Sitting of 21 March 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

NEW WRITS.
For County of Suffolk (North Eastern or Eye Division), in the room of Francis Seymour Stevenson, esquire (Manor of Northstead).
Borough of Leicester. Henry Broadhurst, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).— (Mr. George Whiteley.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Heacham Water Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Edinburgh Corporation Bill, "To authorise the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Council of the City and Royal Burgh s of Edinburgh to make and maintain Tramways; to construct works and acquire lands; to incorporate the Royal s (Dick) Veterinary College, Edinburgh; to provide for the registration of employment agencies; to amend the Edinburgh Municipal and Police Acts; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
Burry Port Gas and Improvement Bill, Order [27th February] that the Burry Port Gas and Improvement Bill be committed, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.—(The Deputy Chairman.)
Divorce Bills. Ordered, That the Select Committee on Divorce Bills do consist of the following Members—Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Sir John Kennaway, Sir Joseph Leese, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. D. Brynmor Jones, Sir Edward Carson, and Mr. G. Cave.— (Mr. Attorney-General.)

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Lyme Regis, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Donside, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition of the Home Counties Union of Women's Liberal Association, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Abbess Roding (two); Aberford; Ancoats; Atherton; Bechermet; Belton (two); Bicton; Blackburn; Brockdish (two); Calder Vale (two); Canterbury; Caton and Hornby; Chastleton; Chipping Norton (five); Chrishall (two); Denton St. Ann's (two); Edgeside (two); Farnworth; Fittleton; Gidleigh; Great Eccleston; Great Maplestead; Halwell; Hawkshaw; Howe Bridge; Inskip (two); Kearsley (two); Kirby Bedon; Langley;.Little Hulton (three); Locking (two); Manchester (two); Navestock; Pendleton; Priston; Ratcliffe; Ramsbottom; St. Michael's on Wyre (two); Shrewsbury; Southbourne on Sea; Staple; Taunton; Weaste; Whalton; and, Worth Matravers; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petitions for prohibition; From Grimsby (two); and Lincoln; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st December, 1905, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  IRISH TEACHERS PENSION RULES, 1906.
  Copy presented, of Rules under Section 11 of the National School Teachers'

  347
  (Ireland) Act, 1879 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 15th March 1906, modifying the Treasury Minute of 27th May, 1884, as to addition of years for purpose of pension to actual length of service of persons appointed to the office of Clerk of the Upper Division in the Charity Commission [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1859 AND 1876.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 15th March, 1906, declaring Aden and its vicinity to be an unhealthy place within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1876 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 482 (St. Lucia, Annual Report for 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
  Copy presented, of Indenture Supplemental to Agreement of 2nd February 1905, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company, Limited [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LIGHTS UPON VEHICLES).
  Address for "Return showing the bylaws made by the councils of counties and boroughs in England and Wales as to Lights upon Vehicles, giving particulars, as far as possible, on the points of difference therein."—(Mr. Marnham.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Stamping of Documents at Provincial Post Offices.
  MR. BARKER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will provide facilities for stamping documents in county boroughs,
  348
  the present method of handing in such documents at a post office for transmission to London being attended with inconvenience and delay, especially in the case of ships, which have often been well on the voyage before the documents were available.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The matter is one that concerns the Board of Inland Revenue and not the Post Office. Facilities of the kind desired are already at twenty-six places outside London (see List annexed); whether, in fact, the amount of business to be transacted appears to justify the cost of providing stamping facilities. Even in places where such facilities are not provided, documents deposited for stamping can, as a rule, be reclaimed not later than the second day after being handed in, and it is not found in practice that inconvenience results from this short delay.

  INLAND REVENUE.

    LIST OF PROVISIONAL STAMPING CENTRES.
    England:

    Birmingham.

    Manchester.

    Bolton.

    Newcastle-on-Tyne.

    Bradford, Yorks.

    Nottingham.

    Brighton.

    Portsmouth.

    Bristol.

    Sheffield.

    Cardiff.

    Southampton.

    Derby.

    Sunderland.

    Hull.

    Wakefield (Deeds for registration).

    Leeds.

    Leicester.

    Wolverhampton.

    Liverpool.

    York.

    Scotland:

    Edinburgh.

    Glasgow.

    Ireland:

    Belfast.

    Dublin.

    Cork.

    Wheat Prices.
    MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the average prices of imported wheat, per quarter, in 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, and 1905, in Germany, inclusive and exclusive of the German duty on such

    349
    imported wheat; and the amounts of that German duty on imported wheat, per quarter, for the years referred to.

    Years.

    Average prices of imported wheat in Germany. Per quarter.

    Amount of Customs duty levied on imported wheat in Germany.Per quarter.

    Inclusive of import duty.

    Exclusive of import duty.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    1901

    36

    5

    28

    10

    7

    7

    1902

    36

    1

    28

    6

    7

    7

    1903

    36

    1

    28

    6

    7

    7

    1904

    37

    10

    30

    3

    7

    7

    1905

    38

    6

    30

    11

    7

    7

    Note.—The average import prices are given in the German official statistics, exclusive of import duty. The figures in column 1 have, therefore, been obtained by adding the amount of the import duty to the prices stated in the German Returns.

    Irish Provident Assurance Company—Board of Trade Investigation.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the investigation into the affairs of the Irish Provident Assurance Company has yet been concluded; and, if so, will he state the result.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George): Certain investigations into the affairs of the company were undertaken by the authorities at Dublin. The Board of Trade have recently learnt that it has been decided that no evidence existed to justify proceedings being taken by the authorities against the company. As a result of the investigation by the Board of Trade, the Department are advised that the company is not empowered to transact life assurance business, but the Board have also been informed that the company proposes that it should transact such business in conjunction with a life assurance company, constituted last year under the Companies' Acts, which has made
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The following statement gives the information asked for:—
    the statutory deposit of £20,000. If, however, the hon. Member can bring to the notice of the Board of Trade evidence that the Irish Provident Assurance Company are themselves still carrying on business which could be described as life assurance, the question of taking proceedings against them will be considered.

    Foreign Rails for British-owned Argentine Railways.
    MR. HOUSTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that orders for over 100,000 tons of rails have recently been placed in the United States of America by British-owned Argentine railways; whether he can state what quantities of rails and steel sleepers for British-owned Argentine railway companies have recently been purchased from German and Belgian manufacturers; and whether he can state the reasons for these railway companies placing their orders in foreign countries instead of in Great Britain as hitherto.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have no official information to the effect stated, but I have heard rumours of some arrangements made by an international rail syndicate for the division of the world's market for rails, whereby

    351
    I believe, inter alia, British rail-makers were to be secured (with certain reserves) from foreign competition in the markets of the British Empire, and the American manufacturers in those of North and South America. I am unable to say how far any such arrangement is actually carried out, or whether Argentine railway companies have recently purchased rails and steel sleepers from German or Belgian manufacturers.
    MR. HOUSTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if there is official information to the effect that British railmakers have agreed with the American railmakers to allow orders for Argentine rails (on account of English companies) to be secured by the Americans, in consideration of their refraining from sending rails to this country and selling them at a price with which British makers could not compete; and, if there is such or any information in connection therewith, will he lay the same upon the Table.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I must refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his previous Question on the same subject.

    Housekeeper of Dublin Custom House.
    MR. T. HARRINGTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the person who discharges the duty of housekeeper in the Dublin Custom House is permanently appointed to the position, or whether the office is regarded as vacant; and, if so, how long has the vacancy existed, and if it is the intention of the Customs authorities to appoint to the position an official from London who has hitherto had no connection with the Dublin Custom House.
    (Answered by Mr. George Whiteley.) The office in question was. vacated on the 7th December last. The present occupant has only a temporary tenure, pending a settlement, which is now being considered, of the duties and emoluments attaching to the post. I am not yet in a position to say what definite appointment to this vacancy will be made.

    Entry of Dartmouth and Osborne Cadets.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his 'attention has been drawn to the fact that under the old system of limited competition for cadetships at Dartmouth there has only been a withdrawal of two cadets out of 191 entered, although paragraph 17 of the regulations respecting naval cadets lays down that it is to be distinctly understood that the period of training is a time of probation; and whether, having regard to the fact that during the same period, of 222 boys, entered at Osborne under the new system 32 have been withdrawn, the Admiralty will reconsider the present scheme of entry, since each cadet lost costs the country, according to official figures, £98 per annum.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The figures quoted have already been given in reply to a Question in this House; and the Answer to the second Question is in the negative.

    Manufacture of Turbine Machinery for War Vessels.
    MR. ASHLEYM: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the contemplated employment of steam turbines in war vessels, he can state whether provision is being made in the dockyards of suitable workshop, and machinery for their manufacture; or whether it is proposed to rely entirely on private firms to supply them.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is proposed to rely on private firms for the supply of steam turbines, as in the case of all other propelling machinery.

    Compensation for Destruction of Fishing Gear by Warships in the Arran Islands.
    MR. DUFFY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the loss and destruction of nets, mooring gear, and fishing apparatus sustained by the Arran Island fishermen, on account of three English battleships tearing through their fishing grounds on the morning of the 15th March; and whether, in view

    353
    of the poverty of the fishermen, and that they are now practically destitute and without the means of following their livelihood, he will at once take steps to compensate them for the injury done.
    (Answered by Mr, Edmund Robertson.) It appears, from the report received this morning, that after the "Canopus" had anchored in Galway Bay the turn of the tide drifted some fishing nets across her bows. In clearing the nets they became so torn as to be rendered useless. The Admiralty have considered the question of compensation and propose to award the sum asked for.

    Metropolitan Volunteers — The Brigade System.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the opportunities for consecutive training of the 30,000 Volunteers in London through out the year and to the zeal of all ranks, the brigade system recommended by the Norfolk Commission, and about to be adopted in provincial districts, will also be established in the metropolitan area.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is not proposed at present to extend the system by which each brigade of Volunteers will have a commander to itself to those brigades which are under regiments of Foot Guards. The advisability of such extension will, however, be carefully considered.

    Religious Persuasions of Staff of Royal Hibernian Military School.
    MR. SWIFT MAC NEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware, having regard to the fact that in a recent notice of a vacancy in the office of drill gun instructor in the Hibernian Military School, Dublin, Lord Grenfell, in inviting applications for the appointment, stated that membership of the Church of England was a necessary qualification for candidature, that every post of emolument in that institution, from the position of commandant to that of gatekeeper, is filled by a member of the Church of England or some other Protestant communion, no member of the staff being a Catholic;
    354
    and what explanation, if any, has he to give for this exclusion of Catholics from positions in a school for the education of the sons of Irish soldiers, the great majority of whom are members of the Catholic faith.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There are eighty-three appointments at the Royal Hibernian Military School which carry emoluments: of these forty-eight are held by Roman Catholics, twenty-eight by members of the Church of England, five by Presbyterians, and two by Wesleyans.

