to the authorities respecting the well-being of the

  929
  immigrant, is open to strong objection. He pointed out that the Transvaal Government is appointing a special officer as protector of indentured labourers, in whose hands I heir interests will be safe."
  The person appointed was a Mr. Evans. I should like to remind your Lordships that while this correspondence was going on between the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office, questions were constantly being asked in another place respecting the ill-usage of the coolies. Mr. Swift MacNeill asked the Secretary of State whether the refractory coolies were flogged and what they were flogged with, and the Secretary of State replied—
  "There are no cat-o'-nine-tails. The maximum of strokes inflicted with the cane, which is the instrument of whipping, would be twenty-four. The whipping would be given in the presence of the Governor or deputy-Governor of the prison, the gaoler, and the visiting medical officer, who certifies to the fitness of the prisoner to undergo the punishment. The sentence being by a magistrate cannot be carried out until the record has been sent to, and confirmed by, a Judge of the High Court."
  The noble Duke opposite, in perfect good faith of course, made a statement on July 20th, 1905, in reply to a question asked by my noble and learned friend Lord Coleridge, to the effect that the Secretary of State had frequently declared that he would be willing to inquire into any specific case of illegal flogging, but that he had not yet been able to verify any. Questions were being asked in Parliament, and the representatives of His Majesty's Government, I have no doubt in perfect good faith, assured Parliament that no illegal flogging was taking place. Now, what was really going on? A most remarkable telegram appears in the Blue-book from Mr. Lyttelton to Governor the Earl of Selborne, And in this despatch Mr. Lyttelton says—
  "At the end of August"—
  I would ask your Lordships to note that that is after Parliament had risen—
  "I received from yon a statement as to an arrangement which Mr. Evans, the late superintendent of foreign labour, had made on his own responsibility. There appears to be no record of this arrangement, and I accordingly referred to Mr. Evans for his account of it. He states that, realising as he did the impossibility of personally inquiring into every trivial offence, and the desirability of allowing a compound manager some authority over the men for whose order he was responsible, he informed the mine managers that in cases of breaches of discipline and trivial offences for which it was not con-
  930
  sidered necessary to prosecute, he would not interfere if slight corporal punishment … was administered."
  Mr. Evans goes on to say—and this is, I confess, a most astounding statement—
  "He (Mr. Evans) informed Lord Milner of his action, and Lord Milner took no objection."
  The noble Viscount is in the House, and I hope he will be able to make some statement in regard to this. Mr. Evans, the superintendent who was appointed to look after the Chinese, is stated in this telegram of Mr. Lyttelton's to Lord Selborne, to have instituted an illegal system of flogging, and we are told that he informed Lord Milner of his action, and that Lord Milner took no objection. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether that is true or not.
  VISCOUNT MILNER: I do not know whether I shall be in order in replying to the noble Earl now, but the matter has been called attention to in another place, and I think it might be convenient if I were to state exactly my recollection. It is no doubt true that I was informed by the superintendent of foreign labour—an official whose services had been placed at the disposal of the Transvaal Government by the Home Government because of his long experience in a Colony where Chinese coolie labour was the rule—that he had found it necessary to allow the infliction of corporal punishment on the mines in certain cases. I understood from him that the punishment inflicted was of the nature of caning, that it was never inflicted for offences such as desertion or refusal to work, or anything of that kind, but only for acts of violence and disturbance to order which it was thought necessary, even in the interests of the coolies themselves, promptly to repress, and that he was confident that it was within the power of himself and his staff to prevent any abuses. That being the view of the man who was appointed to protect the interests of the coolies, and whom, I may say, I had found on every occaion to be fearlessly zealous and devoted in the defence of their interests, I did not interfere. I fully recognised that I took upon myself the whole responsibility. I think, in the light of subsequent events, that I was wrong, because, whatever the drawbacks might have been of not having

  931
  prompt repression of such offences, abuses might arise from allowing the. punishment in any case. This was immediately before I left the Transvaal. Shortly after I had left the Lieutenant-Governor heard reports that on one or two mines ill-treatment of coolies had taken place, and he immediately prevented all corporal punishment whatever at any of the mines. If I had been there I should have done the same.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The noble Viscount has made a long statement in reply to a direct question, but he has admitted that he sanctioned illegal flogging. I should like also to recall this point in connection with that. I would ask your Lordships' attention to a despatch from the Colonial Office to the Foreign Office under date March 5th, 1904. To quote from this despatch—
  "With regard to the second point raised by the Chinese Minister relating to corporal punishment, Lord Milner pointed out that any labourers imported would be amenable to the law of the land, by which everybody, including whites, is liable to corporal punishment for certain offences, but no corporal punishment would be allowed except for such offences, and in these cases would only be inflicted after trial and sentence by a magistrate or judge."
  I maintain that it is a monstrous thing for the Lord High Commissioner to make a statement of that kind, to deal in that way with the Chinese Minister, and then to sanction illegal flogging. I rejoice that my right hon. friend the late Secretary of State for the Colonies did not for one moment allow his mind to draw a distinction between what is called slight corporal punishment and flogging, for in the telegram from Mr. Lyttelton to Lord Selborne which I have already quoted Mr. Lyttelton goes on to say—
  "I profoundly regret that corporal punishment, however slight, was authorised without the safeguards of the law, and that the matter was not brought to my notice as Secretary of State before it was authorised. Mr. Evans appears to have held that it was possible to draw distinction"—
  As indeed the noble Viscount has attempted to do—
  "between slight corporal punishment for disciplinary purposes and flogging, for which the Government was bound to prosecute if brought to its notice. Such a distinction cannot be maintained."
  After all, what is this slight corporal punishment to which the noble Viscount
  932
  refers? Lord Selborne, in a despatch, to Mr. Lyttelton., dated December 9th, 1905, said—
  "Now it is not denied, and indeed I have already informed you, that prior to June, 1905, illegal corporal punishment after trial by the mine authorities was widely resorted to as a disciplinary measure on the mines of the Witwatersrand; and it cannot be disputed that where administered it was administered, in the manner described in Mr. Boland's letter."
  Now, my Lords, what is the manner described by Mr. Boland in his letter, of the punishment for which Lord Milner is responsible. I will read it. It describes the method of procedure in laying ort the punishment—
  "A coolie is reported either by a white shift boss or by a headman for an offence. He is called into the compound manager's office, charged, and given a fair trial (except where the compound manager does not know the Chinese language and has to trust to his yellow interpreter). Then the sentence is passed by the compound manager—ten, fifteen, or twenty strokes, according to the crime. The coolie, with a Chinese policeman on either side of him, is taken away about ten paces. Then he stops, and at the word of a policeman, drops his pantaloons, and falls flat on his face and at full length on the floor. One policeman holds his feet together; another, with both hands pressed firmly on the back of his head, looks after that end of his body. Then the flagellator, with a strip of thick leather on the end of a 3 ft. wooden handle, lays on the punishment, severely or lightly, as instructed. Should the prisoner struggle after the first few strokes, another policeman plants a foot in the middle of his back until the full dose has been administered."
  That is the kind of abuse which went on under the Ordinance, illegal flogging which, we are now told, received the sanction of the High Commissioner. I must apologise to the House for the necessity of reading so many extracts, but in a matter of this kind one cannot be too careful or exact in substantiating as one proceeds each and every step, and it is in the Blue-books themselves, that the strongest condemnation of the Chinese Ordinance is to be found.
  These Blue-books justify the feeling in this country and our predictions when in opposition. The conditions under this Ordinance, whether you call them slavery, or, as the Prime Minister did on March 21st, 1904, in another place, so like slavery that they are almost indistinguishable, do differ fundamentally from those in every other Ordinance

  933
  of indentured labour in their denial to the labourer of all rights of citzenship, of all that is essential to human progress as well as to personal liberty. I cannot congratulate the Opposition on being very valiant. Why do they ask questions and then run away? But be that as it may, we have no occasion to resent this debate. It has enabled us to clear up what the noble Viscount described as the paralysing uncertainty of the financial position in the Transvaal. It has afforded us an opportunity of declaring that we will, neither directly nor indirectly, under any circumstances, acquiesce in the acceptance, for an indefinite time, of this Ordinance, but that, so long as we are responsible for the conduct of affairs, any Colonial legislation corresponding to that of this Ordinance and inconsistent with our best British traditions, would unquestionably be vetoed, not only by the inherent power invested in the Grown, but by express instructions given to the governor.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, before I deal with the matters under discussion, I should like to express my dissent from the view of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War that there is any air of unreality about the debate. The noble Earl denounced the Members of your Lordships' House on this side for having sarted a debate upon which they were afraid to divide the House. The noble Earl has sat on various sides of your Lordships' House, but this is the first time he has occupied a seat on the Front Government Bench. I venture to think that if he had had a longer Governmental experience he would have known that it is not usual to divide the House on a question as to matters of fact such as that brought forward by the noble Viscount who introduced the debate.
  I think there is no one in your Lordships' House who will contradict me when I say that the debate which has taken place has been not only most interesting and instructive, but most important. The questions raised by the noble Viscount are undoubtedly of enormous importance. The noble Viscount speaks not only with a sense of responsibility, but
  934
  with a practical knowledge of the affairs of South Africa which in my opinion no one else possesses. He ventured with perfect justice to warn your Lordships of the state of affairs that might follow if the policy which he advocated, and which was supported by the Government of which I was a member, is not carried out. He spoke those weighty words of warning to His Majesty's Government because he believed that if they departed from the policy which he had pursued there might be absolute ruin in South Africa. It would be presumptuous on my part to attempt to drive home the arguments which were put forward so ably and eloquently by the noble Viscount; but at least I can express a hope that His Majesty's Government will take to heart the opinions he laid before them and will not enter into any rash or ill-considered policy in regard to South Africa. Any such policy would destroy for ever the results achieved in recent years in South Africa by the blood of those who died in the war, and South Africa would go back to the condition in which it was after Majuba.
  My object in rising is not to address myself to the question of the future Constitution of the Transvaal. I leave that to those with more practical knowledge. In regard to the subject of Chinese labour there cannot be the slightest question that both before and during the general election misrepresentation was rampant in the constituencies. The noble Lord who spoke first this evening declared that the Conservative Party must have a very poor case if they were defeated on account of the exaggerated statements made in regard to Chinese labour. May I say that I hope the Conservative Party will always have a poor case rather than deviate from the path of truth? I would rather see the Conservative Party in opposition for the rest of its existence than that we should return to power through misrepresentation. It cannot be denied that there was gross misrepresentation on this subject. Now, when the election is over and it is a little ate to do it, members of the Government show the greatest anxiety, whenever opportunity occurs, to dissociate themselves from the use of the word "slavery."

  935
  It is curious to note the particular way in which leading members of the Government dissociate themselves from this now somewhat unpopular word. With the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council it is only "a descriptive term"; the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister alludes to it now as "servile conditions," while the Undersecretary for the Colonies uses the most remarkable expression "terminological inexactitude." But the strongest repudiation came from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he stated yesterday that he deeply regretted that the term had been used. I would like to ask whether Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman concurs with the noble Earl in that expression of regret, and whether the supporters of His Majesty's Government who sit below the gangway in the House of Commons, headed by Dr. Macnamara, also regret the use of the term, or whether they adhere to the word "slavery" or the Prime Minister's phrase of "taint of slavery."
  What, I would like to ask, is going to be the future of Chinese labour in South Africa? We have had no definite statement on that question from any member of His Majesty's Government either in this House or in another place, aid I think we are entitled to have a declaration on the subject from a member of the Government before the debate closes. I find it very difficult indeed to reconcile the statements of the Under-Secretary and those of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what the future of Chinese labour in South Africa is to be; and I am certainly at a loss to reconcile the speeches which were made in opposition by the Under-Secretary with the speech he delivered the other day in the House of Commons. In the extract which I am about to read occurs the name of Sir Edward Grey, and may I say with what respect and affection Lady Grey was held by all who knew her and how deeply we sympathise with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his great bereavement? Speaking at Manchester, I think in October, the Under Secretary for the Colonies said—
  "He thanked Sir Edward Grey for his outspoken statement on Chinese labour. It was
  936
  clear from that declaration that should a Liberal majority result from the next election the importation of Chinamen into South Africa would cease, and that meant that within three years the whole of the yellow coolies employed on the Hand would be repatriated to their own country."
  That, I thought, was a remarkable statement, and it seems to me that it would require a large sum of money to repatriate all these people. It would be well to ask at whose expense they were to be repatriated. To my amazement I read the following statement made by the Under-Secretary in the debate in the House of Commons—
  "He could not doubt that a sudden arbitrary exportation of one-third of the labour supply in South Africa would produce an utter economic collapse."
  It is impossible to reconcile the two speeches. No doubt the Under-Secretary as an independent Member addressing a vast Lancashire audience said more than he meant. But I hope some noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will inform us how it is possible to reconcile these two statements. I think myself it would have been fairer if the present Prime Minister had ascertained the position of Chinese labour before leading the country to believe that the Liberal Party were pledged to recall this Ordinance.
  The supporters of His Majesty's Government have described Chinese labour as "slavery." If it were so, is not almost every other civilised Power practically open to the same charge? I think the Government are realising that they went a little too far in the statements they made when they were a free people in opposition. Labour is absolutely necessary in South Africa, and no other labour can be found. Are His Majesty's Government going to allow the country to be impoverished simply because they will not permit the employment of a certain class of labour willing to do the work? The resources of South Africa are very great, and it is only by developing those resources that in future we can obtain any return for the vast sums of money that have been expended on the country. The labour question is a difficult one. I am myself a large employer of labour, and I know full well that the easier it is to obtain labour the cheaper is the cost of production and the cheaper the price at which tie articles can be sold. My noble friend Lord Harris