    Purchase of Land by the War Office in Monmouthshire.
    COLONEL HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office is in negotiation, or has been in negotiation, for the purchase of any lands in the parishes of Monmouth or of Wonastow, in the County of Monmouth, adjoining the Monmouth rifle range.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Certain negotiations were in progress concerning the acquisition of firing rights over land adjoining this range, but, as no money was available, the matter has dropped.

    Sale of Sparkbrook Small Arms Factory.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if the Government has sold or leased the Sparkbrook Royal Small Arms Factory to a private company.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Negotiations have been practically completed for the sale of Sparkbrook Royal Small Arms Factory to a private company.

    The Imperial Yeomanry—Re-engagement System.
    MR. GIBBS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause some alteration to be made in the system of re-engagement now in force in the Imperial Yeomanry, with a view to retain the good men as long as possible.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The system of re-engagement now in

    355
    force was introduced, at the request of a large majority of commanding officers, in order to meet the convenience of the old yeomen and with the deliberate view of so retaining the good men. There is, therefore, no intention of altering the system.

    The Proposed Labourers (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland when he expects to introduce the promised Labourers (Ireland) Bill, the chief object of which is the cheapening and simplifying of the present Acts; and whether in drafting the Bill he will include in it provisions whereby labourers may be facilitated and encouraged to purchase their cottages and land by a series of reasonable annual instalments.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It is impossible for me at present to fix a date for the introduction of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, nor can I make any statement as to its provisions.

    Cost of Erection and Loans on Workmen's Houses in Ireland.
    MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in order to encourage urban authorities in Ireland to proceed with the building of workmen's houses in towns, in many cases urgently required, he is prepared to recommend the advancing of the necessary funds at the rate for interest of 3¼ per cent. per annum, instead of the 3¾ per cent. at present asked; and whether he will instruct the Local Government Board to modify their architectural requirements for such houses, their requirements in the past adding much to the cost of the schemes put forward by urban authorities.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The rates of interest for loans obtained by local authorities from public funds are fixed from time to time by the Treasury, regard being had to the state of the money market. There is, however, nothing to prevent such authorities from borrowing in the open market if by so doing they can secure better terms. I am advised that the architectural requirements of the Local Government Board have been framed
    356
    with due regard to economy, and are only such as are necessary to secure healthy and well-constructed dwellings.

    Monthly Return of Irish Emigration.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Registrar-General for Ireland will arrange for a monthly Return of Irish emigration to be published.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The reply is in the affirmative.

    Fees Collected in Irish Model Schools.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Treasury have foregone their claim to any part of the school fees collected in the Irish model schools; and, if so, will the Commissioners of National Education distribute the fees collected in each model school among the teachers of that school, as is the practice in all ordinary national schools; or will they use part of this money in paying house rent for female teachers who have not been provided with residences, and distribute the remainder among the staffs of the various model schools where very small fees are collected; and will the teachers get a share as in those schools where considerable sums are received.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Last year the Treasury agreed to forego their claim to the school fees collected from model school pupils, and sanctioned the following rules for payments to model school teachers out of such fees: (1.) To each head mistress appointed since 1st April 1900 £20 per annum as an allowance for a residence; in the case of a head mistress appointed as such after 1st April 1900, if she carried over from the old system model school supplementary salary gained as assistant before that date, the allowance for residence shall be only the excess, if any, of £20 above the amount so carried over; (2.) to each head master and head mistress appointed since 1st April 1900 £10 per annum, to stand in the place of endowment or local aid; (3.) the residue to be distributed among all the teachers (head teachers and assistants) at present serving, or hereafter appointed, in model schools, on the principle that the head

    357
    teacher shall receive twice the share of an assistant. The school fees collected from model school pupils, between 1st April 1905 and 31st December 1905, have been paid to the model school teachers in accordance with these regulations.

    Dromahane National School—Absence of Mr. T. Mullane.
    MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) received a memorial from the parents of children attending the national school, Dromahane, Mallow, in August 1905, complaining of the frequent absence from the school of the teacher, Mr. T. Mullane, in connection with repeated prosecutions of Mrs. O'Ragan, an evicted tenant, who has been sentenced to two terms of imprisonment; and, if so, what reply was sent by the Commissioners; and whether, in view of the ill-feeling excited in the locality by this land dispute, the Commissioners will make representation to the teacher, with a view to submitting the case to arbitration, as suggested by the school manager, Father Shinnick, and others.

    Year ended.

    Colony.

    Expenditure on Colonial forces and works and armaments.

    Contributions to Imperial garrison and Navy.

    Military.

    Naval.

    Military.

    Naval.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    30th June, 1904

    Canada

    814,329

    —

    22,600

    —

    30th June, 1904

    Australia

    615,758

    43,673

    —

    196,226

    31st March, 1905

    New Zealand

    234,469

    742

    —

    40,742

    30th June, 1905

    Cape of Good Hope

    229,786†

    —

    —

    50,000

    30th June, 1904

    Natal

    341,016‡

    —

    4,000

    25,628

    † Exclusive of expenditure for Cape Mounted Police (£343 14s. 6d.).

    ‡ Inclusive of reserve and district police (£216,762).

    Later information can probably be obtained in about a week, by telegraphing, if the right hon. Member thinks this necessary.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that on the 30th August, 1905, they received from some of the parents of the pupils a memorial calling attention to Mr. Mullane's connection with land disputes. The Commissioners referred the memorial to the senior inspector for inquiry, and, upon consideration of his report, they decided to take no action in the matter. There has been no further correspondence, and the Commissioners have no knowledge of the suggested arbitration referred to in the Question.

    Colonial Military Expenditure.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House the latest information in his possession as to the expenditure on military purposes of the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Colonies of New Zealand, the Cape of Good Hope, and Natal.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Expenditure on Military and Naval purposes of the self-governing Colonies:—

    Victorian Gold Mining Return.
    MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies will he

    359
    say whether a Return, issued on 19th March, giving the yield of Victorian gold mines per ton of ore milled, includes or does not include tailings, concentrates, and silver.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Return does not include tailings, concentrates, and silver.

    Pay of Irish Survey Labourers.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will arrange that the Irish survey labourers and chain men will receive equal pay to that given to men in similar positions in England; whether he is aware that some of the Southampton unskilled labourers with a fixed abode receive higher wages than the Irish field sections who move from station to station; and whether this inequality of pay will be considered and remedied.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The wages paid to survey labourers in the field are the same in Ireland as in Great Britain, with the exception of those at Southampton, where slightly higher rates are paid owing to the higher rate of wages generally paid for unskilled labour in the locality.

    Board of Agriculture Inspectors.
    MR. WATT: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that there are at present forty-three lay inspectors in the animals' division of the department who administer the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, he will give a preference to veterinarians for these appointments if he can get them on the same terms as the lay inspectors; and will he explain why veterinary surgeons are not appointed to these positions.
    (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The question of the employment of veterinary surgeons on the non-professional business which our inspectors are called upon to perform has often been considered, but experience has
    360
    shown that, as a rule, they are not so well suited to the work as men possessing qualification of a more general character. The non-professional inspectors are selected after personal inquiry and scrutiny by the President of the Board for the time being, and nearly all of them possess a knowledge or have had practical experience of agriculture.

    Superannuation of Local Government Officials.
    MR. J. WILLIAMS BENN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can propose or facilitate legislation to secure superannuation for local government officials upon similar lines to the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I could not take steps for the purpose suggested. Indeed it appears to me that the subject of superannuation of local government officers would require careful consideration before legislation on the subject could be proposed.

    Registered Trading Firms without Votes.
    MR. H. J. TENNANT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can grant a Return showing in the municipalities of Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, West Ham, Holborn, and Sheffield, the aggregate rateable value, the number of registered trading firms who have no municipal vote, owing to their incorporation under the Companies Acts, and the aggregate rateable value of such trading companies.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) As regards Glasgow, the matter is one for my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland. So far as the other places mentioned are concerned, I shall be happy to give a Return of the kind suggested, and I will communicate with my hon. friend as to its form.

    Pay of Royal Dockyards Writing Staff.
    MR. J. WILLIAMS BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when he will be able to announce the revision of the pay of the writing

    361
    staff of the Royal Dockyards, referred to in page 98 of the Naval Estimates 1905–6, and again in the Navy Estimates 1906–7; and whether the revision will include the granting of the long-standing request of the naval writers to have an opportunity of attaining to warrant rank.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robinson.) It is hoped to publish at an early date the result of the inquiry into the pay and position of the civilian writers in the dockyard. This inquiry had no reference to the naval writers, and the Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

    Distribution of Orders for Armour Plate.
    MR. WALTERS: To ask the Secretary to the Anmiralty whether he will take steps to insure the distribution of orders for armour plate over a longer period of the year, so as to avoid the working of overtime and so as to afford more regular and continuous employment to the workmen engaged in this trade.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Every endeavour is and will be made to regulate the orders to the armour-plate manufacturers in such a way as to render overtime unnecessary.

    Entrance Examination for Naval Cadets.
    MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty who carried out the examinations under the old and new systems of entry for naval cadetships, and what fees are charged to the parents respectively; what proportion of candidates are nominated for each vacancy under each system; and whether the marks obtained at examinations are published in each case in order to preclude any possibility of favouritism after nominations have been awarded.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). The literary examinations under the old system of entry were undertaken by the Civil Service Commissioners. Under the new system they are managed by the Oxford and Cambridge Board. The medical examinations have always been performed by the Medical Director General
    362
    of the Navy and his staff. The fees charged to parents under the old system were £1 for each of three possible examinations; and, under the new system, £2 for the one qualifying examination. There is no fixed proportion of candidates chosen to attend the examinations. No marks are published in the case of the cadets entered under the new scheme. There is no such possibility as is suggested in the last part of the Question.

    Promotion of Custom House Assistant Clerks.
    MR. THORNTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the duty of preparing the Board of Trade Returns in the Statistical Department of the Custom House devolves mainly upon assistant clerks; and, if so, whether he is disposed to grant to such officers of this class as may be considered worthy of promotion to higher posts, facilities equal to those enjoyed by clerks of the same grade serving in other Government offices.
    (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The duty of preparing the Board of Trade Returns in the Statistical Department of the Custom House devolves mainly upon assistant clerks, so far as the routine work is concerned, but their work is supervised at every stage by officers of higher rank. A memorial from the tabulator section of the assistant clerks is now under the consideration of the Treasury. No decision has yet been come to, but I must not be taken to admit that the advantages enjoyed by the assistant clerks in the Statistical Department are inferior to those of the same grade in the service generally.

    Position of Temporary Civil Assistants in the Ordnance Survey.>
    MR. GIBBS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will say when he will be able to make a public statement on the question of the position of the temporary civil assistants in the Ordnance Survey.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna): I have nothing at present to add to the Answer which I gave the hon. Member on the 14th instant. †
    † See (4) Debates, cliii., 1229.