  937
  dealt with this question last night, and put to the noble Earl the Secretary of State a question which he did not answer, but which I think should be answered tonight. Lord Harris asked whether the Government, in order to be consistent, would interfere with the recruiting of Kaffirs from Portuguese territory. He pointed out that the Portuguese Government had recently stipulated that they would only allow the recruiting of Kaffirs in Portuguese territory on condition that at the end of their engagement the Kaffirs should be returned and should not be allowed to take up other work in the Transvaal. I hope that an Answer will be given to Lord Harris' Question before the debate concludes.
  The general impression created in this country by speakers who denounced Chinese labour was that the compounds in the Transvaal were merely wretched palings, that they resembled the village pound in which a strange donkey is occasionally imprisoned. I read in the Saturday Review yesterday—
  "The compound system was started some thirty years ago by the owners of the De Beers Mines, and nobody saw any harm in it until the other day, though the rigour of the De Beers regulations is far worse than anything the Chinese are subjected to. It is impossible to see any distinction in principle between importing coolies from China and in importing natives from Portuguese South Africa."
  Those statements I believe are perfectly correct. On this question my mind goes back to the speech of the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who waxed very warm in his denunciation of the compounds in which the Chinese were to be confined. Why was it, I ask, that the noble Earl, who complained so loudly of the compound system in the Transvaal in 1905, did not complain of the compounds at the De Beers Mines which he himself visited in 1901 and where the regulations are far more stringent? The fact is, these allegations were nothing but a Party cry for the general election. I should like to ask the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, like his noble friend, Lord Elgin, he regrets the allegation, or whether he adheres to what he said last year. I repeat that these allegations were nothing but a Party cry for the general election.
  938
  Noble Lords opposite will fine out—indeed they are already finding out—that it is a rash thing while in opposition to make promises and raise hopes that cannot possibly be realised. This is not the first time that England has been roused by the cry of cruelty for political purposes before a general election. In 1880 Mr. Gladstone won the general election on the Bulgarian atrocities cry. But the country afterwards realised what a victory of that kind meant, and the Chinese slavery cry will also be found out. These misrepresentations will recoil upon their authors, but in the meantime the Unionist party will not allow them to remain unanswered. I hope that my noble friend Lord Harris will raise this question again and again in your Lordships' House, and however unworthy I may be to do so he will always find me ready to follow him.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I understand, so far as I can gather from this debate, that the object of this debate is educational rather than constructive, and the method has been more by way of criticism than by way of suggestion. A noble Lord who sits on a back bench on the Opposition side made a speech in reference to the relations of this country with South Africa a short time ago, and I hope it will not be considered an impertinence on the part of a new comer like myself if I express my admiration of that speech, and also, although I do not concur with all of it, my concurrence with a good deal of it.
  No doubt when speaking of history he was right in saying that strange blunders are apparent as we survey the relations between this country and South Africa during the last 100 years. That is a proposition that will have general assent But the noble Viscount left the story half told; and I must say—I think I should be wanting in self-respect if I did not say—that, in my opinion, in this long series of blunders there never was a greater blunder than the policy of the noble Viscount which led to the war. It is not that I speak with any personal feeling whatever in regard either to himself or his motives. The noble Viscount spoke as if those who dissent

  939
  from his views were men who were enemies of their country-pro-Boers; friends of those who were enemies of their country. For my part, I am wholly indifferent, and I think myself that those of us who most unjustly sustained that imputation coupled with ostracism, five years ago, may look with some satisfaction now to this that the feeling of our countrymen is that, whatever they may think in regard to our wisdom, we acted with no unworthy motive. My own experience, after twenty-five or twenty-six years in the other House and with knowledge of a great many statesmen and leading men who have distinguished themselves in the service of the State is, that although they have made what may he thought mistakes, I have never known one who did not desire to serve his country sincerely. The noble Viscount has not, I think, been much concerned in Parliamentary affairs or he would not so lightly have adopted the shallow creed that men who differ from each other politically are not equally honourable.
  Now, this debate has been somewhat desultory and has covered a large field, but I will advert to two subjects only. The first is Chinese labour. I have always thought that Chinese labour was an ill-advised proceeding from the commencement, and from an economic point of view equally so. The people over the West of Europe have by a succession of generations of sacrifice and suffering gained a standard of living commonly called a living wage, and it means that they have succeeded in obtaining for themselves what may justly be called a position consistent with the dignity of labour. Now, when there are all kinds of facilities for the influx of Oriental races, what would happen if there were an invasion of the West by yellow or coloured labour on a large scale? Think for a moment what would happen it there were an attempt to introduce 50,000 or 60,000 Chinese into this country to compete with the standard of living that has been reached after the endeavours of generations of labour. It would not be tolerated in this country for a moment. All this sophistry, if I may say so, would be swept away instantly, and in no part of Europe would cheap Chinese labour be
  940
  allowed to compete with white labour; it would not be tolerated.
  I admit fully that this was a consideration that operated materially in the course of the late election, as I think Mr. Chamberlain said. The number of white men in the Transvaal is, I understand, something like 120,000, and into this is poured something like 60,000 Chinese against the wishes of Australia and against the view, twice expressed by a unanimous vote, of both Houses in Cape Colony, against the wish of New Zealand, against the opinion of Mr. Chamberlain, and against the unanimous protests of Liberals in both Houses of Parliament. Certainly there should be continuity of policy, so far as the policy is a right one and can be continued, and even to some extent, though it may be wrong, it may be desirable to continue it But this postulates that those who are in power in declaring their policy shall not stand to the ultimate edge of their extreme rights, and shall not use, as they did in the last Parliament, the whole weight of their majority to crush even remonstrance. That is not the way to secure continuity of policy, I submit. The way to secure it is to take into consideration fairly, to weigh and to respect, the opinions of your countrymen, even though you dissent from them.
  In the circumstances Chinese labour had not a very hopeful commencement. It had necessarily to be introduced, having regard to Transvaal opinion, under terms of restriction contained in the Ordinance of 1904, some of which applied to service in this country would be bad in law, because, contrary to public policy, they are in restraint of industry and legitimate trade. These things necessarily led to difficulties. The coolies escaped from the compounds, and deputations of Dutch and British represented to Sir A. Lawley that a state of absolute terror existed in districts near Johannesburg owing to foul and horrid outrages committed by these escaped coolies. Is it possible to suppose that the people of the country would be favourable to a state of things exposing them to terror by day and night?
  Another evil of a worse kind arising from this unnatural condition of labour is the tendency towards abuse and illegality. We heard only to-night an

  941
  llustration. The noble Viscount was asked whether he had sanctioned illegal flogging or corporal punishment.
  VISCOUNT MILNER: Not flogging.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And he said he had given his sanction. My recollection of the despatch in the Blue-book is that it was stated that if was impossible to maintain the distinction laid down by Mr. Evans between mild and severe corporal punishment. It was a flagrant illegality. I am quite satisfied of that, though I have no desire in the least to attack the noble Viscount. I have no doubt he had anxious responsibilities, and has no doubt some anxious reflections, but it is the fact that it was illegal, and it must be owned that he knew it. When I had the honour of acting for this country in the Venezuela Arbitration I remember the President of the United States, in answer to some observation, saying—
  The greatness of England and her high estate in the world does not depend on Waterloo or Trafalgar, but on the administration of English justice all the world over."
  Is it English justice when illegal punishments are sanctioned by the chief officer of the State? Mr. Lyttelton did, in fact, complain of this; in his despatch he said that during last Session he had been asked Questions, and had answered them as a man of honour and man of spirit, as did also the noble Duke representing the Colonial Office in this House, denying in perfect good faith the existence of illegal punishment. In the despatch of October, 1905, Mr. Lyttelton strongly complained that he was only informed of this illegality at the end of August, 1905.
  I come now briefly to remind your Lordships of what happened when that illegal punishment was put an end to, as it was in June, 1905, by Sir Arthur Lawley. A new Ordinance was introduced, giving sanction to trials by new judges-special judges, superintendents, and inspectors—who were appointed in order to protect the interests of the labourers. There may be good in that, I do not wish to offer hostile criticism of them, because they knew the Chinese, and it may be that there was a corresponding advantage; but
  942
  where were they to try? They were authorised to try in the mines without any publicity. It is quite true their sentences were subject to review, the higher sentences were to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and the lower, I think, by the Attorney-General. But it was a secret court on private premises; that is a thing unknown in the laws of England, as far as I know. Beyond that there was not only a court, but a prison to be kept in the mine—a lock-up. Then there were the collective fines, and the fine and imprisonment for any fraud or deception in the performance of work, in other words, for scamping. In addition to that—covering all that—is the illegality of the severe punishments described by Mr. Boland, which Lord Selborne stated in his despatch, I think, was "widely resorted to."
  The noble Lord asked me if I approved of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's description. I do, with all my heart. I say it was perfectly justified. There was a state of semi-slavery. In that I agree also with what the noble Marquess said who leads us in this House. I pass from that, and ask what are we to do? The noble Marquess indicated some doubt about our declarations. The first thing we said was there could be no more licences granted. The next thing was that we would cause to be altered the punitive and judicial portions of these Ordinances, which offended against natural equity. We also said that we would be prepared, at the expense of this country, to repatriate those who wished to return, not in breach of any contract, as the noble Lord who spoke second in this debate said, because by the terms of their contract they were entitled, upon the payment of their fares there and back, to return. All we said was that they should not be prevented from going back by want of means. I have answered the questions put to me as far as I can recall them. I have no doubt there will be other opportunities of answering inquiries.
  And now I have come to the last part of the subject with which I wish to deal, and that is the Constitution. We were warned in solemn tones by the noble discount of the dangers there were before us. Yes, there are dangers; such has been,

  943
  as I think, the unfortunate policy of him, and of those who acted with him, that the path is strewn by dangers. There are dangers, and he is one of the main authors of the dangers. All we have to do is to choose the path which offers least danger and the best hope for our country, if he will credit that any one who really differs from him in his opinion really loves his country. You have a country which has been overborne by the consequences of war, in which all the agricultural capital is destroyed—I am speaking from a despatch—in which most of the country is a wilderness, and there are trials and difficulties of all kinds. The country is endeavouring to pull itself together. You have at present Crown colony government. That is one alternative. Does any noble Lord think that they will long be content with Crown colony government in the Transvaal? It was given up by the late Government, on the ground—I am sure noble Lords will think I am putting it tenderly—that they felt that the pressure on the part of the population was so great that it could not with propriety, be perpetuated. Broadly, Crown colony government is hopeless. But I understand it to be suggested that we should continue to act as a kind of Providence to the people of the Transvaal, not letting them govern themselves, but governing them wisely, and so promoting reconciliation and amity in the future.
  It comes practically to this, that nobody is an advocate, in spite of the strong feeling there is in this House, of Crown colony government. What is the other thing suggested? Representative government by the Lyttelton Constitution. The difficulty of that, as of all other representative Governments which are not responsible, is that the responsibility falls upon the home Government, and the power of harassing abides with the Colonial Assembly. Let me just put this for one moment, in order that noble Lords may follow what a danger and difficulty there was. You were to have a representative Assembly with five or six nominated members, and thirty to thirty-five elected members. The elected members could do as they pleased; they had an enormous majority. They were not permitted to
  944
  displace a Minister, or to stop his salary, but they could stop supplies. That was the Constitution of the Lyttelton letters patent. I say that was dangerous in the last degree. It would have created friction far more than anything else; it would have meant three of four years of friction, or disturbance, and then all wise men would have said after there had been an interval in which racial and every kind of feeling would have been exasperated "the thing is hopeless. We must come to a responsible government." Therefore, that remained the only course. Before the war, this country was under some conditions regarding Imperial interference in regard to foreign policy. The right was largely exercised in the year before the war, peace was made, and a promise was given of responsible self-government now, or at some other time soon. That is to say, that after the fight you were to give a greater measure of freedom in the Transvaal than existed before the war itself. That is the net result of what I have always considered and called, and shall always consider and call, one of the greatest blunders of English statesmanship since the time we lost the American colonies.
  There is no human being who can suggest an alternative to responsible self-government. It was necessary to postpone for a few months the final cessation of Crown colony government. For the Lyttelton Constitution must not be judged as if it were applicable to responsible self-government. It was not so intended; if was intended for representative government. There is no mention of a second Chamber, either in the Constitution itself, or in the correspondence, so far as I have been able to see, antecedent to the Constitution. That had not been considered. Do your Lordships suppose that that could be considered in the time we have had? We came into office about December 12th; the first Cabinet was held on the 20th, then Christmas came and the general election. How could we in that interval bring forth hot-foot a new Constitution intended to be permanent? It was not possible. One thing to be considered was this question of a second Chamber; and another illustration of the necessity for

  945
  time, if the critics of the new Ministry would be kind enough to allow us a little time, is found in the question of the inter-colonial councils by which local bodies representing the two colonies are exclusively concerned with the railways, a chief source of revenue, and the police, another enormously important subject in connection with self-government. It is quite obvious that it was necessary to take a little time, in order to consider what should be the permanent form of the constitution we should entrust to the Transvaal.
  I do trust your Lordships, unless you are absolutely convinced that we wish to endanger our subjects in British South Africa, will think twice before encouraging in the Transvaal and South Africa generally the idea that we are the enemies of the men there of our own blood. It is not true; we are not likely to do so, but the notion is apt to get through the land if language of that kind is used by men, however sincerely they believe it. I have heard it said that Liberals and the present Ministers are men who are indifferent to the claims of their fellow-countrymen, and that they wish to gerrymander things in favour of the Boers. Nothing of the kind. There is no such feeling in the mind of any person I have ever met in political action during the whole time I have been in public life; there is no such party. This Little England party does not exist except in the imaginations of those who have not studied the facts. We all desire to maintain the greatness of this country. We desire it by different means only because we think the means suggested by our opponents are unwise, and that experience shows them to be unwise. The noble Viscount himself admitted that there was more than one way of dealing fairly with this question; and I can assure your Lordships—I know it of myself and I am sure I can say it for the Government—that there is no desire to be unfair to any section of the community in the Transvaal. We wish to see, and we trust we may live to see, the consolidation of the white races in that country living peacefully and contentedly under the British Crown. We are prepared to do our part, and we are convinced that the only lasting founda-
  946
  tion, the only corner-stone for a great and enduring structure, is that of absolute justice.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, perhaps I may preface what I have to say by congratulating the House upon the addition which has just been made to its debates by the noble Lord on the Woolsack. I am not surprised at that speech. For many years I have had the honour and pleasure of the noble Lord's friendship, and I can only say that I cannot imagine anyone better suited to sit where he is now sitting than the noble Lord.
  My Lords, some complaint was made, I think, by the noble Lord the Earl of Portsmouth that there had been no form of Motion, and it was suggested that we had avoided, because we were afraid to exhibit the divergence between this and the other House, formulating a Motion which would cause a division. I cannot help thinking that it is a very fortunate circumstance that there is no Motion to be put. I can assure the noble Lord who has just spoken that he is quite mistaken in supposing that there is any general belief, or, indeed, any belief, that either he or any of his colleagues are desirous of doing anything to the injury of South Africa or of this country. That is a delusion into which he has fallen by reason of some words which fell from the noble Viscount, but which—I think I can answer for the noble Viscount—were not directed to him or to any of his colleagues. As to whom they were directed I will say a word in a moment. But the reason why I think it is a fortunate circumstance that we have no definite Motion before us upon which your Lordships might be asked to divide is that I regard this debate as a very serious and solemn warning to those who are now charged with the interests of this country that they should—not indeed in a hurry, as the noble Lord seemed to suppose we were anxious that they should—but that they should deliberate well and carefully, and consider seriously such warnings and evidence as we have had in this House, before arriving at any conclusion as to what constitution is to be given to these colonies.

  947
  No one could have listened, I should have thought, without feeling the very serious responsibility which rests upon your Lordships, to the words which fell from the noble Viscount or to the remarks of the noble Earl Lord Roberts to-night when he pointed out the dangers which would be imminent in the event of the Transvaal's being transformed into what is practically an independent Government, with two-thirds of its population in hostility to this country. If war should again break out—and when one speaks of perils it is well to deal plainly, and that is what one means—if war should again break out, I should like to know with what face would any English Party meet the country, which, after such warnings as we have had from the noble Viscount and from Lord Roberts, had given a constitution to that which would be a hostile country, and which had the means of gradually preparing for such a war as it would not be easy for this country to meet?
  Although there has been no form of Motion put forward, there have been discussed two or three subjects of very divergent importance. Considering the grave perils which have been pointed out I do not think that the question of what produced the majority at the last general election is of very great importance. The question which I think urgently requires to be considered is—What is now to be done? It is very difficult indeed to resist the temptation of the argumentum ad homines when we remember what has been represented as the conduct, of affairs in South Africa, and when we rind that, having succeeded to power, the Party opposite are unable or unwilling to put right what, if things were as they represented them to be, it would be their bounden duty at once to bring to an end.
  I am told that it has been announced in the House of Commons to-day that there is no intention at present to rescind the regulations in the Chinese Labour Ordinance under which the coolies are kept in the precincts of the mines. That is no doubt wise and prudent, but, of course, it is an almost irresistible temptation to us on this side, to-day, to say, "Then you cannot believe the things
  948
  which have been said"—I do not say which your Lordships said, but which were said on your behalf, and which must h have greatly influenced the country in the conclusion at which they arrived. If it were true that slavery existed under d the British flag, it was the bounden duty of those who succeeded to power to put an end to it. But they do not believe it; it is not true. And then the noble Earl h Lord Portsmouth spoke about its being a proper thing to consider that the people n who said it was slavery really believed what they said. It is all very well to be so charitable, but did the people who believed it know anything about it? If they did they could not have believed it, because it is untrue. I must say that I recognise the candour and frankness with which the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies spoke of his regret at the statements which have been made in this respect.
  But, my Lords, although I admit that the temptation to the argument against our opponents is almost irresistible, I think the great question is, what is now to be done? I am very glad that noble Lords opposite are not to be tempted, now they are in office, to crystallise the view which they had on the subject, as they might be tempted to do if they were; driven to a division. I cannot help feeling that the manner in which this, question was dealt with at the election, the cartoons, and so on, is calculated to make one think too little of the real inportance of the question brought before us by the noble Viscount, and I was much surprised that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the just and moderate observations which he made, should have applied himself almost exclusively, if not entirely, to the remarks of Lord Harris. I do not deny that this subject might have been made the subject of another and distinct debate, but the questions which I should have thought most demanded an authoritative statement on the part of the noble Earl were the questions brought forward last night by the noble Viscount Lord Milner, and to-night by my noble friend Lord Halifax. Is it possible to hear those statements, without thinking of the enormous importance of what they have pointed out—and pointed out by reason not of vague statements in the newspapers or by

  949
  correspondents, but of their own knowledge of the real feeling of the country and of the real necessities of the case.
  My noble friend on the Woolsack pointed out more than once that the state of things necessary there would be so intolerable in this country that nobody would submit to it. I quite agree with him. It is quite true. But does that prove that they are not necessary there? He spoke as if the condition of the mines and of the dwellers in the Transvaal was the same now as it was originally. I think he forgets that the feeling of the country is now entirely the other way, and what we are asked to do, or what we should be asked to do—not that I believe that noble Lords opposite will affirm it—would be to go entirely against the feeling of the country. All the evidence goes to show that the whole of this industry, and therein is the material prosperity of South Africa, depends on the supply of labour; and one universal piece of evidence is that except by the application of Asiatic labour, which happens to be Chinese labour, you cannot get a sufficient supply. So that the problem is this—whether or not, with the knowledge that there is a possibility of a completely prosperous and contented people, you are to interfere, because it would be inappropriate to the conditions of this country, with the supply of labour, and prevent the development of that which is the sole source of the prosperity of the Transvaal.
  That, my Lords, is one of the questions which arise. I confess that it is hardly worthy of the dignity of the discussion of what I have pointed out as the question of real importance in this matter, but it is a mistake to speak of this as "slavery" or "semi-slavery." One would suppose from what one hears that indentured labour was something perfectly new, and that nobody had ever heard of it before. That is a great mistake. Again I do not want to adopt the argumentum ad homines that other ordinances have been agreed to not very dissimilar from that which is the subject of debate here. But it is one of the ordinary courses of the events of human life that such labour should be required. Different countries in the initial stages
  950
  of their existence not only have had, but have actually required indentured labour, and would never have risen to the position they afterwards occupied without it. Therefore, when this particular thing is so denounced in the condition in which South Africa was, one looks to see what it is of which complaint is made.
  Now, my Lords, if the Chinese had come without any Ordinance at all and had I been hired by the mine-owner, I have a strong suspicion that they would have been under much less restriction, that I they would have had much less opportunity of knowing what their contract was, and much less opportunity of insisting upon their rights. Great care has been taken to prevent their being put into such confinement as has been suggested. Indeed, I believe one noble Lord in a previous debate in this House actually used the phrase that the Chinese coolies were kept in cages. That was a little misapprehension. But what are the circumstances of the case? The Chinese are invited to go; the contract is explained to them. I do not understand what my noble friend means when he refers to "the mode" in which they are taken to South Africa, as if they were not perfectly free agents and perfectly well able to understand what they are doing. When they get there they are certainly under some restrictions, but let me say that there has been some ridiculous exaggeration about the infringement of the principles of liberty. It is always a popular thing to refer to the principles of liberty. In this country it is naturally a popular topic. But did my noble and learned friend never read—indeed I know he has read with great diligence—the Merchant Shipping Act; and is he not aware that under that Act if a sailor makes a contract he may be arrested and sent to prison if he refuses to carry out that contract? I can imagine a person saying, "Look here; here is a man who has broken his contract, and you are sending him to prison for so doing." What is the difference? I suppose any reference to "the nature of slavery" would not be justified, but it might be said, "Oh, in reference to sea-going industries you must have some considerable power over persons who engage; there are questions of the safety of life,

  951
  and so on." But, unfortunately, besides being liable to imprisonment while he is on a voyage, when absolute obedience may be necessary for the safety of life, a sailor may, as I have pointed out, be sent to prison because he refuses to go to sea. What shocking tyranny! What an abominable infringement of the principles of liberty that when a man has entered into a contract you should actually arrest him, and send him to prison because he will not perform his contract! If the question were raised in the Transvaal by those who wanted labour, and we were to interfere with their having that labour, it is not at all impossible that the Merchant Shipping Act might be quoted against us. The last Merchant Shipping Act was, I think, passed in 1894, so that probably my noble and learned friend had something to do with the construction of it.
  I do not want to lower the tone of the debate which the noble Viscount has initiated, but let me say one word about a misapprehension which I think was in the mind of the noble Earl Lord Portsmouth. I have heard a great deal on the subject of cartoons. Surely the noble Earl, and also the Secretary of State for the Colonies, must have been remarkably blind during the somewhat lively times of the recent general election not to have seen some of the cartoons to which reference has been made. It is very odd, but, of course, I entirely accept their statement that they did not see them. Most of us, however, saw a considerable number of them. What is complained of is not, I think, the fact that the people took a strong view of the Ordinance itself. But how many of the electors of this country do you suppose have ever read the Ordinance, seen what is in it, or known what is or is not authorised by it? Undoubtedly a very strong prejudice was caused in the public mind. And when one hears about the public verdict having been given on this, that, or the other question, is it unknown to noble Lords opposite that one particular allegation may run through the whole country, and create a very strong prejudice, although there may be not the slightest foundation of truth for it? I think the history of human delusions would contradict such a view.
  952
  Now, my Lords, what was it that these placards said? It was not that the Ordinance as it existed was tyranny or slavery, but that the state of things was such that the persons who contrived these cartoons and placards and distributed them broadcast in every part of the Kingdom declared there was actual slavery, that people were actually in chains, and that they were actually being driven by slave-drivers with whips and thus made to perform their work. That was the allegation made, and that allegation undoubtedly, so far as the placards were concerned, was perfectly true. I do not understand, therefore, what the noble Earl means by saying that people may take different views of what the Ordinance said, that it was said to be slavery, and that a great many people believed it to be slavery. Yes, they did, because they had not read the Ordinance, and because there was a persistent desire to misrepresent what the Ordinance said, and a great many ignorant people were misled by those statements—mere statements of fact as they were presumed to be—into doing injustice to their fellow countrymen.
  But it is not only a question of the effect upon the voters and the possibility of their having been misled; the question was, and is, what has been the effect of this in South Africa? There are those who are certainly disposed to make mischief between the mother country and the Colonies in South Africa. I do not want to go back as far as my noble friend did into the question of the war and who caused it. It is enough to say that since Majuba everybody has recognised the fact year after year that war was absolutely certain sooner or later, and as war was inevitable sooner or later it has been the intent and object of a large party in South Africa—in the Cape especially, and elsewhere—that the war should take place under such circumstances as that this country should be defeated.
  Now let me point out to my noble friend to whom it was that the observations of the noble Viscount were addressed. They were not addressed to him; they were not addressed, I think, to the Liberal Party generally; but they were addressed to those who are agitating in South Africa at this moment, and whose sole object is to put this country in conflict with her

  953
  own Colonies. These are the persons to whom the noble Viscount referred, and I must say that in my view anybody who aids and assists the idea that this country is not anxious to do all it can for its own Colonies is aiding and assisting a most mischievous nucleus of conspirators against the liberties, the interests, and the prosperity of the Transvaal.
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I do not know that I should have ventured to trouble your Lordships with any remarks this evening had it not been for the fact that I desire strongly, with regard to one part of the subject which has been under discussion, to test the question by a test which has not yet been applied to it, and to show as it has not yet been shown what very large concerns entirely outside the immediate question of South Africa are affected by the subject-matter of the debate.
  I cannot but regret that two questions, each of which well deserves the consideration of this House for a whole evening, should have been blended into one, and I think that that blending has led to some slight confusion of thought on the part of certain noble Lords who have addressed the House. The noble Viscount who opened the discussion delivered an elaborate, an eloquent, and a forcible speech, but I cannot say that to my ear it sounded as perfectly dispassionate and impartial as he himself gave it the credit of being. But let that pass. It is not my intention to enter at any length upon the speech of the noble Viscount, but I may make this one remark. It carried me back to the days of my early boyhood. More than sixty years ago I was in the habit of attending the debates in this House, and in those days, in the early forties, I heard the whole of the noble Viscount's speech—every part of it. The doubts and fears with regard to the possible consequences of the step that was to be taken, the passionate appeals not to desert British subjects or put them in a position of inferiority were the same. The encouragement of rebels, the danger which might ensue from the accession to high office of a man who had been in rebellion against the Queen were then as now insisted on—all these things came back to my ear as they had then fallen, not
  954
  indeed from the noble Viscount, but from Lord Lyndhurst. To be sure, the name of the rebel was then Papineau, and the alien race whose possible injury to the British element in the Colony was deprecated was French, not Dutch, but with those two exceptions the arguments used were almost precisely the same, and the dangers threatened were just those which were indicated last night.
  Then, my Lords, there was yet another resemblance between those past debates and that which is now taking place. To-night an illustrious soldier has risen in his place and told us that he should be deserting those who had deserved well of Great Britain if he did not defend their cause, and plead against anything which could diminish British ascendancy in South Africa. So, too, sixty years ago a great soldier—a soldier whose eminence the noble Earl Lord Roberts would be the first to recognise—the Duke of Wellington, treated this House to an exactly similar speech with regard to the loyalists of Canada. Well, my Lords, the Government of that day had the courage to disregard those vaticinations from however illustrious a quarter they came, and I congratulate the present Government on their courage in doing the same now. We all know what happy results have followed that action of a former Government; we all trust, and I for one confidently believe, that similar results will follow the action of the Government of the present day.
  That is all I will say with regard to the speech of the noble Viscount Lord Milner, and I will only add a word on the topic to which his speech was chiefly devoted. Another noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, in a very eloquent and interesting speech has given us an account of the state of things which he saw in South Africa. I do not question the accuracy of his eyesight; that it is not the point with which I wish to deal. It is with the noble Viscount's account of the Constitution of the Colony that I wish to deal, and I thank my noble friend Lord Halifax for the, I believe, entirely unintentional support which he gave to the action he was opposing. He gave us a long list of the errors and blunders that had been committed, and he told us how it was that those errors

  955
  and blunders had been committed. Because we had not taken into account the views of the people of South Africa themselves. That is precisely what the Government now propose to do, and in that long record of blunders made because the Colony was unable to speak its own free will the noble Viscount has put forward the strongest argument that can be adduced in favour of the grant of responsible government to the Transvaal.
  But, my Lords, though I think these observations are such as I am entitled to make, I do not think I should have risen merely for the purpose of making them. That which leads me to address your Lordships to-night is the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I do not wish to enter into any controversy with him or with any other noble Lord about the details of the Ordinances which have been passed in the Transvaal, whether this or that particular provision is a good or a bad provision, or whether it is one which has been enacted before or not; I am not inclined to enter into those details, at any rate, on this occasion, although my disinclination is not due to any lack of power to do so or any inability to show how entirely inaccurate the noble Lord's view of the matter is.
  What I propose to do is this. There are a certain number of fixed general principles which underlie and govern all the older Immigration Ordinances—I believe I may say every Ordinance prior to the Transvaal Immigration Ordinance of 1904. Those principles are laid down in a series of Despatches from successive Secretaries of State, ranging over a period of some fifty or sixty years. The series begins with despatches from the late Lord Grey, some of them addressed to the father of my noble friend Lord Harris, who was one of my predecessors in the Governorship of Trinidad, some addressed to the Governors of Jamaica, of Mauritius, and of other Colonies; they were followed up by despatches of a similar character from the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Kimberley, and the late Lord Derby, and were supplemented by most valuable Reports of the Immigration Commissioners. All those documents laid down certain principles, and by those
  956
  principles every Ordinance during that long period of years was governed and regulated. All the provisions of those Ordinances are in consonance with those principles.
  Now, my Lords, let me enunciate those principles one by one, and see in each case whether the Transvaal Ordinance does or does not comply with them. The first principle laid down by Lord Grey and the Immigration Commissioners I was that under no circumstances was immigration of foreign labour to take place unless it was clearly shown to be imperative and rendered necessary by the impossibility of obtaining other labour in the Colony. It was expressly ruled that it was not to be introduced for the purpose of bringing in cheap labour. It was to be brought in only if other labour was not procurable; otherwise supply and demand were to be left to I regulate themselves. It is a matter of; discussion and opinion whether that principle has been observed as regards the Transvaal. I will not say, for I really do not know, whether in the case of the Transvaal that condition has been complied with. I am inclined to believe that it has; that is to say, that the necessity has arisen for the employment of foreign labour. But whether I think so or not is not the point. Has the condition laid down by the Secretary of State and adhered to for half a century been complied with or not? On that point I am willing to give the Transvaal the benefit of the doubt. At all events, I say that the Transvaal itself, and the Legislature of the Transvaal, when constituted, are the proper authority to decide that question. Let them decide whether or not it is necessary to employ foreign indentured labour, and if they decide that such employment is necessary, then my first condition is complied with.
  The second principle enunciated in the documents to which I have referred is that the recruiting of the labour is to be carried on by the Colonial Government or its agents, and that the transhipment of the immigrants to the Colony is equally to be under the control and direction of the Government. On these points, though they are not the same, I do not think there is sufficient difference between the Ordinances of other Colonies and that