    Clubs and the Licensing Act.
    MR. PAUL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a number of clubs have been and are being formed throughout the country, nominally for social and political purposes, but really for drinking and for evasion of the Licensing Act; and whether His Majesty's Government can take any steps by administering or amending the law to check the progress of this grave evil.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) If any person is in possession of information that the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1902 in regard to clubs have been contravened he can himself take proceedings or move the police to do so. Whether the law requires strengthening is certainly a question for consideration in connection with licensing legislation.

    Irish Land Purchase—Assessment of Income Tax.
    MR. COGAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether occupiers of land who have purchased their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts in Ireland are liable to be assessed or to pay Income Tax under Schedule A on that portion of the annuity which is classed as interest as distinguished from sinking fund; and, if, so assessed, they have paid Income Tax on the full amount of the annuity, whether they are entitled to reimbursement by the Land Commission or the Treasury on so much of the annuity as may be regarded as interest on borrowed money and not repayment of capital.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Occupiers of land who have purchased their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts in Ireland are primarily liable to be assessed on the annual value of their holdings, but no charge is made where the tenant purchaser's total income from all sources is proved to be less than £160. Where a tenant purchaser's total income from all sources is not proved to be less than £160, his holding is charged to Income Tax on the annual value; but, as the purchase annuity payable to the Land Commission is paid without deduction of Income Tax, it is the practice of the Inland Revenue Department, where possible,
    364
    to reduce the assessment by the amount of the interest included in the annuity. If in any case reduction has not been granted prior to payment of the tax, the tenant purchaser can obtain a refund by applying to the Surveyor of Taxes for the district in which the property is situated.

    Army Annual Bill—Committee Stage.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As the Bill has not yet been read a second time, I am afraid it is impossible for me to say when the Committee stage can be reached.

    Martial Law in Crete.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any Reports as to recent administration of so-called martial law by the British force in Crete towards insurgents should be the subject of inquiry from the Foreign Office or from the War Office.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Any inquiry as to the results of the administration of martial law under the Consul General, who is not responsible to the War Office, would appear to be a matter for the Foreign Office. From the reports received the administration, so far as the British troops and the section for which they are responsible are concerned, has been entirely satisfactory.

    Army Remounts in South Africa.
    MR. LANE-FOX: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to improve the supply and the quality of remounts for the troops in South Africa.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) 216 horses were sent out from England and Canada last year, and arrangements are being made to supply 1,000 from overseas this year. This is the only method of supply at present available, but it is understood that the Orange River Colony is taking action in the

    365
    matter of breeding horses in South Africa.

    Procedure Committee and Withdrawal of Strangers during Divisions.
    MR. MILDMAY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Committee on Procedure will be invited to consider the desirability of allowing strangers sitting beneath the Gallery to retain their seats during divisions.
    (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I do not know that this is a question that comes within the purview of the Committee on Procedure. I sympathise with the hon. Member's object, and I will consult the authorities of the House as to what steps can be taken to meet his views.

    Troops under Control of Colonial - and Foreign Offices.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the number and cost of the forces having an organisation in troops or battalions or gun detachments, now Tinder the control of the Colonial Office and Foreign Office respectively, or under the control of His Majesty's Government exercised otherwise than through the War Office or the Government of India.
    (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The number and cost of forces having an organisation in troops or battalions or gun detachments, now under the control of the Colonial Office (that is, exclusive of the self-governing Colonies of Canada, Australia, Cape Colony, and Natal; and Bermuda and Malta, where the troops are paid from Army funds), are as follows:—Total number, 47,920; total cost, £3,378,560. These figures include the South African Constabulary (4,500 men), for whom provision is made from Colonial funds (£1,317,755). There are no longer any forces under the control of the Foreign Office. There are no other forces under the control of his Majesty's Government exercised otherwise than through the War Office or the Government of India.

    Heavy Motor Traffic on Highways.
    MR. NIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury
    366
    whether His Majesty's Government will inform the House if they propose to introduce, during the present session or in an early session of Parliament, legislation to deal with the question of the extraordinary traffic on highways, caused by the increase of heavy motors and traction engines using such roads, and to confer greater powers upon local authorities in respect of such traffic.
    (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The Government do not contemplate proposing any legislation on the subject this session, and they cannot make any promise as regards next session.

    QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

      Dartmouth Cadetships.
      MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that under the old system of limited competition for cadetships at Dartmouth there has only been a withdrawal of two cadets out of 191 entered, although paragraph 17 of the regulations respecting naval cadets lays down that it is to be distinctly understood that the period of training is a time of probation; and whether, having regard to the fact that during the same period, of 222 boys entered at Osborne under the new system 32 have been withdrawn, the Admiralty will reconsider the present scheme of entry, since each cadet lost costs the country, according to official figures, £98 per annum.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The figures quoted have already been given in reply to a Question in this House; and the Answer to the second Question is in the negative

      Steam Turbines for War Vessels.
      MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the contemplated employment of steam turbines in war vessels, he can state whether provision is being made in the dockyards of suitable workshops and machinery for

      367
      their manufacture; or whether, it is proposed to rely entirely on private firms to supply them.
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is proposed to rely on private firms for the supply of steam turbines, as in the case of all other propelling machinery.

      Destruction of Arran Fishermen's Nets by British Battleships.
      MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the loss and destruction of nets, mooring gear, and fishing apparatus sustained by the Arran Island fishermen, on account of three English battleships tearing through their fishing grounds on the morning of the 15th March; and whether, in view of the poverty of the fishermen, and that they are now practically destitute and without the means of following their livelihood, he will at once take steps to compensate them for the injury done.
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It appears from the report received this morning that, after the "Canopus" had anchored in Galway Bay, the turn of the tide drifted some fishing nets across her bows. In clearing the nets, they became so torn as to be rendered useless. The Admiralty have considered the question of compensation, and propose to award the sum asked for.

      Transvaal Loan.
      MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the names of the financial houses who undertook to raise the £10,000,000 Transvaal loan.
      THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The names of the South African firms who undertook to guarantee the issue of the first instalment of £10,000,000 of the war loan of £30,000,000 are given at page 3 of Cd. 1905.

      Indian Coolies and the Transvaal Mines
      MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government are willing to sanction the importation of Indian coolies into the
      368
      Transvaal on the terms of the British Guiana Ordinance.
      MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government has not received any application from the Transvaal Government for the introduction of Indian coolies on the terms referred to by the hon. Member, and it is impossible to state beforehand the manner in which such an application would be dealt with.

      Illegal Flogging of Chinese Coolies
      MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether coolies who have been illegally flogged in South Africa are entitled to recover damages for assault from any person or persons; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State will undertake that they shall be informed of the nature of their remedy and furnished with the necessary facilities, for prosecuting it.
      MR. CHURCHILL: A coolie is entitled to recover damages for illegal assault. Under the Labour Importation Ordinance of 1904, it is part of the duty of the superintendent and inspectors to inquire into any complaint which a coolie may have to make. In inquiring into any complaint, no doubt the superintendent or inspector would inform the coolie of any civil remedy open to him. The Secretary of State considers that in these circumstances it is not necessary to make any special notification to the coolies on the subject.

      Dinuzulu.
      MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the recent circulation of charges of treasonable intent against the Zulu chief, Dinuzulu; and whether, in view of the formal complaints of the Natal authorities in the past, that such charges against that chief are unfounded and mischievous, his department will confer with the Natal Government, with a view to taking proceedings against the person or person now found to be responsible.
      MR. CHURCHILL: I presume that the hon. Member refers to reports in the newspaper Press. The Natal Government are satisfied as to the loyalty of

      369
      Dinuzulu and his people, and it is for that Government to decide whether it is desirable, and, if so, whether it is possible to take such proceedings as the hon. Member suggests. The Secretary of State does not feel called upon to intervene in the matter.

      Kaffir Disturbances in Natal.
      MR. J. M, ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of natives killed by order of court martial or otherwise in connection with the native disturbances in Natal; and how far the forces of the Crown have been employed either in enforcing the demand for a poll tax, or in repressing disturbances arising out of such demand.
      MR. CHURCHILL: Up to the present I have only been informed of two natives having been shot after trial by court martial for assisting and taking part in the murder of an inspector and trooper of the Natal European Police Force. The battalion of Imperial troops which has been sent to Natal has not been actively employed in connection with the disturbances.
      MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether lie has any official information showing that the native unrest in South Africa is being manufactured in order to provide a pretext for taking from the natives the reservation lands set apart for them.
      MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The Secretary of State certainly has no such information.
      MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask whether information which renders possible such an inference of corrupt motives is contrary to the official information, and therefore, presumably, contrary to the fact?
      MR. CHURCHILL: I said the Secretary of State had no information which would tend to support the stories inquired of by the hon. Member in his Question. I do not gather what further statement the hon. Member requires. We have no information on the subject.

      Northern Nigeria Disturbances.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has been decided to despatch an expedition against the Emir of Hadeija, in Northern Nigeria; what force will be necessary, and what are the circumstances which have rendered this step necessary.
      MR. CHURCHILL: Sir F. Lugard has reported that the attitude of a section of the people of Hadeija, which threatens to disturb the peace, makes it advisable to arrest the leaders and for that purpose to strengthen the force which is already stationed there. He has been authorised to strengthen the force accordingly, but it is hoped that the object may be obtained without actual fighting. The strength of the increased force will be about 500 men of the Northern Nigeria Regiment of the West African Frontier Force.

      Indo-China and Servian Trade Reports.
      SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Report on the trade of Indo-China in 1903–4, and on the trade of Servia in 1904, were not published until February 1906; and whether there is any explantion of the delay in the issue of these Reports.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,) (for Sir Edward Grey): In the case of Indo-China the author of the Report which was published in January, not February, explained that he had found great difficulty in obtaining the requisite data. A preliminary Report on the trade of that country from October, 1903 to February, 1904 was, however, issued in May, 1904. There was no permanent British Consular officer in Tonking until July last. The annual Reports from that district will, no doubt, be furnished in future as soon as the Consul can obtain the statistics. In the case of Servia, the statistics for 1904 were not issued till the end of November last.

      Administration of the Aliens Act.
      SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of

      371
      State for the Home Department if he will lay upon the Table the Report of the Expert Committee concerning the administration of the Aliens Act, and the rules made in accordance therewith, showing in red ink or distinctive type the alterations he has made therein, and a statement of the reasons upon which he has acted.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The Report of the Committee in question was a confidential Report to the Secretary of State, and I regret that it would be contrary to principle to accede to the hon. Member's request that it should be laid upon the Table. For the rest, I need only refer to the Papers f which I presented yesterday in accordance with the promise which I made in this House on Wednesday last; and I may point out that, in addition to the Papers † then promised, I have presented the published Memorandum on the working of the Act, which contains the gist of the Committee's Report. As I have only revoked one existing Order and made one new Rule, both of which steps are well known to the House from my statement, there is no need for distinctive type. The reasons upon which I have acted were fully explained in last Wednesday's debate.

      Harrowing Pictures at the Palace Theatre.
      MR. DUNCAN SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to pictures of coursing for the Waterloo Cup, depicting the death agonies of a hare, which appear on the biograph at the Palace Theatre; and whether he proposes to take any steps to stop the continuance of this spectacle.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry into this matter, and I understand that the part of the picture to which objection was taken has now been withdrawn.

      Working Men Inspectors of Mines.
      MR. CORY: I beg to ask the Secretary of States for the Home Department whether the workmen of a colliery, in appointing two persons
      ߤ See (4) Debates Cliv 196
      372
      being practical working miners but not being two of their number, under General Rule 38 of The Goal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, should be required to furnish to the manager of such colliery proof that the two persons so appointed are practical working miners; and, if so, what proof should be given.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I think that in cases where men not working at the colliery are appointed to make an examination under this rule, a manager would be entitled to some proof that they are practical working miners as prescribed by the rule. I do not see why there should be any difficulty in furnishing this proof. The men appointed might, for instance, bring a reference from the manager of the colliery at which they work; or the names of the men and the collieries at which they work might be communicated to the manager beforehand in time to allow him to make inquiry.
      MR. T. RICHARDSwas understood to ask if the fact that the men were working in a mine would not be sufficient proof that they were practical workmen.
      MR. GLADSTONEasked for notice of the Question.

      Coroners Inquests on Licensed Premises.
      MR. A. WILLIAMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the provisions of Section 21 of The Licensing Act, 1902, prohibiting the holding of any coroner's inquest on licensed premises where other suitable premises have been provided for such inquest, will come into operation on March 31st, 1907, he will consider the advisability of addressing a communication to the local authorities of England and Wales, drawing their attention to the enactment in question and to the desirability of their, in the interval, making suitable provision, or otherwise securing accommodation, for such courts upon unlicensed premises, before the date named, in accordance with the intention of the Legislature.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I will consider what action I can properly take in the matter and whether I should issue a circular to county and borough authorities

      373
      but it must be borne in mind that except in the county of London local authorities are not under any statutory obligation to provide places for the holding of inquests.

      Charitable Institutions and the Merchant Shipping Act.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to Section 111 (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, requiring a licence to be held for the prevention of crimping, and that under such section his Department now require that charitable institutions who train boys for the sea must take out a licence before they can apply to a shipowner to take these boys; and whether, in view of the effect of this requirement upon the committees of management of such institutions as the Metropolitan training ship "Exmouth," the training ship "Mount Edgcumbe," the Birkdale Farnworth Nautical School, Father Berry's Liverpool Training Homes, and the "Clio" and the Macclesfield Industrial School, he will, in proposing Amendments to such Act, be prepared to give facilities for their work to such institutions.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): Yes, Sir. I am aware of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act with regard to the supply of seamen and boys to which the hon. Member refers. The requirements of the section are in the interests of the boys in the institutions named, and I do not quite understand what is meant by their effect upon the committees of management. I shall, however, be happy to consider any suggestion that may be made to me by which the work of such institution could be facilitated and the interests and safeguards now provided for the seamen and boys left untouched.

      Carnarvon and Newry Granite Industry.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the magnitude and importance of the manufacture and trade in granite paving sets, especially on the coasts of Carnarvonshire and the neighbourhood of Newry in Ireland, and the depression in that trade at present existing, owing to the importation of such sets from abroad free from
      374
      any contribution to the Imperial Revenue or local rates and taxes, he would be prepared to favourably consider a proposal that all such foreign-made sets should pay an import duty at all events equivalent to the Imperial and local burdens which are incident to those manufactured in this country.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Answer is in the negative.

      Delays on the District Railway.
      MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any official information or Report upon the subject of breakdowns and delays in the traffic on the District Railway between Ealing and the City; whether such delays are attributable to the fact that the rolling stock is of foreign construction; and whether, if he has not cognizance of the facts, he will direct an inquiry to be held to ascertain the cause of this public inconvenience.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have received a Report from the Metropolitan District Railway Company on the subject of the breakdowns on their line, and the purport of that Report is contained in the reply given to a Question put yesterday by the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone.† Upon the explanation given by the company it would appear that an inquiry of the nature suggested would not serve any useful purpose.

      House of Commons Post Office.
      MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that, arising out of the number of new Members in the present House of Commons, and the amount of correspondence requiring to be dealt with by the postal staff at the Members' post office in the House, delays have arisen in such post office, and it has recently become impossible to get the morning letters for Members at such post office before half-past ten o'clock in the morning; and whether he would be prepared to make some arrangements with a view to obviating this inconvenience.
      †See (4) Debates, cliv.,218.
      MR. BRIGG: I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General if, without making any important structural alterations in the post office in the Members' Lobby, he could, at an early date, arrange to give more accommodation at the windows, so as to facilitate the delivery of letters and the transaction of the other business of Members.
      THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The First Commissioner and I have together carefully considered the question of the House of Commons Post Office accommodation. It does not appear to be possible to make any important structural alterations which would improve the accommodation; and in any case, these could not be done while Parliament is sitting. We have, however, arranged to move the post box from its present position, and to place it in the corner of the Lobby. The space thus vacated will be utilised as an additional window of access for Members to the post office. In addition, a considerably larger number of pigeon holes will be erected inside the office, so as to expedite the sorting and delivery of letters to Members. These alterations will be carried out by my right hon. friend during the Easter Recess. Further, it has been arranged that a considerable portion of the sorting of the heavier packets shall be done in the outer office, instead of in the office in the Members' Lobby. Then, in order to relieve the accumulating congestion of letters and packets, which greatly hampers the work of the office, I have authorised the re-addressing of parcels without charge so that each day the post office will be cleared of them. I hope that these and other small changes will facilitate the delivery of letters and the transaction of the business of Members with the post office.

      Post Office Savings Bank.
      MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank may not at present exceed £50 in any one year, or £200 in all, he will consider the desirability of increasing the maximum sum to be deposited to £500, with a view to further encourage
      376
      safe methods of investment among the artizan classes which shall not be liable to market fluctuations.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The question of the Post Office Savings Bank deposits is receiving consideration.

      Trust Deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank.
      MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the desirability of taking means to enable trustees of estates not exceeding in value £1,000 to be permitted to invest trust moneys in the Post Office Savings Bank in their own names as trustees.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I doubt if it would be desirable to extend the present facilities of the Post Office Savings Bank in the direction indicated.

      Stratford Inland Revenue Supervisor's Promotion.
      MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury in reference to the recent promotion of a supervisor of Inland Revenue over more than a hundred of his seniors, whether he is aware that when this officer was promoted a few years ago, from a second to a first-class station, a special inquiry was ordered into the unsatisfactory manner in which he had performed his duties in connection with licensing matters; whether this was considered when promoting him over the heads of those who had never been the subject of complaint; and whether, when this officer was stated to have been assigned to Stratford, as being a more advantageous appointment than that to Salisbury, the Board of Inland Revenue had in view the fact that the total duty from all sources in the Salisbury district is fully three times that in Stratford, and that Stratford is one of the least important districts in England.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): No such inquiry was ordered nor was there any complaint of the kind suggested. With regard to the last part of the question I would observe that the amount of revenue collected is by no means the only criterion of the importance of an appointment. In this

      377
      particular instance the officer was appointed to Stratford at his own request. As none of his seniors desired the post the Board, following their usual practice, complied with his wishes.

      Breeding Cattle for the Argentine.
      MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether in consequence of the guarantee demanded by Argentine buyers of breeding cattle that these shall stand the tuberculin test when landed in Argentina, it is the custom for sellers in this country to submit the animals to the test before sending them; and whether those animals that fail to answer the test are used for breeding stock in this country.
      SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We have no information to show whether the practice referred to by my hon. friend is customary or not. There is nothing in the present state of the law to prevent owners from testing their cattle with tuberculin, and subsequently using them for breeding purposes.

      Scottish Education Circulars.
      MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can arrange for copies of the most important of the minutes and circulars of the Education Board being delivered to Scotch Members at the House of Commons.
      THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): All Minutes of the Department are laid on the Table of the House and copies can be obtained in the usual way at the Vote Office. A collection of the more important circulars of the Department up to that date was published in May, 1904. The circulars issued since that date, are few in number and have all been published in the annual Blue-book.

      Board of Education for Scotland.
      MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether a Board of Education for Scotland, distinct from the Scotch Education Department, still exists; if not, whether the powers and duties of the said Board have devolved on the said Department; whether, if such devolution has taken place, the office and general place of
      378
      business of the said Department are in Edinburgh or in London; and if the office and general place of business of the said Department are in London, whether, in view of Sub-Clause 2 (read with the concluding words of Sub-Clause 6) of Clause 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act of 1872, he will say what step he proposes to take.
      MR. SINCLAIR: The Board of Education established for certain temporary purposes by Section 3 of the Act of 1872 has ceased to exist and its powers and duties have devolved upon the Department. The Department which is a department of the Privy Council, has offices both in London and Edinburgh. Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Act of 1872 to which the hon. Member refers has been repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1883.

      Reductions of Irish Rents.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why, whereas the Land Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners, when fixing rents on yearly tenancies in 1896–7, gave reductions averaging, for the whole of Ireland, more than 27 per cent. on both first and second-term rents, in 1904–5 they gave reductions of only 14·8 on first-term and 15·8 on second-term rents, and they are at present giving smaller reductions or none; and will he enable the public to test the statistics used in arriving at these decisions and method of using them, and especially the method according to which rents appear to be increased by any enhanced value of the holding, due solely to the tenant's labour and money.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): I am informed by the Land Commission that first-term statutory rents fixed by Chief and Sub-Commissions in the year 1896–7 showed an average reduction of 27·6 per cent., and the second-term statutory rents an average reduction of 27 per cent. The corresponding figures for the year 1904–5 were 14·8 and 15·8 per cent., respectively. And for the period of nine months ending December 31st last the figures were 18·9 and 15·8, respectively. I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that Parliament has

      379
      placed the determination of rents in the hands of the Land Commission. Their decisions in the matter are judicial decisions, and I am not aware that I have any power to inquire into the merits of those decisions. I have repeatedly stated that the Land Commission inform me that it is not the fact that rents are increased upon tenants' improvements.
      MR. GINNELLinquired if copies of the rules and instructions to the Commissioners were not yet obtainable by Members of the House?
      MR. BRYCEsaid he would inquire.
      MR. FLAVINcomplained that the tenants did not get the full benefit of the improvements which they themselves made.