  957
  of the Transvaal to justify the raising of any serious opposition.
  Then what is the next principle? This is a very important point, and one to which I would ask your Lordships' special attention. One essential condition of allowing immigrants to be brought on shipboard from any foreign country to a Colony was this—that every shipload of immigrants must—not might, but must—be accompanied by a proportionate though not an equal number of women. Has that principle been carried out in the Transvaal Ordinance? We know perfectly well that it has not, and yet those who know perfectly well that it has not been observed declare that there is an identity between the Transvaal Ordinance and the Immigration Ordinances of other Colonies.
  So much for the voyage. Then comes the landing and what follows after it. The principle laid down is that no restrictions are to be imposed upon the immigrants arriving except such as are absolutely essential to ensure the performance of the contract. Does the Transvaal Ordinance agree with the other Colonial Ordinances in that respect? No, my Lords, it does not; it essentially differs from them. The restrictions imposed by the Transvaal Ordinance are avowedly and openly imposed not only for the purpose of securing the execution of the contract but for quite another purpose, namely, the segregation of the new arrivals from the people of the country. There is another great breach of established principle. I feel, however, bound in honour to admit that, from all I hear from those who have come back from the Cape after having examined the condition of things there, I believe that law is not carried out as it might in strictness be; I believe it has been found to be unworkable, and that it has consequently been practically abandoned. The Chinese are not confined to their compounds as it was expected they would be and as by law they might be. [A NOBLE LOED: Hear, hear.] But that does not at all diminish the iniquity of the law. Its non-observance is not its non-existence and so long as it exists and may at any time be enforced it is in
  958
  flagrant opposition to previous usage. Let the noble Lord who cheers that statement remember the Answer given in the House of Commons by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies—one of the most appalling Answers ever given by a Minister of the Crown. When asked about the dangers that might arise from a half-caste population, the Minister replied that there would be no half-caste population, that there could be none, because these men were all to be locked up in their compounds. Therefore I say that it is no mitigation to say that the law is not observed; the fact remains that the law was passed and still exists. That, then, is another principle I which has been violated.
  But there is another point. The principle laid clown was, as I have said, that no restrictions were to be imposed except such as were absolutely essential to secure the observance of the contract; that otherwise these men were to have the rights of free men, and when their contracts expired they were to be at liberty to reside in the country and to take up any pursuit they pleased. The Transvaal Ordinance not only repatriates the coolies, but it ' prohibits them from undertaking any trade or business, and absolutely prevents them from rising in the least degree even in the servile position which they occupy. There is a long list of names of employments at the end of the Ordinance, of the meaning of many of which I have not the slightest idea, but they evidently mean the lowest kinds of employment above absolutely unskilled labour in the mines, and for none of these employments is the immigrant eligible. There, again, I believe the law has been broken. I am told that the Chinese do occupy some of these positions, and I am very glad to hear it. But if they do so, it is not in consequence of that law, but in despite and in breach of the law. That does not make the law any better. As for taking up any trade or pursuit that is absolutely forbidden and the prohibition strictly enforced. He must not hawk a basket of fruit, much less do a job of carpenter's work, under the severest penalties.
  I have wished, first of all, to point out the principles which, as I have said, have for

  959
  fifty years been applied to this kind of legislation; secondly, to point out that in almost every respect those principles have been violated by the Transvaal Ordinance; and, finally, to ask how, in these circumstances, it can be maintained that the Ordinances of the West Indies and of the Transvaal are practically identical? I am sure that those who have maintained that view have done so in perfect good faith. Mr. Balfour, the late Prime Minister, has asserted more than once in his speeches that the Ordinances were absolutely the same. No one can doubt that Mr. Balfour is absolutely incapable of saying anything which he does not firmly believe. But Mr. Balfour has had a great deal of business to attend to, and I have no doubt he takes his opinions from reports which have been made by others without going very minutely into the subject. Otherwise I should say that when noble Lords on that side of the House twit His Majesty's Ministers with inaccuracy in regard to the appellation of slavery, they might just as well be twitted themselves with the monstrous inaccuracy of saying that two things which are absolutely different are identical. From the calm retreat of the Cross Benches—the retreat of age and neutrality.—I at least am not open to any of the imputations which have been cast upon His Majesty's Government with regard to the use of the term "slavery." I have never said that coolie labour was slavery; on the contrary, I have always maintained that, properly managed, coolie labour is an advantage both to the employer and to the employed. But—and I do not stand alone in this view, as I shall show presently—it has dangers which render it necessary that it should be always carefully safeguarded and watched, and those dangers lie in the insidious approach to slavery to which any system of indenture must, if not rigidly controlled, be liable. His Majesty's Government are reproached for saying it has a taint of slavery. That reproach lies equally upon almost every Secretary of State who has administered the Colonial Office during the last half-century. What did Lord Grey say in his original despatches when he first sanctioned the immigration system? He said that in many respects the system of indentured
  960
  labour is marked by "the incidents of slavery." The "incidents of slavery"—not that it is slavery. What did Lord Kimberley say? He said that it had "a flavour of slavery." Now, my Lords, for the life of me I cannot see the difference between the "flavour of slavery" and the "taint of slavery." A taint is a flavour, and when you say that a thing is tainted with something else it is quite clear that the thing which is tainted is not the thing with which it is tainted; therefore if it is tainted with slavery it is not slavery itself.
  That, my Lords, would be my own feeling about the matter. I have had a good deal of experience, as some of your Lordships are aware, in dealing with coolie labour, and I must say that there was always in one's mind the dangers which arise from this—I must not call it "taint of slavery," but from this approach to the confines of slavery. It was that and that alone which rendered necessary such constant watching of the system. In so many ways things which appeared perfectly harmless to begin with degenerated into abuses, which were on the high road to slavery, if they did not reach that point. I do not wish to weary your Lordships, but let me give one illustration of what I mean. There was a provision in many Ordinances—as I believe is the case in the Transvaal Ordinance—allowing immigrants to re-indenture before the expiry of the original indenture. That seemed a very harmless provision, because the re-indenture had to be entered into before a magistrate at the free will of the immigrant. The immigrant could no doubt decline to reengage, and the magistrate would, of course, refuse to make the re-engagement. But what would be the condition of such an immigrant for the remainder of the period of his indenture? I do not think his position between the time of his refusal and the termination of his original indenture would be a very happy one. That was the weapon by which re-indentures were so conveniently obtained, and the Secretary of State subsequently found it necessary—and Lord Kimberley was justified in so doing—to prohibit any re-indenturing until the expiry of the then existing indenture and the coolie was a free man. The coolie could then go

  961
  before a magistrate as a free man, and say of his own free will whether or not he would be re-indentured. That is an example of a harmless provision which may easily be abused unless a constant watch is exercised.
  Now, my Lords, having gone through the principles which have been laid down, and having shown how they apply to the Transvaal Ordinance, I would like to assure your Lordships that I have spoken, not from any love of Chinese immigrants, and especially not from any Party feeling, because on these Cross Benches I am independent of Party, but from a feeling that this question affects not only South Africa, but all Colonies in which indentured immigrant labour is employed. Perhaps all your Lordships do not know as well as those who have been governors of such Colonies know how great a pressure is always brought to bear for further restraints to be imposed upon immigrants and further licence to be granted to employers. That pressure is very strong, and when it is seen that, in the Transvaal, Ordinances have been allowed to pass which are so different from those in force elsewhere, the people concerned in other Colonies will say, and with a force which it will be difficult to resist, Why is this? If these things are permitted in the Transvaal, why should they not be permitted in the West Indies, or Mauritius, or Ceylon? I confess I do not see what satisfactory answer can be given. If they are allowed in one place, why not in another? But if any weakness is shown you will find that the whole of the legislation which has been in force for the last half-century for the protection of immigrant labour in these different Colonies will be gradually whittled away until little of it is left, and there will be displayed that taint of slavery which is alleged to exist in the mines of the Transvaal.
  But I go further still. It is not only for the coolies of the West Indies, of Mauritius, and of Ceylon that I would speak. I wish to speak also for the white population of those Colonies. I believe there is nothing more degrading, more debasing, or more deteriorating to a population than to have in its midst a servile labour system tainted with "the incidents of slavery." The present Secre-
  962
  tary of State for the Colonies will doubt? less re-echo that sentiment, for I am sure he has not forgotten the language used by his distinguished father, who wrote these words—words which gained the more force from the knowledge of what he was, it being known that he was no sentimentalist—
  "It is a terrible thing, this living among inferior races; it makes one fool as if Christianity had never come into the world."
  For these reasons, unwilling as I am to trespass on your Lordships' time, I have ventured to point out what are the principles laid down in hundreds of despatches written by successive Secretaries of State during the last fifty years, and I have shown in how small a degree they have been complied with in the case of the Transvaal Ordinance, and how great may be the mischief to other Colonies, and to our own race in those Colonies from resulting evils.
  There is but one thing more. I feel that I owe this remark to the noble Viscount Lord Milner. I am sure we all felt sorry for Lord Milner when he avowed that he had sanctioned an illegal act. But, my Lords, having heard that avowal from Lord Milner, I, as an old Colonial Governor, feel bound to say that I have more than once committed acts that were illegal; and I believe that there is no Governor who, in wild districts and under exceptional circumstances, has not violated the strict letter of the law. I, therefore, have great sympathy with Lord Milner, feeling that most of us, if we had been in his position, might probably, had we dared to do so, have done the same.
  THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I venture to address your Lordships on this subject because I am one of those who have had the advantage, which many of your Lordships do not possess, of a considerable residence in South Africa. I have lived in the Transvaal under the régime of President Kruger, and I have also spent some time in the northern parts and in Rhodesia I rise because I feel that those of my friends who are working for the advancement of the Empire in those territories would imagine that the charges which have been levelled against them had

  963
  been received with a degree of apathy by their friends in this country if I, as one of those friends, did not say a few words on the subject under discussion.
  The noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War stated that he had never seen any of the cartoons which depict the condition of the Chinese as that of slavery. I should like to refer the noble Earl to a speech which he made on 3rd January last; I was not present at the meeting so that I cannot say whether there were any cartoons present, but the noble Earl said—
  "The Government there was now in the hands of a trust obtaining wealth by servile labour."
  Although the cartoons may have been absent, I think the intention of the noble Earl was that those who heard him should believe that a state of slavery existed. I am rather nervous of trespassing on this question after the eloquent remarks of the noble Lord on the Woolsack; he will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said in the course of his able speeeh that certain conditions which he mentioned were those of slavery. Although the noble Lord asked us to Relieve that everybody in this country was animated with the same objects and the same sympathies, I am afraid that those words of his will carry to many people in South Africa, who have as deep a sense of honour as any Member of your Lordships' House, the suggestion that they have been engaged in real slavery.
  But I will pass from so unsavoury a topic to the question of whether or not this indentured labour is necessary. I am not one of those who believe that indentured labour is the highest class of labour. I do not think that it is. I know from experience that the mines in the Transvaal are incapable of being carried on as commercial undertakings where the majesty of labour is commensurate with the pay of the individual. The figures placed so ably before your Lordships by the noble Lord who spoke second in this debate render it unnecessary for me to deal with anything except broad principles. If every native labourer in the Transvaal, both yellow and black, was to be done away with, and the labour could possibly be supplied by whites at the reduced pay of 5s. a day, it is an economic fact
  964
  that the mines of the Transvaal could not be carried on. People in this country are apt to think that gold-mining is one of those pursuits that an individual can enter with his sack empty and come away with it full. The days of the Californian and Australian gold fields have given people a glorified idea of the value of gold-mining. Relieve me, gold-mining in the Transvaal has to be worked down to the very finest point, and unless that point can be reached it is impossible for the immense trade which this country derives from the supply of mining machinery which is exported annually to the Transvaal to be carried on.
  Then there is another point in the speech of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War to which I would like to refer. He said—
  "Then as regards the economic side. The wealth extracted from these mines was sent right out of the colony, while nothing was spent for the improvement of the colony."
  Surely, my Lords, he could hardly say that if he had given this question much consideration, because the wages spent in the Transvaal and the expenses of the management represent 75 per cent, of the output of the mines.
  Another point which the noble Earl raised was the moral point, and I am certain there must be a misprint in the report from which I am quoting, for he is reported as having said that—
  "The white population of the Transvaal was under 100,000 and that according to the last Return given to the House of Commons on January 10th, 1905, there were then 300,000 Chinese in the Transvaal."
  The noble Earl must have meant 30,000. But I presume that he now subscribes to the terms used by the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party in this House, or perhaps he did not intend to use so strong a term in reference to—
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I entirely affirm what I said then. I used the words "semi-slavery" or "servile conditions." Perhaps they are stronger.
  THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: I was not pressing it.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I only say that I entirely adhere to what I said then.
  THE MABQUESS OF WINCHESTER: Quite so. A question has been raised by the noble Earl with reference to the repatriation of the Chinese, and I should like to refer to a passage on the subject which appears in the Blue-book. Sir Richard Solomon, who, I believe everybody will agree, has never been in favour of Chinese labour, said—
  "I do not believe the Government would, by the policy proposed, be involved in any large expenditure, if only those coolies were repatriated who really desired to return to China and remain there; but I do fear the expenditure might be large for a very different reason which I shall presently proceed to state. I must also point out that it would be contrary to human nature if, after the Government had undertaken this liability, any coolie who desired to be repatriated admitted that he possessed any savings for the purpose."
  I think Sir Richard Solomon has correctly summed up the character of the Chinese coolie. I do not think it is in the "human nature" of the "Heathen Chinee" to disclose the amount of money which he has about his person when it comes to a question of his return to China. I am afraid this provision will be freely taken advantage of by the Chinese. I have had some experience of the Chinese; I have known them in California, and I know that you need never look out for them: they are perfectly certain to be able to look out for themselves. The Chinee, who is not unintelligent by any manner of means, will probably say to himself: "I came here on the undertaking of the gentleman with whom I have contracted to return me to China. The British Government step in and say that they will send me back. I would sooner take the guarantee of the British Government than wait until the end of my contract and then be returned or not, as the case may be." In that event, is it not possible that a very large number of Chinese coolies may desire to go back at the expense of the British Exchequer? Under the Ordinance, when the term of their contract is expired, they will be returned at the expense of the individual for whose benefit, as it is said, they have been imported. I do think that noble Lords opposite should give us some definite information upon this point, because it is a matter which much exercises the minds of people both in Johannesburg and in this country.
  966
  I do not wish to weary noble Lords by going into speeches delivered in the past, but the noble Lord on the Woolsack referred to the deputation to the Lieutenant-Governor of the Transvaal headed by General Botha. Every one of the Dutch was eloquent on the subject of the immediate repatriation of the Chinese, but I notice that since then—on 23rd February—General Botha has made a speech, in which he said—
  "A little clique will no longer be allowed to dominate South Africa; the mincowners and the Chinese will be kicked out if the outrages continue, but every industry must be supported and receive as much labour as possible."
  He then went on—
  "Whoever imported labour must probably control it."
  If responsible government is given to the Transvaal is it not quite possible that the Transvaal itself will under certain circumstances approve of indentured labour? I think it is most probable that they will. My experience of the Dutchman is that he is quite as capable of appreciating the opportunities of making money as the Englishman. The young Dutchman likes to live not only near, but in, a town, and he is not singular in that respect, for we find the same thing in this country. There was a Deputation to the Lieutenant-Governor which brought forth appeals from all the Boers present that the immediate repatriation of the Chinese should be carried out owing to the outrages which had been perpetrated by the Chinese. I believe that the number of those outrages is eight. The Lord Chancellor has told us in most eloquent language that he felt for these people who lived in such abject terror. I can remember the time when in Johannesburg the white people existed in a similar state; when they went out to dinner they did not dare return alone, because of the drunken Kaffirs in all directions. Many white men and white women suffered from the outrages of those drunken Kaffirs, but Parliament looked on very quietly; and nothing was said. But that has all disappeared into the history of the past, and it is not worth reviving, but while the noble Lord was speaking I could not help thinking of the feelings which animated numbers of the white