      Irish Landlords and Poor Rates.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state the gross amount of poor rates of which Irish landlords have been relieved under Section 52 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, year by year, since that Act came into operation; and if there is any monetary deduction, set-off, or other advantage derived by the tenants or by the public from or in consequence of that relief to the landlords, to state its amount, year by year, during the same time.
      MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board are unable to afford the information asked for in the first part of the Question. In reply to the latter inquiry, I may refer the hon. Member to Section 48 of the Act quoted, which provides for the annual payment, in relief of rates on agricultural land, of a sum taken on the basis of a standard year, which has been certified to amount to £727,650.

      Irish Land Sub-Commissioners.
      MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many lay sub-commissioners are now in the service of the Irish Land Commission; how many of them have had practical experience as rent-paying farmers, depending entirely or mainly upon the profits of that occupation for their living; and, if any, will he state the number of years of such ex-
      380
      perience previous to appointment as sub-commissioners.
      MR. BRYCE: Fifty-six lay assistant commissioners are at present in office. The Land Commissioners inform me that they have no information as to how many of these have had practical experience as rent-paying farmers depending entirely or mainly upon the profits of that occupation for their living. A Return which was presented pursuant to an Order of the House in 1902 (No. 151) sets forth certain particulars in respect of each assistant commissioner then in office, and all those who are now serving are included in that Return. The Return shows, among other particulars, the acreage of land farmed by each assistant commissioner prior to his appointment and whether he held as owner or tenant.
      MR. KILBRIDE: Will the Return show the profits made by the sub-commissioners?
      MR. BRYCE: That would be information very difficult to get.
      MR. KILBRIDE: They could give it, but they would not care to.
      MR. LONSDALE: Has any complaint been made as to the action of these Commissioners?
      MR. BRYCE: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

      Irish Exports and Imports.
      MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of issuing monthly Reports of Irish exports and imports as are issued by the Board of Trade for the United Kingdom, or similar to figures issued by all self-governed British Colonies.
      MR. BRYCE: The monthly Returns referred to, which deal with foreign trade, are collected under statutory powers. No such powers exist in regard to the cross-channel trade, and the Department of Agriculture necessarily depends for its statistics in this respect upon information voluntarily supplied. In these circumstances, it is feared that it would be useless to attempt to issue monthly Returns.

      Inquiry into the Irish Fishing Industry.
      MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, whether in view of the admitted necessity for the development of the Irish fishing industry, he will add to the Committee some gentleman of practical knowledge and experience of the capture and curing of deep sea fish.
      MR. BRYCE: I understand that Mr. Micks, a member of the Committee, was for some years secretary of the Congested Districts Board, and as such had administrative experience of the Board's fishery operations. Mr. Mick's knowledge, added to that which the Committee will obtain by evidence, will, in my opinion, be sufficient to enable them to deal with any question belonging to that part of the Department's work which may come before them.
      MR. FLYNN: Has any one on the Committee practical acquaintance with the important work of fish curing?
      MR. BRYCE: I do not know, but it would be difficult to have on a limited Committee of that sort persons familiar with every branch of the industry.

      Value of Irish Live Stock.
      MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the estimated value of live stock, cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, etc., in Ireland on December 31st, 1905; and whether he will state the total value of live stock exported in the twelve months ending December 31st, 1905.
      MR. BRYCE: The total value of live stock in Ireland on the date mentioned is estimated by the Department of Agriculture at sixty-nine millions sterling, and the total value of live stock exported from Ireland during the year 1905 is estimated at thirteen and quarter millions sterling.

      Irish Light Railways—Public Charges.
      MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state the total amount levied by local boards to provide
      382
      operating expenses and interest of capital in connection with railways built since 1887, under the Light Railways Acts.
      MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board are not in possession of the information asked for, and could only obtain it by application to the local authorities. I am, moreover, informed that it is doubtful whether the present local authorities could in all cases furnish information of the expenditure prior to 1899, when they came into being.

      Value of Irish Imports.
      MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the estimated total value of Irish imports in the year ending December 31st, 1905, under the following heads of food stuff's, raw materials, manufactured or partly manufactured articles respectively, and the estimated increase or decrease compared with 1904.
      MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture are not yet in a position to form an estimate of the cross-channel trade for the year 1905, to which it is presumed that the Question refers. The foreign trade Returns are prepared by the Customs authorities, and are annually presented to Parliament.
      MR. O'MARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to expedite the getting of this information?
      MR. BRYCE: I have no doubt the Department will get it as early as possible. I will convey the hon. Member's wish to it.

      Constable Anderson, Royal Irish Constabulary.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three men, admittedly innocent, one of whom died, were tried, convicted, and sentenced to lengthened terms of imprisonment by the evidence of Sergeant Sheridan, Royal Irish Constabulary, who, with the aid of three perjured accomplices in the force, of whom one is Constable Anderson, brought home to them crimes of which he and his accomplices were the perpetrators, and received thereby promotion and pecuniary rewards, while a

      383
      fourth man, also innocent of any crime, pleaded guilty to the charges of Sheridan and his accomplices and was sentenced to a lengthened term of imprisonment; whether he is aware that Sergeant Sheridan was dismissed from the force and allowed to leave the country without trial, while two of his accomplices were allowed to retire from the force, receiving gratuities of some hundreds of pounds sterling, paid to them as compassionate allowances, whilst Constable Anderson has been retained in the force; whether the Irish Government still intend to retain Constable Anderson in the police force in discharge of the duties and receipt of pay; for what reason has this man been retained in the force; why can he not be called on to resign, as in the cases of his two confederates, with a compassionate allowance; and whether, having regard to the circumstances, the Government will take any, and, if so, what, steps to rid the Irish constabulary force of Anderson.
      MR. BRYCE: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the hon. Member's Question. I fear that I am not in a position to add much to the reply which I gave him on the 7th instant.† As I then stated, this matter was repeatedly debated in this House while the late Government were in office. I find that on July 23rd, 1902, the right hon. Member for Dover stated that he had to choose between two calamities— keeping people in the force who ought not to be there, and breaking an undertaking which had been given by the Government; and, for the reasons he then stated, he decided upon the former course. The three constables who were Sheridan's accomplices were given the opportunity of resigning with the means of starting afresh as honest men. Two out of the three resigned and were given what has been described as compassionate allowances, amounting to £200 and £50, respectively. The third, Anderson, protested his innocence and refused to resign; and he has since been retained at the depot under the circumstances already described. The only question which His Majesty's Government have now to decide is whether they are to observe the undertaking given by the late Government, and my Answer must be
      † See (4) Debates,cliii.,458–9.
      384
      in the affirmative. It is to be remembered that Constable Anderson performs no public duty, but is retained on "fatigue" duty at the depot, without any authority over recruits or other members of the force.
      MR. SWIFT MAC NEILL: Is not this man kept as a centre of pollution throughout the whole force? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the honour of the Government is bound by a corrupt bargain entered into by its predecessors? May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Duke of Bedford, as Lord-Lieutenant, refused to be bound by a corrupt bargain made by his predecessors with reference to the Act of Union? If the right hon. Gentleman is bound, what is the use of changing one Chief Secretary for another?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      St Patrick's Day—Closing of Licensed Premises in Ireland.
      MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the percentage of licensed premises closed in consequence of pressure of public opinion on St. Patrick's day in Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Londonderry, Limerick, Waterford, Gal-way, and Kilkenny.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Police authorities that the number of licensed premises wholly or partially closed on St Patrick's Day was as follows:—

      In Dublin,

      284

      out of a total of

      1242

      In Belfast,

      none

      out of a total of

      1167

      In Cork,

      46

      out of a total of

      533

      In Londonderry,

      3

      out of a total of

      227

      In Limerick,

      270

      out of a total of

      291

      In Waterford,

      93

      out of a total of

      218

      In Galway,

      133

      out of a total of

      134

      In Kilkenny,

      94

      out of a total of

      112

      Kilworth Evicted Tenant.
      MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have received an evicted tenant's form claiming to be reinstated signed by Patrick Myles, junior, to whom his father, Patrick Myles, senior, assigned his farm in 1900, previous to the eviction

      385
      of the family in March, 1902; whether he is aware that the landlady, Mrs. Caroline Burke, Heclash, Fermoy, is not averse to reinstate Myles in his former holding of seventy acres, situated at Ballingaparka, Kilworth, county Cork and whether, under the circumstances, the Estates Commissioners will intervene with a view to bring about a satisfactory arrangement.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received from Patrick Myles an application for re-instatement in his former holding on the estate referred to. The Commissioners approached the owner with the object of facilitating the reinstatement of the tenant, but her solicitors stated that she did not wish to part with her interest in the holding in question.

      Irish, Land Appeals.
      MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say how many cases were decided by the Court of Land Appeal, under the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1903, c. 37, s. 88.; in how many cases was inspection of the holding required by the tenant; in how many by the landlord; what was the average increase or reduction made in the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners in such cases respectively; and can he say what was the average increase or reduction made by the Court of Appeal in the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners in the cases in which appeals were heard and decided without such inspection being required by either landlord or tenant.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that 10,131 cases under the provisions of the 88th Section of the Irish Land Act, 1903, have been disposed of by the Judicial Commissioners. Inspections of the holdings, usually by the direction of the Court, sometimes at the request of the landlord, and sometimes at that of the tenants, have been made in all such cases, with the exception of not more than twelve cases out of the whole number. It would not be possible, without going through the records of proceedings in all the cases to state in what number of cases the landlord and the tenant, respectively, applied for inspection. The particulars
      386
      showing the results of rehearings and appeals, and the difference per cent. between rents fixed by the Sub-Commissions and the Civil Bill Courts, and the rents fixed after rehearings and appeals, appear annually in the Appendices to the Reports of the Land Commission. In the report for the year ending 31st March, 1905, these particulars are shown at pages 54 to 67.

      Inspectors of Secondary Schools in Ireland.
      MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the deadlock between the Intermediate Commissioners in Ireland and the Treasury as to the appointment of inspectors of secondary schools in Ireland; and, as this deadlock is injurious to education, whether he will use his influence with the Treasury to allow the views and judgment of the Intermediate Commissioners, who are all Irishmen, to prevail over those of the Treasury officials in this purely Irish question.
      MR. BRYCE: This matter has received, and will continue to receive, my careful attention. It has been decided that a permanent inspectorate shall not be established until the parts which inspection and examination should respectively play in the distribution of State, aid to intermediate schools have been determined. I may remind the hon. Member that the recent Commission on Intermediate Education in Ireland expressed the opinion that a permanent inspectorate should not be appointed so long as the existing system upon which grants for intermediate education are administered remains unchanged.

      Belleek Outrage.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Methodist minister, returning from a religious service at Belleek, county Fermanagh, where he was one of the officiating clergy, was attacked outside the village of Garrison by four men with blackened faces, who threw him off his bicycle, which they smashed; whether the clergyman thus assaulted was a prominent worker for the radical candidate for North Fermanagh at the last general election: and whether the men

      387
      who assaulted him, who were convicted and fined at the Belleek Petty Sessions, were all Orangemen; and what steps will the Government take to protect, from the violence of the members of the Orange lodges, persons of their own religion from whom they disagree on political questions.
      MR. BRYCE: The police received information that on the night of 6th February, a number of persons were returning on cars from service in the Methodist Church at Belleek. Mr. Hindmarsh, a Methodist Lay Evangelist, who was riding a bicycle, accompanied the party. When about a mile from Belleek, stones were thrown at the party by four men, whose faces, however, were not blackened. One of the men barred Mr. Hindmarsh's way, and, as a result, Mr. Hindmarsh jumped from his bicycle and fell on the road. The four men then smashed the bicycle, but did no personal injury to Mr. Hindmarsh. The police prosecuted the offenders, one of whom gave evidence against the other three. Two of these were fined £1 each, and the other 5s. for assaulting Mr. Hindmarsh. They had already paid that gentleman the sum of £9 for the damage done to his bicycle and for costs. Mr. Hindmarsh himself informed the police that he was a stranger in the locality and had taken no part in the recent election. His assailants, according to the information of the police, are not Orangemen. I am informed by the inspector-general that the excitement which attended the recent contested election has now abated, and that no special police action appears to be necessary. Whenever protection becomes necessary against violence from any quarter it is the duty of the police to afford it.

      Aglish Outrage.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the house of Michael Allen, at Aglish, Killarney, was entered by a band of disguised and armed men, and a gun and other articles taken and whether the police have made any arrests in connection with this matter.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that a complaint to the effect stated has been made to the local police, but it was not alleged that any
      388
      article except a gun was taken. The police have fully investigated the matter, but have not so far obtained sufficient evidence to justify them in making any arrests.
      MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the last Assize the Judge congratulated the Grand Jury on the peaceable condition of this country?
      MR. BRYCE: I believe that is so.

      Rehy Rabbit Preserve.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 10th instant a band of upwards of 200 men and boys, with dogs and sticks and spades, entered the farm of John Fitzgerald at Rehy, Carrigaholt, county Clare, which he uses for breeding and feeding rabbits, and, after killing as many rabbits as they could, dug up all the burrows they could find; and what steps, if any, are being taken to deal with actions of this nature.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed that Fitzgerald is not the occupier of the farm in question, which forms part of the estate of Major Hickman, now being sold to the tenants. The farm was until recently used by the landlord as a rabbit preserve, but as the sale to the tenants included the sporting rights, the landlord has, I am informed, abandoned the use of this farm as a game preserve. Upon several occasions during the present month about a hundred men and boys have assembled on the farm, to kill rabbits without objection from Fitzgerald, who was the former gamekeeper, or, so far as I know, from anyone else. No interference on the part of the police has been called for.

      Dromagh Evicted Tenants.
      MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the estate of W. N. Leader, Dromagh, county Cork, and the correspondence which has passed between the Reverend Father Casey, P.P., and the hon. Member for North Cork, on the one hand, and the Estates Commissioners on the other, will the Commissioners now state what steps they have taken to bring about the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, Mr. Job

      389
      Fitzpatrick and Mrs. Mary Cronin (to the reinstatement of whom the landlord has given consent); and, in view of this landlord's willingness to sell a large portion of the untenanted land in his possession, and of the fact that the originating notice was lodged by the owner in June, 1905, will the Commissioners take immediate steps to secure this land for the purpose of creating suitable holdings for other evicted tenants, and for the labourers of the locality, and for the enlargement of the present uneconomic holdings on the estate.
      MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to my reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 26th February on this subject.† The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not yet been able to make inquiries into the cases of these evicted tenants, but that they hope to be in a position to do so shortly.
      MR. FLYNN: This matter has been going on a long time. Will the Land Commissioners make the inquiries soon?
      MR. BRYCE: I have no doubt they will do so as soon as they can.

      Newman Estate, Mallow.
      MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Newman estate, Mallow, whether he can say under what section of the Land Act of 1903, or by what regulation of the Lord-Lieutenant under the said Act, the Estates Commissioners claim the right or discretion to exclude from the purchase scheme of this estate the tenant, Mr. T. C. O'Callagham, although he offered to purchase upon the same terms as the other tenant purchasers; and, having regard to the fact that this man was an industrious improving farmer, holding under a judicial tenancy, and has now been evicted, will the Commissioners retain in their own hands the corpus of the purchase money and the bonus, or take other steps to reinstate this man and place him in the same position as the other purchasing tenants on the estate.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the holding
      † See (4) Debates, clii., 796.
      390
      referred to was excluded from the purchase proceedings in pursuance of the powers given to the Commissioners by Section 98 of the Act of 1903, which provides that the expression "estate" shall mean any lands which the Estates Commissioners may declare fit to be regarded as a separate estate for the purposes of the Act. The Commissioners are now in communication with the vendor on the subject of the eviction of O'Callaghan, and while those communications are in progress they are not in a position to make any statement upon the concluding part of the Question.
      MR. FLYNN: This case is one of very great importance to the district.

      Irish Prison Governors.
      MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what were the grounds on which five ex-military men, some of whom hold pensions from the Crown, have been appointed to the governorship of Irish prisons; what training and experience have these five gentleman, recently appointed over the heads of the prison service, had to qualify them for the positions; and will this system of depriving the staff of the prospect of promotion be persisted in.
      MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to the very full reply which I gave to the hon. Member's Question of the 12th instant on this subject.‡ Only one recent appointment of the kind referred to has been made. Prison governors are appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant, whose function it is to satisfy himself that the gentlemen to be appointed possess the necessary qualifications. I have already stated that the proportion of promotions to governorships from subordinate ranks of the prison service is exceptionally large in Ireland, eleven out of the existing eighteen governors having been so promoted. There is no intention of departing from the present system, under which the claims of subordinate ranks to promotion have been fully recognised.

      Police Protection in County Limerick.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there
      ‡ See (4) Debates, cliii., 903–4.

      391
      are sixteen persons in county Limerick who are under constant police protection; and whether he can say what are the causes which necessitate police protection in so many cases.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that there are only two persons under constant police protection in county Limerick, and that each of these persons is the caretaker of an evicted farm. There are, however, fourteen other persons who receive, not constant, but occasional police protection by patrols. The need has usually arisen from agrarian disputes.
      MR. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Judges of Assize and the County Court Judge have lately pronounced Limerick to be one of the most peaceable districts of Ireland, and that frequently during the last five years they have been presented with white gloves because there have been no prisoners for trial.
      MR. BRYCE: I think that is so.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if the Question was in order, and whether, as framed, it did not make the hon. Member putting it responsible for the facts? Was it right that bogus charges should be put on the Paper in this way?
      MR. SPEAKER: I do not see anything in the form of the hon. Member's Question to object to.

      Queen's County and Canadian Cattle Imports.
      MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Resolutions were passed by the County Council, Queen's County, the County Committee of Agricultural and Technical Instruction, the Slievemargy and Ossory Agricultural Societies in the same county, protesting against the withdrawal of the prohibition against the importation of Canadian store cattle, on the grounds I that it would be ruinous to the interests of small farmers, and almost certain to introduce cattle disease to the country; and will he say whether the prohibition will be withdrawn; and if, so, on what date.
      MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture have received Resolutions to the effect indicated in the Question. The prohibition referred to is imposed by statute.

      Agrarian Disturbances in County Galway.
      MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether since 1st June last, in county Galway, there have been four cases of knocking down walls and gates, eight cases of intimidating letters and notices, four cases of agrarian assaults, eighteen cases of intimidation, other than by letters and notices, eleven cases of shooting into houses, two cases of shooting at persons, and one case of malicious injury to animals; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that since the 1st June last there have been in county Galway four cases of malicious injury to walls or gates, in three of which the injury done was trifling; twenty two cases of intimidation by threatening letters or notices; two cases of assault, which might possibly have arisen from agrarian matters, though this is not certain; one case of intimidation other than by threatening letters or notices; ten cases of firing shots into houses; one case of firing at the person; and one case of malicious injury to animals. In one of the cases of alleged agrarian assault the Grand Jury threw out the bill against the accused, and in the case of firing at the person the accused were acquitted at Assizes. I am informed that county Galway was in an unsatisfactory state last year owing chiefly to an agitation in the early summer against the grazing system, but that the condition of affairs has decidedly improved since then, and that there is every reason to hope that this improvement will continue.

      Gilford Township and the Banbridge Union Rates.
      MR. LIDDELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the ratepayers in the township of Gilford, county Down, for years past, besides having to pay their share of the rates for the union of Banbridge, from which the rural school attendance officer

      393
      is paid his salary, have had to pay a special addition to the town rates for the purpose of paying a town school attendance officer, and that notwithstanding that the said ratepayers have been paying two different rates to two different men for doing the same work neither of these school attendance officers has done anything in the matter of looking after the attendance of children within the township for over eight months; and whether he will take steps to secure that in future these ratepayers shall be responsible for rates to pay only one officer, whether urban or rural, and that that officer shall attend to his business better than such business has been attended to in the past.
      MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the Question. The difficulty has arisen owing to an over-lapping of areas under the Irish Education Act, 1892, and a remedy could only be provided by legislation. I am, however, informed that for the past nine months the Gilford Town Commissioners have ceased to employ a school attendance officer, and the difficulty has therefore been obviated for the time being. The question as to the performance of his duties by the school attendance officer of the Banbridge rural district is one for the District Council to deal with.

      Annesley and Downshire Estates.
      MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the lay Sub-Commissioner has recently, in several second-term applications by tenants on the estates of Earl Annesley and the Marquess of Downshire, county Down, confirmed the first judicial rents, and has in other cases granted only nominal reductions below the scale voluntarily proposed by the landlords; what reason, if any, the Sub-Commissioner gives for fixing a higher acreable rent on these estates than was assessed by former Sub-Commissions; whether he is aware that in consequence of the Sub-Commissioner's conduct the landlords concerned have withdrawn the scale of voluntary reductions heretofore offered to the tenants on executing second-term judicial agreements; and whether the attention of the Chief Land Commission will be called to this matter.
      MR. BRYCE: The Land Commission inform me that during the period which has elapsed since the passing of the Act of 1903, eighty-seven second-term rents have been judicially fixed by the Sub-Commission Courts on the estate of the Earl of Annesley. In seven of these cases the second-term rents are the same as the first-term rents, and in eighty the first-term rents have been reduced. The total average reduction in respect of the eighty-seven cases represents 18·2 per cent. During the same period 427 second-term rents were fixed on the estate of the Marquess of Downshire. In one case the second - term rent is the same as that fixed for the first-term. In 426 cases the first-term rents were reduced. The average percentage of the reduction is the same as in the case of the Annesley estate. The Commissioners consider that they ought not to discuss the judicial decision of the Sub-Commission Courts in any particular case, and, moreover, appeals are pending in some of the cases referred to. Agreements fixing fair rents entered into in accordance with the provisions of Section 8, Sub-section 6, of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, during the period mentioned, have been received by the Land Commission in respect of the estates in question, namely, 410 from the Annesley estate, and 1,976 from the Downshire estate. The reduction as between the first and second - term rents represents 14·1 and 15·5 per cent. respectively.
      MR. MACVEAGH: Is it the case that landlords are withdrawing the scales of voluntary reductions heretofore offered to the tenants? On what basis do the Sub-Commission fix the rents higher than the landlords are willing to agree to?
      MR. BRYCE: I cannot go into the question of the reasons actuating the Commission.