  967
  residents in Johannesburg at the time when certain outrages occurred then.
  I do not wish to say anything to arouse feeling, but remarks were made by the noble Lord with regard to the system of government instituted by the noble Viscount who initiated this debate. I have seen Lord Milner at work previous to the Bloemfontein Conference; I saw him also in the dark and stormy days of January, 1900, and I can only say this—that if England always has men to come forward and defend her honour and to rule her possessions with the firmness which Lord Milner exhibited during his long period of service in South Africa there is no fear of England's falling in the race of nations.
  The EARL of HARROWBYsaid there was very little fresh or new to be said upon the subject. It had been discussed very fully in the Press and in another place, and more especially had it been discussed the last two nights in their Lordships' House. They had heard most excellent and weighty speeches from Lord Milner and Lord Harris, which he hoped would be read with care throughout the length and breadth of the country. He ventured, however, that night to appeal to their Lordships on both sides of the House, and he found himself in rather a difficult position, because he proposed to strike out an entirely new line, and to speak more technically. He would speak, if he might, as a banker and a business man. He would venture to speak on behalf of British shareholders and British trade and labour. He might say at once that he held no brief for, nor was he concerned with the so-called millionaires or the South African magnates. He had no sympathy with their procedure in carrying on their operations. They deserved, or some of them, deserved, to his mind, all the hostile criticisms which had been levelled against them. He knew that this agitation, as Lord Harris had said, was not only against the gold-mining industry, but he realised that it was an agitation against the gold gods of South Africa. He thought that some of their Lordships, some of the Members of another place, and the country generally were under a serious mis-
  968
  apprehension. They talked of the mine-owners, but there was no individual ownership of the mines. The mines belonged purely and simply to the shareholders. The question of Chinese labour did not affect the millionaires half as much as it affected the numerous body of English shareholders. Mr. Burns had fallen into that trap. He would repeat a few lines of the speech which that right hon. Gentleman made at Battersea after Mr. Balfour's defeat, and in reference to His Majesty's late Cabinet Ministers. He said—
  "The cause is that the country is wearied of being governed by the tricksters of the sporting world, by the riff-raff of the Stock Exchange, and by the general body of wastrels returned to office and power in 1895."
  He had yet to learn that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Marquess Lord Londonderry, two of His Majesty's late Ministers, were riff-raff of the Stock Exchange and wastrels. There was not a Labour Member in another place who would have used the language which one of His Majesty's Cabinet used the other day. He would not insult the Leaders of the Government opposite for one moment by supposing that they would wish to be associated with that language, used by one of their colleagues. They were told by those outside that the owners of the mines were millionaires, Jews, and rich men, but, if they took the trouble to inspect the share rolls of the South African mines, they would find 10,000 owners of shares in South Africa and 55,000 foreign shareholders, but they would find that there were 200,000 English shareholders, consisting of an over-whelming majority of small holders, and those were the people on whose behalf he ventured to address their Lordships. It was perfectly true that before the war nobody invested in the South African mines except as a speculation, but after the Colony came under the British flag people bought as an investment, and he could assure their Lordships that when the country was conquered a large number of investors bought shares in the various South Africa companies, because they were told—and could they wonder at it—that there were hundreds of millions in the bowels of the earth to be got out, and that it only depended

  969
  upon the introduction of alien labour, the only labour available, to enable them to get that gold within their reach. Might he venture to call their Lordships' attention to the effect of the return of the Radical Government on what he would venture to call one of the greatest industries in His Majesty's colonies? What did they find? They found that forty leading South African mines since January 22nd had fallen to the amount of £18,000,000. That was a return that was given him a few days ago, and their Lordships would be conscious that ever since, day by day, there had been a steady fall. He could go further and look to this time last year. Forty-four of the gold-mining companies, representing a value of £145,000,000 then, had now fallen to £88,000,000. Surely that must be the cause of the greatest, anxiety to all thoughtful men. He took out the other day casually the value of a few of the leading South African shares, and he found that they had fallen by at least 50 per cent. He knew what it was from experience to find customers asking their bankers to renew their loans and to have to refuse them. He knew what it was when new loans were required and had to be refused. He knew the effect of diminishing balances and the effect of forced sales of stock. He knew the hardships of reductions of household expenditure, and he asked their Lordships to remember that he was not referring to those who could afford to lose, not to those who lived in the West end, but to masses of men and women with small incomes, clerks, governesses, etc., who had not speculated, but who had put their savings into an investment which they thought was safe. They might say that it was a speculation, but he denied it. A large number of the investors had invested on a 6 or 7 per cent, basis in the legitimate desire and expectation of getting a slightly higher rate of interest than they would expect from a so-called second-class investment. His point was that this serious fall was a danger. What was coming next? Would the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary look with equanimity on a further fall of other securities. This was the time for
  970
  the millionaires, who no doubt, now that I prices had fallen from 50 to 75 per cent., would come in and buy large blocks of mining securities. He would leave the question of the small investor, and if he was not wearying their Lordships, he would turn to a point which was perhaps of equal importance, namely, the question of the trade and the labour market of this country. He must apologise if he had to give a few statistics. He knew they were hardly permissible in debate, but they were of a striking nature and would go far to prove his arguments. His great difficulty had been to pick out a few figures which would not weary their Lordships, and which to his mind were very telling and very concise. He knew that he was probably addressing a large number of men who were interested in, and who understood, trading questions. The export and internal trade between this country and South Africa amounted to no less a sum than £50,000,000, and in machinery alone orders were given to the extent of £3,000,000. Already owing to the action of His Majesty's Government orders which had been given for machinery were now cancelled, and he would like to ask those constituencies who manufactured those goods what they thought now about the question of Chinese labour. What must appeal to them was that no less a sum than £5,000,000 was paid in wages to white men in one year, 17,000 I being employed, and that, owing to the production of Chinese labour, 5,000 additional white men were employed. That was the present state of affairs, but what were the possibilities of the future with sixty mines undeveloped, and with an output to-day of £20,000,000? They were promised by the experts—Lord Harris would correct him if he was wrong—that there might be an output of £40,000,000 a year. Did not that make them pause and consider the enormous possibilities of the future? He would not touch on the question of slavery. They had had it from noble Lords opposite that they did not think it was slavery; they had had it from the Prime Minister in another place that he did not consider it slavery, and they had had it

  971
  also from an ex-Radical Mayor of Northampton, who went out himself, who was a Radical candidate, and who was not in the House of Commons to-day, because he had the courage of his opinions. Then why, he would ask His Majesty's Government, this uncertainty, and why this penalising of a great industry? Probably some of their Lordships had visited San Francisco, and like himself had been conducted round that city within a city by detectives and had heard how the Chinese had made it one of the most prosperous cities of America. Why should not the Chinese make for this country the Transvaal, which had endless wealth and endless possibilities, which must redound to the prosperity of the working classes of this country? Might he turn for a brief moment and ask their Lordships to consider the financial effect of the restriction or of the abolition of Chinese labour? Their Lordships had only to read, and they would find that vast sums had been spent on the development of this great industry. If the Chinese were taken away, those hundreds of thousands of pounds which had been spent would be lost. Did His Majesty's Government intend or not intend to give the mine-owners, the shareholders, compensation for the enormous loss which would ensue? Let them consider also for a moment the loss of revenue to the Transvaal. The profit tax to-day produced £150,000, and the internal trade owing to the mines produced no less a sum than £4,250,000. Was the loss of that what His Majesty's Government could contemplate without some feeling of hesitation? They were told that immediately the Chinese were sent out of the country 6,000 men would be placed out of work. Lord Selborne, of whom the Colonial Secretary spoke in such kindly terms the previous night, said—
  "I do know that the amount of human suffering would be terrible."
  Surely that alone should make His Majesty's Government hesitate. Then as regarded the vexed question of labour, if their Lordships would refer to the Blue-book, they would find that the demand in excess of supply was no less than 129,000 labourers, and that a further number of 196,000 would be required in five years. The only genuine
  972
  opposition to his mind came from the Labour Members. He, for one, wished they would appoint a Committee to go out and investigate the question for themselves. Failing that, he wished they would discuss the question quietly with those best able to give them expert information. He could assure them that they on that side of the House approached the question with a sincere desire for the honour of their country, and with a sincere desire to promote the trade of the country, and to employ the surplus population which they were told existed in certain districts to-day. They might feel assured that they on that side of the House sympathised with them in their desires and aspirations, and time would show, and not a very long time, that they, the Members of the Conservative and Unionist Party, were, after all, as in the past, their truest and best friends. In conclusion, he would only ask the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his financial advisers in the city said upon the question, and he would urge, as Lord Harris had done, that if he could see his way to appoint an impartial Commission, they would be perfectly prepared to stand or fall by its decisions.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he could not very closely follow the remarks of the noble Lord. Although he had set up a strong plea on behalf of bankers who had to accommodate their customers and on behalf of shareholders who had invested in a security which had proved disappointing, he did not think those issues bore very directly upon the question before the House, whether the character of the labour under indenture in South Africa partook of the nature of slavery, or whether it did not, and how far individual members of the Liberal Party were responsible not for what they might have said, but for what other people on the same side might have said. One of the remarks of the noble Lord at the conclusion of his speech seemed to him to be not very conducive to the support of the champions of the South African ordinance. He told them how under the protection of detectives he went round San Francisco and had seen how the prosperity of that city and of California had been built up by Chinese immigration;

  973
  but in order to have made the case parallel to that of the Transvaal the Chinaman ought to have been shut in and restricted to servile work and not to have gone freely about San Francisco, following any trade. He therefore did not think the San Francisco experience was any encouragement for the South African Ordinance. There had been many questions put to Members on that side of the House, calling upon them under threat o penalties to disavow what other people had said on their side; and it seemed to him that the latest modification of the South African Ordinance had affected the minds of the noble Lords opposite. One of the later Amendments proposed to introduce something of the old Saxon system of Frank-pledge by collecting fines from all the miners if some committed iniquities and the others did not denounce them. He could not think that was a reasonable principle to apply here. Any person who had spoken on the matter was clearly responsible for what he had said, but he could not suppose that at the close of a heated election every per son was to be answerable for whatever anybody had said on his side. Intemperate, calumnious, unfair imputations had been made against the Liberal Party in the past, but that did not defend them in making intemperate, calumnious, unfair accusations on the other side; whilst he was quite prepared to defend himself, he did not think, having recollections of the way in which Liberals had been calumniated and blackened in the past, that it came well from those, who as a Party had used that intemperate language, to turn upon them. He would like to ask the noble Lords opposite if they did not remember a little more than twenty years ago how Mr. Gladstone was habitually spoken of in polite society not as the G. O. M., but as the M. O. G. He was sure noble Lords would remember what those letters were intended to indicate. Advocates of Home Rul3 had also been called traitors. His withers were unwrung, for he had ploughed a lonely furrow for twenty years because he did not join in advocating a policy of Home Rule, but he did think it was rather severe when a policy, however mistaken, was treated as treason. It was quite common for Mr. Gladstone and his followers to be talked of as traitors. He remembered
  974
  perfectly well the sort of cartoon which represented Mr. Gladstone and his friends as house-breakers and burglars because they disestablished the Irish Church. These things might be part of the humour of politics, and, if somebody had come forward and said it was an outrage to have described Mr. Gladstone as a burglar, the noble Lords opposite would have thought they were wanting in a sense of humour. Talking of this very accusation of slavery, they might, of course, describe a thing as slavery when they could not indict a man for it under the law; but, if the character of the institutions he supported partook of the nature of slavery, then he thought that in rhetoric a man might fairly use that compendious expression. To suppose that people did not understand the difference between a picturesque and rhetorical expression and a legal indictment seemed to him quite absurd. For his part he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that, although he had not stumped the country on the cry of "slavery"—he did not know that he had used the word—he agreed entirely with what had been quoted from Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man, that there was a taint of slavery, and with the Lord Chancellor that it was a kind of half slavery. The moment hey stepped aside from absolute freedom of contract between employer and employed, they took a stop towards slavery. They might have a serfdom which was not complete slavery but which they described as slavery, and they might have indentured labour which came very near to slavery, Whether, however, it was a mere rhetorical expression or whether the character of the indenture was so severe s almost to amount to slavery, he took that the question they ought to consider was, had the indentures and the law as worked in South Africa been inconsistent with the due rights of any free man, whether white or yellow? He was afraid the ordinary person they spoke to, and certainly the ordinary colonist they spoke to had a very different measure of the rights of white and yellow men. He was sometimes hocked when he heard people talk as though the people who originally inhabited South Africa had no right in that country