      Seed Potato Loans.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what amount has been lent by the Board of Works to boards of guardians in Ireland, since December, 1904, for the purpose of providing seed potatoes; and how many Poor Law guardians have availed themselves of this provision to obtain seed intended for the relief of distress from the Poor Law

      395
      Boards of which they were members, and so became disqualified from acting as guardians and liable to penalties for so doing.
      MR. BRYCE: Loans amounting to £70,0,7 13s. 2d. have been made since December, 1904, to boards of guardians for the purchase of seed potatoes. A table giving particulars of these loans will be found at pages 376–7 of the Annual Report of the Local Government Board for 1904–5. The board are unable to state how many guardians availed themselves of the moans of obtaining a supply of imported seed, but as all persons rated under £15 were eligible, it is believed that a considerable number of guardians did so. The primary object of the seed supply operations was, not to relieve distress, but, there having been a partial failure of the potato crop, to introduce now varieties of seed and thereby to improve the crop.
      MR. LONSDALE: Are not the guardians who thus acted disqualified?
      MR. BRYCE: According to a recent decision they are, but it was not known at the time.
      MR. T. L. CORBETT: Has any action been taken in the matter?
      MR. BRYCE: It is hardly a topic which can be dealt with by Question and Answer. If the Question is raised on the Estimates, I will give fuller information.

      Royal University and Disloyal Demonstration by Students.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of the Minutes of Proceedings in the Senate of the Royal University relating to the exhibition of disloyalty by students at the last conferment of degrees, and the powers of the Senate for dealing with such matters, together with the correspondence which has passed between the Irish Government and the Senate upon this subject since October last.
      MR. BRYCE: I have referred this Question to the Secretaries of the Royal University in order to ascertain whether there would be any objection on the part
      396
      of the Senate to the publication of the minutes of proceedings referred to, and I am informed that the matter will be laid before the Senate for consideration at its next meeting in May. In the meantime it will be premature to consider the question of publishing the correspondence referred to in the latter part of the Question.

      The University Question.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of resolutions passed by the Royal University Graduates' Association, protesting against any settlement of the university question involving the expenditure of State money upon ecclesiastical or sectarian institutions; and whether, in formulating proposals on this subject, regard will be had to this principle.
      MR. BRYCE: The Answer to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. I am not at present prepared to make any statement on the subject.

      Countess of Kingston's Mitchelstown Estate.
      MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the memorial presented to them in 1904 from persons holding property as tenants in Mitchelstown regarding inclusion of the town in the sale of the agricultural portions of the estate of the Countess of Kingston; and if this matter will receive the attention of the Commissioners when the estate is being inspected during the present month.
      MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that they have received the memorial in question. The town of Mitchelstown is not included in the estate proposed to be sold. The memorial will be referred to the inspector for enquiry and report when he visits the estate.

      Gough Estate, Gort.
      MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any representation has been made to the Estates Commissioners by Lord Gough, in respect to the sale to the occupying tenants of

      397
      their holdings on the Gough estate in and near Gort; and, if not, in view of the proceedings instituted from time to time against the tenants, leading to disorder, seizures, and disturbance, he will consider with the Estates Commissioners the propriety of communicating with Viscount Gough, with a view to arranging terms of purchase.
      MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings in regard to the sale of Lord Gough's Estate have come before them. The Commissioners will consider whether the circumstances of the case justify their taking any action in the matter under the recent regulations.

      Athy Postal Accommodation.
      MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails in Athy, county Kildare, with the inadequate accommodation provided both for the public and staff in the present post office premises; can he say what length of time has elapsed since the post office authorities advertised for a site on which to erect a suitable structure; how many replies have been received, and when, offering suitable sites; whether he is aware that inconvenience has arisen owing to the delay in making choice of a site; and can he say when a decision will be arrived at.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The unsuitability of the post office accommodation in Athy is recognised, and advertisements for a site for a new office were issued about two years ago. No offers were received at the time, but three have since been received, and are under consideration. I hope it will be possible to come to a decision in the matter very shortly.

      Devolution in Ireland.
      MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether the official correspondence between the late Prime Minister and the late Viceroy of Ireland on the question of devolution is in possession of the present Government, and whether it will be produced.
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): I cannot answer that Question without inquiry and investigation. I imagine it would not be left in the archives, but I do not know. If the hon. Gentleman will give notice I will inquire.
      MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he would give notice.

      Allotted Days of Supply.
      MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHasked if Report of a Naval Supplementary Vote having been taken on Monday that day could be counted as an allotted day in Supply.
      MR. SPEAKERsaid a Vote for £100 as a Supplementary Navy Estimate was taken on Report. The Standing Order with regard to Supply contained the words—"provided it is occupied with the consideration of the question shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days aforesaid." Properly speaking, the Vote ought not to have been taken, but his attention was not directed to it at the time or it probably would not have been taken. It could hardly be said, however, that the House was occupied by consideration of such an Estimate, for it only took a couple of minutes, and as the matter was a very small one and no substantial injustice had been done he saw no reason why Monday should not be counted as an allotted day.

      CONTEMPT OF COURT (IRELAND) BILL.
      Order for Second Reading upon Friday, May 4th, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
      PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
      First Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NEW BILL.
  ALIENS BILL.
  "To amend The Aliens Act, 1905, presented by Mr. O'Grady; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I propose to move as an Amendment to leave out the words after "that," and insert—"this House declines to proceed with the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill without an assurance from His Majesty's Government that they will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire and report on the economic and moral effect of the system of indentured labour at present in operation in the Transvaal." I do not suppose, as at present advised, that it will be necessary to carry that Amendment to a division; but the object of moving it is the convenience of the House in order that the subject under discussion may be clearly defined and not interrupted by other subjects which would be relevant to the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not propose this afternoon to refer again to the old question of our grievance in regard to the misrepresentations which were made on the subject during the general election. The Government have by the mouths of its members acknowledged and regretted the misrepresentations, but have nevertheless largely profited by them. On the other hand, we have suffered, and may perhaps justly feel that it is no use crying over spilt milk. But I think there will be anions Members on both sides of the House a feeling that the present situation of this most important question deserves further attention on the part of the House. We have heard varying—I might almost say inconsistent — expressions of opinion from members of His Majesty's Government, and I cannot help thinking that these declarations must have opened the eyes of many members of the Government to the very serious character of the proposals which they have under consideration. They have discovered in the course of discussions on this subject, in the first place, that the prosperity of the whole of South Africa is concerned, and any action they may take may bring bring about most grievous disaster, and we find also, incidentally at any rate, a great constitutional question of
  400
  our relations with self-governing colonies brought before the House. The general question of the desirability or otherwise of Chinese labour may be discussed under two heads—there is the economic question and there is the moral question. I do not pretend to decide the relative importance of these two heads, but I deal first with the economic question. I may say that my case, to put it briefly, is that on either of these important branches the House, the country, and the Government have not sufficient information. Now as regards the economic question, it is admitted, it has formed the staple of one the speeches of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, that the cessation of the system now in operation, and, indeed, as I understand, the cessation at any time, without any alternative being provided, would be productive of most serious consequences. It is admitted that the gold mines are, and must remain, probably for many years, the principal industry of the Transvaal, and as the principal industry of the Transvaal they are the pivot upon which the whole of the prosperity of South Africa depends. I do not think I need emphasise that. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies—and if I may venture to say, though I differ from many parts of it—in a remarkably statesmanlike speech on the subject, declared that it was generally agreed that the success of the gold mines was indissolubly connected with the prosperity of South Africa; and I venture to say, and I hope to show, that a great deal more than this prosperity depends on the condition. If the mines are closed, if the richest mines are closed, which we are told is likely to be the case, in the first place many thousands of British workmen will be thrown out of employment, and sent home to increase the number of unemployed, already great, that exists here. But that is not all. If the miners go, British influence goes with them. Now, whatever we may think of the nature of the future Constitution to be granted to the Transvaal, we shall all agree with that great principle laid down by Lord Durham in his celebrated letter, that the foundations of a British self-governing Colony must be laid in British influence—that is to say, that, generally speaking, the country must be governed according to British ideas and not according to the ideas of a foreign nation. The House

  401
  will see that, if we take from the Transvaal a very large proportion of those who are animated by these British ideas, who are nevertheless not tied to the soil, but may come away if their industry suffers or is lacking in development—that if you allow this to happen you will remove from the Transvaal a large proportion of those on whom we must depend in the future to maintain the British flag, British influence, and British ideas. Again, imports, not to the Transvaal alone, but to South Africa, at the present time are British imports, and, of course, exports from Great Britain supply the needs of the Transvaal and South Africa and give employment to a large number of British subjects at home. Destroy the position and the success of the mines and you destroy the prosperity of one of our best customers and influence unfavourably the condition of the working classes in this country. The exports from the Transvaal are principally, of course, gold and some diamonds, but as regards gold I think all persons acquainted with the subject will tell you that if anything occurs to stop the export it must have a serious effect on the finances of this country, and probably on the finances of the whole world. It is not a question— at least, it is not a question I am taking into consideration—of the profits of mineowners or even of shareholders. I am taking into account the general economic effect of such a change as may follow the cessation of Chinese indentured labour. I think the reduction in the production of the circulating medium that will result from the abandonment of a great number of mines would be of the most serious consequence to the trade of the Empire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is sanguine as to the results of his coming Budget; but I think he would have little upon which to congratulate himself if there were any serious reduction of these exports. Now, up to the present I do not think I have said anything with which the Government, at all events, will disagree. ["Oh! Oh!"] Well, let the Government speak for themselves. I have not said more, I am confident, than the Government have in substance already said. In the first speech made by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies he brought before the House very much the same arguments as those I have restated in giving reasons why there should be no premature action on the
  402
  part of the Government, and the position they have defended is that we should look, not merely at the continuance of the present system; that we should allow contracts to be completed which have been entered into with some 16,000 or 20,000 Chinamen for labour in South Africa; that we should in effect give a period variously estimated, but four years at least, and, as we think, an even longer time, during which there would be a gradual abolition, but that no sudden, no violent action for discontinuance should be taken during that period. Now, I submit to the Government that an arrangement of this kind, which is a compromise, is, like a great many compromises, thoroughly unsatisfactory, whatever view is taken. It is unsatisfactory, absolutely unsatisfactory, to the industry concerned. If it should be shown—I do not prejudge the question—if no alternative is offered, that Chinese labour is necessary for the working of the mines to their fullest extent, then what advantage do you confer on the promoters of this industry by holding over their heads this sword of Damocles for four or six years? Is that the way a great industry, the chief industry of a country, can be maintained and developed? I appeal without distinction of party, is there a business man in the House—[Laughter.] The sense of humour in this House is something I have never seen before, and I confess I never knew a great Party so easily amused upon such small occasion. I appeal to men of business and ask them whether they can conceive that any industry can be successfully conducted and properly developed over which there hangs the threat of early extinction? I take an illustration known to all the House—that of sugar refining in this country and the manufacture of sugar refining machinery. Whatever you may think of the Sugar Convention, you must admit that sugar refining in this country and the manufacture of sugar refining machinery were practically destroyed by the uncertainty which prevailed. It was not so much the actual bounty which was given at any time, although that was very serious as a preference, but much more than that was the constant fear that that bounty might be altered to the disadvantage of the trade, and no man in his senses would employ his capital in an industry which was subject to anything of that sort. As it was in the sugar refining industry, so