  975
  or to its soil except on the sufferance of white men. The noble Marquess who introduced the debate referred to the danger that they might forget the rights of the native Kaffir in being too zealous for the rights of the Chinese coolie. He thought it was in the dispatches from Lord Milner to Mr. Lyttelton, or from Mr. Lyttelton to Lord Milner, that mention was made of the terrible danger of passing into the greater inequity of compulsory laws which would force the natives of South Africa to work for wages for the white men. He quite agreed, and he should be sorry if they forgot that the rights of the natives while they ware busy thinking of the possible hardships imposed upon the Chinese immigrant. He was sorry to say that he had not been in South Africa, but he had taken some interest in the native question, and people familiar with the work of the Colonial Office would tell them that in the history of South Africa there had not only been no consideration shown by the Boers for the native races in the course of their conquest of the country, but that there had not been a sympathetic policy towards the native races on the part of the British whites of South Africa. He remembered that about 1880 or 1881, when the Government made over Basutoland to the Cape there was a campaign which lasted for two years, and he was happy to say Basutoland defeated the Cape Colonists and vindicated their independence. They were then warned to disarm Basutoland but when the Boer War came they were very glad that their policy had failed. He was sorry to say of the English race that when then was an attractive piece, of land for colonisation, the rights of Indians, of Kaffirs or of any other people were very little considered. He hoped the House, regard less of the rise or fall of shares in the market, regardless of the anxieties of the clients of City bankers, who sought relief in vain, would consider that the rapid development of the resources of South Africa ought not to take priority of a due regard for the rights and interests of the inhabitants of the country. He would like to mention one of the facts which came into the Blue-book and which to his mind showed that, with the best intentions, people, as the noble Lord on the
  976
  Cross Benches had said, who had to do with a community in which there were inferior races, gradually had their susceptibilities blunted, and were more solicitous for the rights of white people than for those of coloured people. They thus saw British officials, who ought to stand for justice, become a little warped and slide away from that standard of right which we in this country, not troubled with coloured races, were able to maintain. Lord Harris, in a speech the previous night, threw great discredit upon some persons mentioned in the Blue-book. He very justly stigmatised Mr. Pless as a person of infamous character and said he ought not be considered; but, when they read the Blue-book carefully, they would see that the more they stigmatised Mr. Pless the more they stigmatised the type of management which made him possible. It was Mr. Pless, who was guilty of this atr city, who had been for upwards of three months, not in full management, but a sort of Chinese manager of one of the most important mines, and the witnesses who told them of his bad character, told them that his mismanagement, his cruelty, and his incapacity had brought the Chinamen of that mine into a state of rebellion, and that it took a very great deal of trouble to bring them back to reason. Surely the worse they made Mr. Pless out the more discredit attached to the mine-owners who kept him in his position for some months when they knew that he was doing badly, and that to some extent the supervision provided by the organisation of the Government failed to detect this. Lord Harris also tried to throw discredit upon Mr. Boland, because he thought he had got his information from Mr. Pless, but he took it that the telegrams and dispatches from South Africa confirmed in substance Boland's charges. Boland said, not of his own knowledge, that he was informed by the person in the mine whose duty it was to record the punishments, that the floggings went on at the rate of forty-two a day, including Sundays. There was a direct denial to Mr. Boland, but, when it was watered down, it was reduced to a mere exaggeration. First they had to take the Sundays out; and secondly the floggings were exaggerated by 75 per cent. If noble Lords would make a calculation, they would see that the floggings admitted

  977
  by mine managers were twenty-four a day. What did they think of discipline which was maintained by floggings twenty-four a day? That in itself seemed to him to be a work of condemnation. He would like to know what the Home Office would think if the governor of a prison was unable to keep discipline without say ten floggings a day. Why, the governor would be sent to the right-about. In order to discredit Mr. Boland, they said that as a matter of fact there was no record. What were they to think of such a state of things going on for a twelvemonth? These punishments were taking place at the rate of twenty-four a day at one mine. No record was kept, and there were no means of knowing the exact amount. He thought this indicated far more seriously than the charge of Mr. Boland what was the atmosphere in which the mineowners were living, and how they were carrying out the discipline of their mines. Apart altogether from Mr. Boland, however, there was another witness whom nobody had attacked, and that was Mr. Bianchini. For more than a year he was Chinese superintendent in charge, responsible for seeing after the Chinese and reporting complaints. He was quoted on the side of the mineowners in an earlier part of the Blue-book in order to refute cither Mr. Pless or Mr. Boland, but a letter of his of October, 1905, was some indication of the atmosphere in the Transvaal. Mr. Bianchini, being an alien, would not come forward until he had a guarantee of fair treatment, because, if he said anything against the mineowners he feared that he might find himself deported from the colony. In October, 1904, he animadverted upon the way the Chinese were harassed, and writing again in October, 1905, he said that things had not improved. He gave a very long series of complaints, and what struck him was the reply of Mr. D. O. Malcolm, the Governor's private secretary, on page 56. The things seemed trivial in themselves, but he thought they were evidence of the disregard for the rights of the coolie which characterised the management of the mines. There was a man who had lost a limb early in the year, and he had not had an artificial limb, or his compensation, amounting to £5. The reply was
  978
  that the wound had not healed sufficiently till the latter part of August for the fitting of the limb, but that was no excuse for the fact that the coolie was kept out of his £5 till this trouble was made and Mr. Bianchini demanded it. Mr. Bianchini made another complaint that the coolies who were entitled after certain months' service to an increase of their wages to 1s. 6d. per day had not got it, and that, although he had raised the complaint repeatedly, no attention was paid to it. The answer was that somewhere in the month of October the mineowners admitted their liability and that payment would be credited. His Lordship wished to call attention to a point with reference to the 1s. 6d. a day, which seemed to him to be serious. In the older Blue-books they would find many urgent telegrams between Lord Milner and Mr. Lyttelton with reference to the limited rate of wage to the coolie. There had been a promise made of 2s. a day. He thought Lord Grey in that House said he hoped it would be 2s. a day, and 2s. was named. Representations were made—he called attention to it as long ago as 1904—and in all the discussions Mr. Lyttelton seemed to be pressing for fairer play to the coolies. He got no encouragement from the Colony, but was over-ruled, and from time to time he gave way. On this question of wage, however, Mr. Lyttleton said distinctly in one telegram, April 19th, 1904, that unless 1s. 6d. a day was guaranteed, there would certainly be discontent. The mineowners said that if it was absolutely necessary they would consent to 1s. 6d., and Lord Milner telegraphed to Mr. Lyttelton on April 1st to that effect. Afterwards, however, he telegraphed that it was not convenient and not desirable. More messages passed and at last Lord Milner telegraphed on May 4th—
  "The mineowners will guarantee 1s. 6d. to all not on piece-work within three months of arrival at mines."
  What scandalised him was that that undertaking was not carried out as they would see if they read Mr. Bianchini's letter. Nothing like 1s. 6d. was paid, and the time was raised from three to six months. Of course all the cosmopolitan capitalists and small investors were very keen about their

  979
  dividends, and the agents out in the Transvaal were trying to do their best for their employers. They knew quite well that white employers dealing with white labour would try to drive them as hard as possible, and that it needed the vigilance of the State to protect the labourer, and certainly in the Transvaal their only protection was the local government. No doubt Lord Milner was convinced that the financial and economic prosperity of the gold-mining industry was vital for the success, the stability, and the loyalty of the Transvaal, and consequently vital for the whole of South Africa, and that, therefore, he was bound to promote the interest of the mineowners as being the pivot on which the building up of South Africa depended. Habitually, all through the transactions between the Government and the Colony, whenever the Home Government tried and secured an advantage for the coolie, telegrams came back from the Transvaal appealing; and he saw that the Regulations distinctly and absolutely receded from the undertaking given on behalf of the mineowners in the matter of the 1s. 6d. He did not want to take up any more time of the House, but he thought he had given one or two points. In the case of Pless, his appointment reflected no credit upon the people who employed him in the mines; in the case of Boland, though there was an attempt to minimise and explain away his charges, yet substantially they were admitted; and in the case of Bianchin he thought the charges were strongly proved. There was one case mentioned by Mr. Bianchini to which he would like to call attention, because it showed the singular way in which in replies from South Africa the real point of a serious charge was utterly disregarded. There was a case in which five Chinese coolies were marched down from the mines and put in prison in a small corrugated iron building, six feet by five feet and eight feet high, and kept there for twenty-four hours. This was sent to South Africa for an explanation and the explanation was that the men were taken there to protect them from the violence of other coolies. That comparatively was an unimportant thing; the real question was why the people were confined in a space so disgracefully inadequate. It was quite possible to
  980
  measure the room, but there was no notice taken of the serious charge of confining people in a very improper place. Yet they were told that there was no case at all. The reply was—
  "Allegation, five coolies were confined with unnecessary severity: Lord Sclborne learns from the superintendent of foreign labour there is no foundation for this statement. They were removed from compound for their safety."
  That was not the question; the question was, what were the dimensions of the place in which they were confined. These were some of the points that could be picked up out of the Blue-books. Liberals said that the Ordinance was bad when it was under discussion in the House of Commons, but he also said that it appeared I to him to have been administered in a way unfriendly and unjust to the proper claims of the imported coolie. Lord Harris the previous day said that the coolie could not have been badly treated because out of 1,700 who had gone away, 1,500 had tried to go back again to South Africa. But if they looked at the Blue-book, who were they? One hundred and ninety-eight repatriated themselves at their own cost or by the subscriptions of their fellow workmen, and he did not gather that these tried to go back. The others were sent back to China long before their indentures were up, evidently because they were found unsatisfactory and unfit to work. That was evident from the fact that 1,400 of them tried to smuggle themselves back and were rejected at the Chinese port of shipment. They were useless people, probably unable to earn their living either in China or South Africa, and they no doubt thought they would be better off in South Africa than dying of starvation in China. As to the remainder, they were told that some hundreds had either died or had become incapacitated from sickness and could not go back. He did not, there, fore, think that the evidence with regard to those 1,600 or 1,800 showed much as to what the able-bodied Chinaman would do at the end of his time. But, as far as he could make out—and the testimony of Lord Halifax was to the same effect—Lord Selborne determined as soon as he got out to reform these things in every way he could. He could not see all the things

  981
  himself and must be subject to in formation he obtained from others; but as the noble Lord himself had said the Colonial Secretary relied upon him to help him in securing as good administration as possible. He had no doubt that, like the withholding of compensation, many things were being stopped and that whatever could be done under discipline and coercion would be done He was afraid that all through South Africa they could not find much sympathy with coloured and native labour but that the white population considered the coloured population was there to administer to their requirements, and were lucky if they were allowed to get a bare living while doing it; and he die not think that the fact that the Ordinance was now being administered with far greater humanity and care at all did away with its vices. He agreed with the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, and quite recognised that in a colony whew they could not get, white labour to do all the work, and where the bulk of it was done before by native, races, with proper safeguards and so long as they kept the door open to develop it as an English place, they might import some indentured labour; but, if they allowed indentures at all, they must allow them with the maximum, and not the minimum, of liberty compatible with the conditions of employment. There had been many times in the history of the world, when severe misfortune had driven people to barter their liberty for the sake of preserving their lives; but it was bad to allow such a thing to go on, and it was the duty of the English Parliament to say that such a state of things should not be allowed to continue.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsaid he rose with some diffidence on this the first occasion on which he addressed their Lordships' House, and he should not have intruded had it not been that in two ways he might claim to have certain expedience of the subject being discussed. During the very troubled time just after the Jameson Raid, he had the advantage of studying the politics of South Africa, and on a former occasion he was also in the Western States of America, in British Columbia, shortly after the passage of
  982
  the Chinese Exclusion Act. He was a witness at that time of the feeling between the races, and of the consequences which ensued from the employment of Chinese labour. The whole development of British Columbia had been worked by Chinese labour, and he could look back and say without prejudice that he did not believe America would be so advanced to-day in the Western States, or that the Canadian Pacific Railway would have been built in so reasonable a time, if it had not been for that labour. He could honestly say that the agitation here over Chinese labour was comparatively a small thing to the agitation in America. He did not know whether any of the noble Lords had had any experience of that agitation, but he could tell them that the Chinamen were robbed and murdered in the principal streets of the towns of, America, and that practically a social revolution took place. They could draw conclusions and have some idea from that fact as to what would happen if a large country, peopled entirely by white people, came into collision with a yellow race. There were, of course, two distinct features of the debate. One was the question of the franchise in South Africa, and that was to his mind, though not the more immediate, the more important question eventually; and secondly there was the question of cheap labour for the mines. He had always noticed in other places besides America, in Queensland for instance, that the early development of an undeveloped country had to be achieved by some form of cheap labour. It was really a stage in the economical development of a country. They had first of all to get their pioneer into a country. Then came the labour problem, and really the best kind of labour was the native labour of the country, but, if they could not get that, they must get the next best. They might take it, though he would not lay it down as a law against their noble Lordships, that it was an economic law that they could not develop a country without cheap labour first, and that they must go on with some kind of imported labour until they got cheap food, and until they got railways built, and facilities for reducing the cost of living. He realised that in the

  983
  Transvaal, as in the Western States of America, they could not proceed with railway or agricultural development, or with any kind of development at the first stage, until they had this cheap labour. He did not suppose any noble Lord hoped or wished that Chinese labour would endure for a long time. They were all agreed that in itself it was undesirable, but the question was, whether the Government we e going to cut off this necessary supply before they could employ white or other labour economically—he did not mean low-wages—for the, development of the country. Until they could do that they must put up with the disadvantage of cheap labour. He remembered that in British Columbia that certainly the most peaceable part of the mining population were the Chinese. He had the fortune or misfortune to stay for some time in a mine entirely worked by Chinese labour, and, whilst he had a good many things stolen by so-called Britishers or Americans, John Chinaman never stole anything of his. He could to that extent speak of the comparative honesty of the yellow races when so employed. The time came when living became cheaper, and the Americans thought they could work without the Chinese, and they were quite right in turning them out. After that, however, a period of depression set in for five or six years, and the value of everything depreciated. The mines ceased to pay, and there were various economic difficulties which were only got over after a time of great patience. In South Africa they were face to face with this problem at the present time. They could not live in Johannesburg under £1 a day, and that was too high a wage if the low grade mines were to be developed and made to pay. They would have to remain undeveloped, because they could only work high grade mines without cheap labour. They could not get sufficient Kaffir labour to fill up the difference. Some objection had been taken to Chinese labour on account of the fact that they did not take their wives to the Transvaal. They all knew that that was a disadvantage, and that if it were possible it would be an excellent thing to provide accommodation for their wives. If, however, they were going into that question, noble Lords should re-
  984
  member that the Kaffirs were polygamists, and he should be sorry to say that a man who lived in polygamy was more moral than a man who lived without a wife at all. The Kaffir worked mainly to buy oxen, and when he was in South Africa oxen were generally exchanged for a wife and he got back to his native village. He could quite understand that at the present moment it would be seriously against the interests of the mines and the development of South Africa to do away with Chinese labour. Some noble Lords had expressed surprise at the agitation which swept over the country at the general election on this question, but personally he did not think it mattered very much, at least not to any great degree, whether the electorate thought it was slavery or not. He was inclined to agree with the Lord Chancellor that they were looking further than the present day. There were two causes which operated against Chinese labour amongst the electorate. One was the trade union feeling, that if it was possible to have cheap labour in one colony it was possible in another, and that it might even extend to this country; and then there was the standard of comfort to which, the Lord Chancellor had referred. No one could be surprised at that sentiment, and, if it was ever imagined that Chinese labour could be introduced into this country, he had no doubt that noble Lords on that side of the House would be as much against the continuance of it in South Africa as noble Lords on the other side of the House. There was no suggestion except that Chinese labour was only a temporary way out of the difficulty in South Africa. Noble Lords had referred to the fact that the position in South Africa was unique, because Chinese labour was employed there. But in the Straits Settlements and in Queensland they had been employed; they had been employed by the Governments in building works, and they had in British Guiana and in other places been employed until it became possible to employ white labour. The really serious question seemed to him to be as to what His Majesty's Government was going to do with reference to the franchise. That seemed to him to be the really important question, because Chinese labour in three or four

  985
  years might be done away with without any extended disadvantage to the mines. If they were going to have a franchise which would put the British permanently in a minority, it would be an important matter. It seemed to him that the Government would be more than well advised to send out an impartial Commission to deal with the question of the franchise, including, if they liked, the question of Chinese labour. It was the most important question for the settlement of South Africa. If they put the franchise on the basis of population, it was obvious that the British interest must be in a minority, but if they put it on the electorate it was obvious, as far as they could see, that there would be a fair balance between the two races. He implicitly believed in the work of the noble Lord who opened the debate and thought that time would heal the difficulties in South Africa. He, therefore, appealed to His Majesty's Government to consider the question of the franchise even more carefully than the question of Chinese labour, and to see that the basis was one that would be fair to both races in South Africa. He should not have intervened in the debate had he not had experience in South Africa, but he did not think he was far wrong when he said he ought to warn their Lordships that unless His Majesty's Government treated the British settlers and British interests out there with the greatest possible consideration they might be face to face with a coalition between the mining interest and the Dutch, in which both sides would give something away and expect to gain something, and in that coalition they would agree—it might be an infamous or a just bargain, but he preferred to call it an infamous bargain—that they would ignore the influence of this country and practically cut themselves adrift. He was not saying this in an alarmist spirit, because he was the last person to take an alarmist view, but there was this serious danger. He knew for a fact that it was rising to-day, and he thought it could only be averted by sending out an impartial Commission which would settle the franchise on a fair basis.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the House is indebted
  986
  to the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches for having provoked a debate which has been one of the most interesting and instructive to which we have lately listened. His speech produced a deep impression on all who had the good fortune to listen to him. It has produced a deep impression out of doors, and I am tempted to say that it has not been without its effect upon His Majesty's Government. After listening to the speeches of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I cannot help hoping that, after all, the difference between us upon certain points is not so profound as might be supposed; and I certainly always in this House prefer to dwell on the points on which the two sides are at one rather than on those in regard to which they differ. I refer especially to what has been said with regard to the question of a new constitution for these two Colonies. There is complete agreement between us as to the goal at which we desire ultimately to arrive. We are at one in thinking that that goal is to be found in responsible government; and, if we differ, it is not so much as to the ultimate object in view as with regard to the pace at which we are to move and the means by which the goal is to be reached.
  The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack dealt with great force upon the objections to the particular form of constitution which the late Secretary for the Colonies had intended to confer upon the Transvaal. He pointed out that the kind of. constitution which we speak of as "representative" as distinguished from "responsible" government is illogical in its character and calculated to produce a great deal of friction. Those statements may be perfectly true. But, my Lords, there are worse evils than friction and the absence of logic. And I would ask your Lordships whether it has not been the case with most of our great Colonies that, before being given full responsible government, they have had to pass through a kind of probationary stage of representative, but not responsible, government in the full sense of the word?

  987
  I am under the impression that in the Cape Colony for eighteen years representative as distinguished from responsible government prevailed; and I believe that in Natal representative government prevailed for no less than forty years; and, although there may have been friction and inconvenience, I have not been told that the condition of things produced by a constitution of that kind was in any sense intolerable. I must say that it seems to me quite conceivable that, in a young community, especially when that community has been distracted by racial or Party divisions, there may be a great advantage in introducing at first a government in which the administration shall be, for a time, under the guidance of an independent executive. I believe that, in the history of our colonies, such guidance has proved to be valuable; and, therefore, I should not be so much inclined as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to brush on one side as unworthy of approval a constitution founded provisionally upon representative and not responsible government.
  As to the character of the new constitution, and as to the safeguards which might be introduced in it in order to protect the loyalist population from unfair treatment, it is quite clear that His Majesty's Government have not said their last word. The Prime Minister, unless I am mistaken, stated a few days ago that he desired to preserve an open mind upon some of these points, and that we were wofully in need of fuller information. The noble Earl opposite, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, speaking yesterday evening, told us that in his opinion time and inquiry were necessary; and, unless I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he, too, fully admitted the necessity of full time for the consideration of these difficult questions; and he gave us, with an earnestness which must have produced an effect upon those who heard him, an assurance that His Majesty's Government were fully determined that fair play should be given to all sections of the community in the two colonies. With those assurances I, for one, am contented, and I reserve my judgment until His Majesty's Government are able to
  988
  give us fuller information upon this all-important question.
  I could have wished that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had been able to give a rather more reassuring answer to the noble Viscount when he expressed a hope that we should be afforded an opportunity of criticising and discussing the new constitution before it was finally decided upon, The noble Earl did not absolutely refuse that request, I think he told us that he desired to obtain further advice upon the subject. That was, perhaps, a reasonable stipulation. He mentioned that no such opportunity had been given for the discussion of the Lyttelton Constitution; but then I would venture to remind him, in the first place, that the Lyttelton Constitution had reference to one colony only, and, in the next place, what is infinitely more important, that the Lyttelton Constitution was a provisional constitution, designed to cover a period of transition, whereas the constitution which His Majesty's Government are now elaborating for the two colonies is, unless we are misinformed, intended to bestow upon them full self-government and a measure of independence from which it, would be impossible for us ever to take anything back. I venture to express the hope that we may have an opportunity of offering our comments upon the proposals of His Majesty's Government before We are confronted with accomplished facts.
  Upon the question of Chinese labour I will not detain your Lordships more than a few moments, for it is a part of the subject which has been very adequately discussed. I think the noble Viscount must have been pleased to observe, as the debate proceeded, that one after another several of the positions formerly occupied by our opponents were gracefully evacuated. The full-blown charge of slavery, which we were told we had connived at in the interest of the millionaires, has been frankly dropped, although it has been repeated in a milder and more qualified form.
  We have, of course, never contended that the system of Chinese labour might not be attended by abuses. To my mind, when you introduce 50,000 Asiatics into South Africa you are not unlikely

  989
  to include a good many individuals who "left their country for their country's good," and there will be irregular and regrettable incidents occurring among them. It is probable at the very outset there were insufficient means for sifting the great mass of individuals who came forward as candidates for this employment; and, again, it would surely be a great deal to expect that among the persons employed in the supervision of the coolies, persons who were mostly themselves Chinamen, there should not have been some entirely unfitted for the duties which were thrown upon them. But, admitting all these things, it has been abundantly proved that the condition of things among these Chinese coolies in no way corresponds with that described last year in speeches delivered in this House by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and others who frequently took part in the recurring debates on the subject. The charges of confinement in cages, of crowded stockades, of barbarous and inhuman punishments, all these things, I am happy to say, have now dropped out of sight.
  Another charge, one difficult to refer to except in general terms, has also dropped out of sight. In the speech delivered by the most rev. Prelate and in those by other right rev. Prelates one point was repeatedly dwelt upon, and that was that these Chinese were likely to introduce into British colonies vices and habits calculated to bring permanent, and dangerous demoralisation to the whole community. I can find in the Blue- book no trace of evidence that these apprehensions have been realised, nor has this count lately figured in the indictment.
  As to the treatment of the coolies, there is ample evidence to show that on the whole it has been all that could be desired. Visitor after visitor has gone to the Transvaal and judged for himself, like Lord Halifax, who addressed the House with excellent effect earlier in the evening, and from one and all we hear that the grounds of former attack cannot be substantiated. The statement of the Secretary for the Colonies that there is no longer occasion for that inquiry into
  990
  the facts which many of us desired seems to me also to be conclusive upon this point.
  The noble Earl quarelled with my use of the wed "experiment," and he seemed to be under the impression that when I said that the importation of these coolies was an experiment I thereby committed myself to the view that the arrangement was necessarily a terminable one. My interpretation of the word "experiment" differs entirely from that of the noble Earl's. I used the word "experiment" as the equivalent of a shorter word, I mean the word "trial." You adopt a certain measure provisionally If it succeeds you continue it; if it does not succeed you withdraw it. Our case is that upon the whole, in spite of the difficulties which have been detected—most of them have been by this time remedied—the importation of these coolies has proved a success, and that, with proper safeguards, it may be allowed to prevail in the future. I think I may appeal in support of this contention to the fact that His Majesty's Government regard the system as not only tolerable, but as so tolerable that they are prepared to keep it in force for an indefinite time pending the grant of full self-government to the Transvaal.
  Now, I quite understood, at least I thought so, the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Chinese, labour as they originally explained it. They desired to amend the system; they desired to keep it provisionally in force, and finally to refer the whole question to the judgment of the colonial government. That was a perfectly intelligible policy. That was the policy proclaimed by several of his Majesty's Ministers, amongst others by Mr. Haldane, who, I remember, said that in his view, and in the view of his colleagues, the question was one of which they might "wash their hands," and which was to be handed over for final disposal to the Government of the Colony. But it now appears, after all, that the question is not going to be left to the final disposal of the Colony; and I must say that the utterances of His Majesty's Ministers upon that point seem to me to require some elucidation. It was explained by the Under-Secretary that when the Colony has become seized

  991
  of the question and has prepared its own proposals, if those proposals should prove to be unsatisfactory the co-operation of His Majesty's Government will be denied.
  The refusal of His Majesty's Government to co-operate would of course mean that the whole scheme of introducing Chinese labour would break down, because it depends for its success upon the good offices of the Foreign Office with the Chinese Government. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer went a great deal further, and intimated that not only would there be no co-operation, but that, if the arrangements proposed by the Colonial Government were not entirely to the mind of His Majesty's Government, they would be disallowed by the Colonial Office. So this is what it comes to. The matter is to be referred to the Colonial Government, but if the action of the Colonial Government is unsatisfactory to His Majesty's Ministers, its proposals are to be negatived. The slate is to be washed dean, and the existing regulations are, we understand, to be got rid of before the question is turned over to the Colony, but if the Colony chooses to write on the slate the exercise is to be sent up to the noble Earl for correction and may even be thrown back into the face of the Colonial Government. I must say that a more singular way of introducing the Transvaal to the advantages of complete self-government could scarcely be invented.
  Now the noble Earl told us the other evening what was to be the test of the admissibility of the colonial proposals. He said that they would be disallowed if they were found to infringe the right of freedom. There is a splendid vagueness about that sentence. We have had the vague use of the word "slavery"; we have here an equally vague use of the word freedom. I should like to ask whoever follows me in this discussion whether by freedom we are to understand the right of the coolie to roam unrestricted wherever he pleases, his right to settle permanently in the Colony, and his right to take up any trade or profession; and whether the word freedom also includes full political rights. These are very important points, because it is perfectly clear that if that is what is meant by "freedom" or even part of that, the Colony
  992
  will not take the Chinese coolies at the price. And, indeed, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House told us in his speech the other night, when speaking of the restrictions and disabilities imposed upon Chinamen, that if you were to have Chinese labour at all you were obliged to make these arrangements.
  Does it not come to this—that you are I going to confront the Colonial Government with this dilemma? They will have to choose between complete paralysis of the only great industry of the Colony—a paralysis the effects of which have been fully described by Lord Selborne in his despatch—or the admission of these Asiatics on terms on which we know perfectly well the Colonies are not prepared to accept them. That offer seems to me, if I may say so without disrespect, a somewhat disingenuous one. And. my Lords, is there not surely some inconsistency in this extraordinary hurry to confer fully developed self-government on the Colony, when we are at the same time denying to it the right of dealing as they please with a question which interests them more than any other, and with which other Colonies have been allowed to deal from time to time in the manner which they thought most appropriate?
  I will not at this late hour of the night attempt to examine the amendments which the Government are about to introduce, or have introduced, into the Ordinance. But I should like to say one word as to one of these amendments—I mean the new Regulation with regard to repatriation. We understand that you are going to I allow any coolie who sincerely desires to be repatriated to return home at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. What will happen when it becomes known among these 50,000 Chinamen that any man who is restless or dissatisfied, or home-sick can go to the authorities and ask for £17 10s. with which to pay his expenses back to China? I have always been led to believe that the Chinaman is a somewhat astute individual; and I anticipate that, when he finds that he can obtain at the expense of the country a sort of glorified week-end ticket to China, he is likely to avail himself extensively of the privilege.

  993
  These are all matters which might very well have been examined by a Commission if His Majesty's Government had appointed one, and I regret sincerely that such a Commission is not going to be appointed.
  To my mind the most hopeful feature of this discussion is the frank admission made by His Majesty's Ministers that more time is needed for the examination of these questions. I accept that statement with gratitude, and I accept with equal gratitude the assurance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that no pains will be spared to secure fair play to all classes of the community in these colonies. My only fear is that His Majesty's Government having, during the course of the election, and during the course of the debates in Parliament, as I conceive, committed themselves imprudently on this question, may find it difficult to avoid making good their words by action of a precipitate and undesirable character. Of this, I am sure, my Lords, that while the country will readily forgive them and their friends for any thoughtless and rash words which may have been spoken during the course of this controversy, the country will not forgive them if, in order to redeem these pledges, they inflict irremediable injury upon our South African Colonies or do a cruel injustice to the men who, as Lord Roberts told us earlier this evening, stood by us in our hour of need and were our gallant comrades in arms during the long struggle from which we are but now emerging.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I greatly regret that my noble friend who leads this House is still not well enough to take his place, and that in his absence one of his lieutenants again has to act for him. I hope it may not be very long before the noble Marquess is among us again. This debate has been in some respects of a rather singular character. In reply to my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, the noble and learned Lord opposite explained how it came about that this notice on the Paper took the form of a Question rather than a Motion. I cannot say that I entirely appreciated the reasons he gave, and it certainly does seem
  994
  to me that, though in this House we are not very particular as to order, two questions of this kind form a rather small peg to hang a two days debate on.
  But this debate, as the noble Marquess has said, has had many features of interest. In the first place, we have had the pleasure of hearing some of those speak who have never addressed the House before, and others who do not address it often. Apart from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, whose speech I know was heard with pleasure even by those who did not agree with all of it, many interesting speeches have been made. It was a rather singular fact that when noble Lords opposite were on this side of the House it scarcely ever happened, with their vast majority, that any independent Member addressed the House on any subject whatever. Now, apparently, we are in for a change in that respect, and I distinctly welcome the fact, even though I suppose we may, in the course of debate, be the sufferers by it.
  This debate has run on two perfectly distinct lines which have sometimes intersected, but vet have remained on the whole separate. There has been the question of the future form of government in South Africa and the question of Chinese labour. The noble Marquess who spoke last said a few words on the determination of His Majesty's Government not to proceed with Mr. Lyttelton's proposals. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, I think, sufficiently explained the reasons why we considered that particular form of government unsuitable to the present state of affairs. It may be true that there have been cases where, without very serious friction, representative government has formed a preliminary to responsible government. I do not know that any of those cases which the noble Marquess has quoted could be mentioned as thoroughly satisfactory; but, however that may be, in all those cases there was this marked difference from the present state of affairs, that those were communities in a more or less early state of development, while here we have to deal with communities which, though existing under changed conditions, had self-government

  995
  before. We consider that beyond any system that could be devised, the system desired by Mr. Lyttelton depends on the absolute goodwill of all parties concerned in it, if it is to work at all. If, therefore, the noble Viscount who opened this debate, and others are correct—and I hope they are not entirely correct—in describing the state of feeling which exists in the two provinces, there would be, I think, considerably greater danger of real friction arising under the more modified scheme than under the full grant of responsible government.
  The noble Viscount who opened the debate made ii speech of great interest. I cannot help, however, regretting the note—the excessive note, as it seemed to us on this side of the House—of mistrust of the Dutch, not merely of a few Dutch, but of the Dutch as a race, which seemed to pervade the whole of the noble Viscount's speech. I very much doubt if the noble Viscount, himself, realised to what an extent that note in his speech impressed itself upon us on this side of the House. I cannot affect to be altogether surprised. The noble Viscount spoke of his reminiscences of South Africa. Many hard things have been said of him; I have no doubt many unjust things have been said of the noble Viscount; and perhaps it might be too much to expect him to regard this matter with a perfect absence of bias. But it certainly does not tend to diminish the difficulty of His Majesty's Government in dealing with this question when such a very warlike note, if I may use the phrase, is struck, as was struck by the noble Viscount in reference to the Dutch in the course of this debate.
  I cannot help wishing that, amongst the high offices that the noble Viscount has occupied, he had at one time or other filled the post of Chief Secretary or Viceroy of Ireland. If he had held either of those posts he would have found—as many Chief Secretaries and Viceroys on both sides of politics have found—that their efforts to improve the condition of the people and to advance the material progress of Ireland have been continually hampered and thwarted—by what? By the existence of a state of feeling which had become ingrained in the people of Ireland, and had arisen
  996
  out of attempts in the past to establish in a community of mixed blood, an absolute and unreasonable ascendancy for one race, even though that race be our own. The noble Viscount was good enough to say that he did not regard us on this Bench as pro-Boers. I am sorry he used the term; but, my Lords, we are not going to declare ourselves anti-Boers. What we desire is to do our best to weld the whole of that mixed community together as far as it can be done, proceeding on the lines of fairness and justice to all parties there.
  As to the further question of the franchise, at this late hour I will not say more than that the noble Marquess was quite correct in the construction which he placed upon our intentions; we do require more time to consider this matter. We hope we have made it clear that we preserve an open mind as to what may prove to be the fairest and best method of dealing with what we admit to be a difficult question.
  On the question of Chinese labour, Lord Harris spoke with some warmth, but with a conviction which I am sure impressed the House. He gave us an interesting account of the manner in which the word "compound" was used in relation to the diamond mines at Kimberley, and the gold mines at Johannesburg. At this hour, however, I will not go into that matter. But as the noble Marquess who has just spoken stated that we had shifted our position—I do not think that was actually the phrase he used—on the general question of Chinese labour and on the point of its servile tinge or flavour, or whatever word you may prefer to use, I think it right to say that I am not aware that we have in the slightest degree shifted our position in that respect. I personally have nothing to withdraw from what I said on platforms in the country on the subject, or what I said in this House.
  What is the position of the Chinaman when he goes to South Africa? He is recruited in China and shipped off, having been told that he has engaged himself for mining in South Africa; but, as Lord Selborne has pointed out, although he is aware of that fact, it is undoubtedly equally true that as to what is meant by mining in South Africa, or what the

  997
  actual conditions of mining there in many cases are, he has been found to be in thedark. That difficulty, the possible ignorance of the coolie as to what he was undertaking when he engaged himself, is met by the carefully-guarded scheme of repatriation which my noble friend behind me proposes. The noble Marquess opposite said that surely we would not allow any coolie to walk into an office, ask for £17 10s., and immediately demand to be taken back to China. It may not have occurred to the noble Marquess that it is by no means impossible to impose some exceedingly simple test, with which I need not trouble the House, of the bona fides of the coolie who declares himself desirous of returning home. As to the expense, the noble Marquess seems to assume that there will be an enormous number of Chinamen returning to China under this provision; but I thought that half the argument of noble Lords opposite was that the coolie was so well treated, and in altogether such a fortunate position, that he would be more likely to re-engage than to want to return to China. Noble Lords opposite cannot have it both ways. I quite admit that if there was a continual flow of coolies backwards and forwards there might be some risk of a coolie who had made a little more money than another desiring to go to China for a holiday and return again; but, as matters stand, no coolies are coming from China. Consequently any coolie who goes back must remain in a state of uncertainty as to whether he will return again, as that must depend upon the action of the Transvaal Government after it has received its grant of responsible government.
  Then the coolie, having got to South Africa, is taken more or less as a prisoner through the Colony and placed on the Rand. When he is there he has no civil rights whatever. He is not a citizen of the country; he is a human automaton, with no more distinct rights than a beast of burden. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out that, in addition to this, he is one of the comparatively few people in the world with whom a refusal to work is not regarded as a breach of contract, but as a criminal offence. He is restricted to a very low grade of labour, whatever may be his
  998
  skill and intelligence; he is unable to trade or settle in the country, and is liable to be forcibly deported at the end of his time. In addition to that, he is subjected to all those practical difficulties which have been so ably brought out by previous speakers—practical difficulties, in connection with the enforcement of discipline, of avoiding real cruelty, which has undoubtedly occurred in not a few instances.
  I would remind noble Lords that you must have regard to the accumulative effect of these provisions in looking to the condition of the coolie. It is not an answer to say that one disability is shared by an Oxford undergraduate, a second by an Indian civil servant, or a third by a sailor under the Merchant Shipping Act. It is the effect of them all together which gives the servile tinge to the status of the man, and it is to that which we object. I ask noble Lords opposite, Would they be content to know that large numbers of British subjects, of any race or any blood under the British Crown, were going in thousands to serve in exactly this manner in a French, German, or Portuguese Colony? I do not for a moment believe that noble Lords would consider such a state of things otherwise than as a slight to the Empire. Then the noble Marquess found fault with my noble friend behind me for his use of the word "experiment." The noble Lord who spoke before the noble Marquess—Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—whom we were all glad to hear for the first time in this House, dwelt with considerable force upon what he believed to be the temporary character of this Chinese importation. I wish I could believe that this was merely a temporary expedient. But on the use of the word "experiment" I would simply say this, that it was only three or four months ago that Mr. Lyttelton suggested that the mine-owners would do very well to suspend, for six months or so, the importation of Chinese, on the ground, I suppose, that the experiment might be regarded as completed—that was how we took his suggestion—and that a sufficient number of Chinese had arrived. However, this belief in the servile tinge was half the cause of that agitation before and during

  999
  the election which roused so much indignation in noble Lords opposite—the belief that this labour is not labour to which any tree man ought to be put; and the other half was undoubtedly the feeling of disappointment on the part of the working classes of this country.
  During the progress of the war I am perfectly certain that the working classes believed that we were acquiring a new white man's country. I never heard that any ruble Lords opposite, or any members of the Conservative Party, with all their desire that on every occassion nothing should be spoken but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, ever took the trouble to warn the working man of this country that what they were acquiring was, not a white man's country, but a country which, for labour purposes, might be regarded as tropical. I do not see how the working classes could be expected to know that of themselves. There is no climatic difficulty in the way of white men working in any industry in Johannesburg. How were the working classes to know that the labour conditions there would not be those of Canada or Australia, but would be those of the Straits Settlements or British Guiana? Just compare the conditions for a moment. In the Straits Settlement you have a population of about 5,000 Europeans to 580,000 Asiatics—one to 100. In British Guiana you have a European population of 17,000 and a mixed Asiatic and African population of 280,000—one to seventeen. In the Transvaal you have got a white population of some 300,000 and a native population of something under 1,000,000—rather more than one to three. Just think of the difference in those proportions of white men to coloured men, when you are told that the labour conditions of all three are precisely identical; and to that proportion of one to three you are going to add 50,000, 60,000, or, as some people hope and believe, as many as 150,000 Chinese, thus further diminishing the proportion between white and coloured in your newly acquired Colony.
  I have always been one of those who have based their principal objection to this importation of Chinese labour even more on its effect upon the Colony and
  1000
  employers than on the position of labourers themselves. It is a disastrous thing for a large community of whites to depend, if it can possibly be helped on coloured labour. It would be a still more disastrous thing if the Colony came to consist of an enormous number of coloured labourers with a small luxurious managing class of whites. That, is a misfortune which might be avoided by a little more patience and willingness not to go quite so fast. This last observation brings me to the grave reflection suggested in the latter part of the speech of the noble Marquess, as to some interference with the choice of the Transvaal, when it receives responsible government; in this matter of Chinese labour. The Colony will have to make its own choice—the choice of Hercules—a choice between the easier, pleasanter path of importing Asiatics by the 100,000, or the, I venture to think, saner, nobler path of slower development through the resources of the country itself.
  Is it so absolutely certain that this feverishly rapid development of Johannesburg is an unmixed advantage to the Transvaal? In Johannesburg there are two distinct classes of inhabitants, just as there are two distinct classes of mine-owners. There is an industrial class and a purely gambling class. One of the soundest, certainly one of the most shrewd and best-informed, opinions that we have had has been to the effect that it is a great misfortune at Johannesburg that so many men think so very much less of the output of gold on a particular mine, than of whether the shares of that mine are going up or down. That surely is not a healthy state of things. Lord Harris and a subsequent speaker complained that the mine owners had been spoken of unjustly because they dug out gold and not coal. There is no foundation for that statement. The hard things that have been said about Johannesburg mine-owners have been said of the gambling element connected with the mines. The noble Earl opposite, who made a very interesting speech from the banking point of view, forgot to state that the interest which was put forward as being pathetically demanded by poor investors was interest, not on what can properly be called the real capital of the mines, but on a

  1001
  capital six, seven, or eight times the amount of their real capital, floated on the market very often by unscrupulous people, and bought by these poor investors. I am sorry for the investors, but to say that in order to protect them you must employ a new class of labour in a manner which you think improper seems to me a very large order indeed. I think you could find many mines in this country, thin-seam coal mines and others, which paid their share-holders very little return. They were poor men also and received very little interest, or none at all; but it has never been suggested that on that account you must necessarily engage cheap foreign labour in order to secure these people from loss over their investments.
  THE MARQUESS OF WINCHESTER: If the noble Earl is referring to me, I should like to say that the remark which I made was that the mines only produced 25 per cent, of the cost of their capitalisation, not the capitalisation which the Stock Exchange put on them, but the capitalisation of equipment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I was not alluding to what the noble Marquess said, but to the speech of Lord Harrowby, who stated the case of the poor investor. I repeat, is it a certainty that it is for the best permanent interest of such a Colony as the Transvaal that this industry should be forced on by artificial means rather than be kept steadily going with such labour as the country can produce? Noble Lords opposite talk as if there was no native labour and nothing but Chinese. There is as much native labour now as there was before the war, and it is not by any means certain, setting aside the question of white labour, which I do not want to argue now, that a better supply of native labour could not be obtained at Johannesburg. Not long ago I had a conversation with a gentleman who knows the natives well. He told me that many of the Kaffir chiefs had informed him that if the conditions at Johannesburg were like those at the De Beers Mines, where the natives no doubt are treated exceedingly well, and, as I believe, are perfectly contented, a great deal more Kaffir labour might be obtained than was obtained at the present moment.
  1002
  The choice between the two roads must lie with the Colony when it gets responsible Government. But there is a point when Imperial considerations must, in our view, over-ride even the express wishes of any responsibly governed Colony. The noble Marquess asked me whether objection would be taken to this or that provision in the Ordinance, if we had to consider it, in giving a grant of responsible government. I am not prepared to say that any provision of an Ordinance ought necessarily to be struck out because we did not happen to like it; but if there was a provision in the proposed Ordinance which we considered, taking the evidence as a whole, to be inconsistent with that due amount of personal freedom which in our opinion every subject of His Majesty ought to enjoy, we should disallow that provision. Let me give an instance. When the first Ordinance came to England there was no provision for the transfer of the labourer from one mine to another without his consent, but in its revised condition that provision appeared. Mr. Lyttelton in reply to a Question in the House of Commons—I am speaking from memory—did not, I think, state that the provision would be struck out, but implied that he saw strong objections to it. However, that provision for the transfer of the coolie, without his consent, was submitted with others to the Chinese Minister for his views. The Chinese Minister said that in his opinion the effect of the provision would be to treat the Chinaman like a chattel or article of commerce, and consequently it was struck out of the Ordinance. I have always thought it a rather lamentable thing that a provision which, I think the noble Viscount will not correct me in saying, was somewhat strongly pressed from the Transvaal, should have had to be withdrawn owing to the fact that the standard of human liberty insisted on by the Chinese Minister was higher than that upon which those who framed the Ordinance were prepared to recognise. If such a provision reappeared in the Ordinance to be approved under the grant of responsible government, I have no doubt His Majesty's present Ministers would insist on its being withdrawn.
  That statement as to the general Imperial standard of freedom is not in any

  1003
  way specially aimed at the Transvaal or at the Johannesburg millionaires, or at any class of people. It would be equally applicable to any self-governing colony under the Crown. What we do say is that although one colony may like to employ one form of labour, and another colony another form, yet there is a general minimum standard of liberty which must be maintained for all His Majesty's subjects all over the world, and which the Home Government will not allow to be compromised. We do not disguise from ourselves the great difficulties which surround the task we have to undertake in South Africa. Nobody, I am perfectly certain, is more aware of those difficulties than my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. People who have never had anything to do with politics or with administration are sometimes apt to talk as though there was a choice between a right course and a wrong one, and it was merely a question whether you took the right path in one direction, or the wrong path in another. Noble Lords opposite who have had to do with affairs know that that is not the case. You are more often confronted with situations in which every alternative offers difficulties of considerable substance; and we do not for a moment deny that there are many difficulties surrounding any solution of this question. But we do hope that by adherence to the principles which have been impressed on the House in the course of this debate by my noble friend behind me and by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, we shall be able to achieve such a measure of success as may in the end justify us in what I fully admit to be a bold course of action.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.