  403
  it must necessarily be in the mining industry. It is all very well to suggest, as some have suggested, that the mineowners have stopped their orders for machinery in this country in order to mark their indignation at the conduct of the Government or the House. The mineowners, like other business people, look first to their own interests and their own property, without regard to politics or anything of that sort. It follows that if they have stopped their orders for machinery, or are going to stop their orders, it will not be in order to spite the Government, but it will be because the conditions make it impossible to continue. I urge, and this is one of my claims on the common sense of the House, that, whatever is done in this matter, it should be done quickly, that the policy of the Government should be known to all the world, so that, at all events, those who are immediately and profoundly concerned may be informed upon it and may not remain in any uncertainty, for uncertainty is the very worst thing for trade. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] I again congratulate myself that I may carry with me the majority of the House. I think the Government feel that the fear of action which is to be taken four, sir, eight, or ten years hence hanging over this industry is a very undesirable thing; and, therefore, while they are in favour of an abolition of the existing system, they are good enough to provide it with their idea of a substitute, and they tell us that this disaster, which we say would result from the absence of Chinese labour if there is no other labour to be found, need not be feared, because they know there are substitutes which really, if they only were aware of their own interests, must be more advantageous to the mineowners than the present system. What are those alternatives which have been suggested by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies? In the first place, he takes the view that cheap white labour might be substituted for the yet cheaper Chinese and native labour.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I never said cheap white labour.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Really that interruption has no force. At any rate, the Under-Secretary knows enough of
  404
  this matter to know that a higher-priced white labour is, in any circumstances, absolutely impossible. You may have higher-priced white labour for supervision, for the highest class of skilled labour, but nobody has suggested yet that the ordinary unskilled labour, the labour that is now performed by the Chinaman or the native, could be economically possible unless the white labour was to accept, not the same wages —I do not suggest that—but much more moderate wages.
  MR. BYLES: Unless the dividends are reduced.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a question of dividend. In the case of certain mines, the higher priced, the more valuable, the richer mines, there is no doubt that they might at the price of a reduction of the dividend, which already, remember, is included in the price in the market, so that any reduction now would be a great injustice to the present holders, whatever it might be to the original holders. But I grant the hon. Member that, if the House thought it fit to encourage and support a doctrine of that kind, there are certain mines which could well afford to pay a much larger wage by a reduction of dividend. That applies, however, to a very small proportion of the industry. The great proportion of the industry will be at all times a very poorly paying industry. No one can go into the lower grade mines with any expectation whatever that he is going to make his fortune—at all events as a pure investment. I am not talking of transactions on the Stock Exchange, to which are due almost entirely all the large fortunes of which we hear so much, but, treating it as an ordinary, normal industry, it is perfectly clear you can no more expect to make very largo dividends or very large fortunes out of the lower grade mines than you can out of any large competing industry. Therefore, by adopting a policy which would lead to that result, I do not say you would close all the mines, but you would prevent development in the only way in which the trade can be developed in these low grade mines. The House knows that personally I am most favourable to the idea, nothing would please me more than to believe, that white labour at moderate wages could be employed in the place of these Asiatics or of the natives. But I am

  405
  bound to remember this, that, when you come to discuss the matter with anybody who really knows practically anything about the business, you will find on one side Mr. Creswell, for whom, as I have already said, I have great respect, and, as far as I know, you will not find on the same side any single engineer of eminence. The engineering of the whole of Europe is represented on the Rand. There are, I believe, most distinguished German and French engineers. I know there are some of the finest engineers from the United States of America occupying the highest positions on the Rand, and, of course there are a proportionate number of British engineers, and I say that, as far as I know, there is not a single one of them who agrees with Mr. Creswell. I am not an engineer, and I am not competent to decide between them, although the Under-Secretary is; but, at least, it must be admitted that at present the balance of evidence is against the feasibility of employing white labour of the kind I am now speaking of upon these mines. The other day, the Under-Secretary, as an illustration of the position in which we are, spoke of the Ivanhoe mine in Western Australia, where the work is done entirely by white labour, and where the mine is very successfully managed. But, within the next day or so, the chairman of this mine wrote to say that, although that is true, he does not agree with the Under-Secretary. He does not think the conditions in the Transvaal are at all the same, and does not pretend to believe that the policy of the Ivanhoe mine could be safely pursued in the Transvaal. Surely under these circumstances, unless we think ourselves so wise that we can decide matters of engineering, matters of policy, matters of finance, matters of the most technical character, on our own sole wisdom, we ought to appeal to those who are recognised as scientific experts and witnesses upon the subject, and we should not enter upon what, after all, is a great experiment upon the unproved assertion of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. The Under-Secretary went on to say that, in his opinion, sufficient effort had not been made by the mineownors to secure native labour. Are not the mineowners likely to know their own business as well as, or better than, the Under-Secretary for the
  406
  Colonies? There native labour is cheaper. It is not open to the enormous objections which we all feel to Chinese labour. Do you suppose — I put that as an a priori argument—that they would not have employed native labour if they could have had it? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Yes."] There are so many Gentlemen in the present House who know everything. I do not agree. My argument is that if it was better for the mineowners and the industry to have native labour, and if native labour were procurable they might be trusted to have got it. They say that it is not procurable in sufficient quantities, and upon that I have a strong opinion, and I believe that they are right. Where is the native labour to come from? Long ago native labour in our British possessions was exhausted. While I was at the Colonial Office we did our very best, looking forward to the possibility that some demand for extraneous foreign Asiatic labour might be called for to promote the immigration and the importation of native labour. We tried to get it from Nyassaland, and, owing to a famine that caused terrible distress, the Foreign Office gave their assent, and I believe that the mineowners secured 2,000 or 3,000 labourers from that Colony. But there were the strongest protests made from the whites and from our own fellow-subjects in that Colony, who said that they were not prepared to denude the Colony of labour which would ultimately be required for its own development. Another illustration is Rhodesia, where they refused to allow, or to encourage at all events, the emigration of Rhodesian labour in order to supply the mines. In the Portuguese Colony, from which a great part of the native labour comes, they have already refused to grant permission in some parts of their territory, and I am certain that if the Portuguese become more energetic in regard to their Colonial enterprises or allow other nations to become more energetic, and to take a larger part in the industrial development of their own Colony they will, before many years, find that they cannot spare any of their labour for the British mines. Therefore, I am quite convinced that at the present time there is not enough labour, and that in the near future there will be less native labour. It is entirely a mistake to put before this House as a sufficient reason

  407
  for getting rid of the Chinese that the mineowners have not taken proper steps to secure native labour.
  MR. BYLES: Is it not a question of wages?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged for the interruption of the hon. Member, because it gives me an opportunity of dealing with that point, although it will prolong my speech. It has been said that wages are too low to attract the natives, and that if the mineowners could be persuaded to pay higher wages they would get all the native labour they want. That is exactly the reverse of practical experience on the Rand. The mineowners at present pay the natives a sum altogether beyond any normal expectation of remuneration which the natives had for their labour. It is probably double what the Boers used to pay for agricultural labourers, and the Boers complained most bitterly that the mineowners outbid them and that agriculture was at a standstill because the mineowners got the labour at a price which the Boer farmers could not afford to pay. The House must remember that human nature is not exactly the same in every quarter of the globe, and that when you come to deal with the human nature of natives in places such as we are considering, you find an altogether different order of ideas to deal with. To begin with, a native does not like work. At any rate, the native has not that real love of work which does exist amongst a great number of working men and others in different positions which makes them miserable if they are idle. That is not the case with the native. The native's idea, when he has got money, is to enjoy it. In fact, he would make a most excellent leisured class if you only provided him with the funds. Let me ask if the Under-Secretary for the Colonies has considered this question? We know how strong he is on the subject of morality. I wonder whether he has considered the state of things partly created by our employment of these natives, and does he consider it repugnant to morality? The native's idea of luxury is a wife—not one wife, but a number of wives, according to his means. Now these wives are not only wives, they are something more. But, after all, we tolerate polygamy in a great number of our
  408
  dependencies, and I do not know why we should complain of it so much in the case of these native districts. But the wives exist in a state of semi-slavery. The more wives a native has, the more people he has to labour for him, and to allow him to enjoy his leisured existence. That is the condition of leisured existence. You cannot have it unless you have people to work for you. [Cheers.] I suppose that hon. Members who cheer do not altogether approve of that as a desirable state of things or a proper condition of social order. At all events, we are dealing with facts as they are. These natives, whatever you may think of them, are born in the belief that it is their right to be idle and to make their wives work for them. The more wages you give them, the more semi-slaves they will obtain. Incidentally, I said just now that the Boers complain of the high wages we pay the natives. I have talked to a good number of Boer farmers, and I do not think there was one who did not make a complaint because they did not get labourers. If you are to make, and I hope some day or other we shall make, the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony more important agricultural countries than they are at present, it can only be done if a sufficiency of labour can be provided; and I do not suppose that anybody suggests that whites should be employed as ordinary agricultural labourers on Boer farms. I do not think the Boers would accept them; they desire to have free access to a large supply of native labour, and if you are going to outbid them and take every native labourer into the mines, it will be a very serious matter. That has to be taken into account in connection with the introduction of foreign labour, which, at all events, relieves to a certain extent the pressure upon native labour. If that were not enough, in the same speech to which I have referred the Under-Secretary for the Colonies suggested that all these threats to a great industry would indirectly operate as a healthy stimulus to the mineowners to seek other alternatives, such as the introduction of labour-saving machinery. I think it is conceivable that labour-saving machinery might be introduced to a greater extent

  409
  than at present. I am sure the mineowners are quite alive to their own interests, and they would be only too glad to substitute labour-saving machinery for both native and white labour. But up to the present I believe no satisfactory machinery has been invented that will take the place of the natives and others who are employed in getting out the stuff in which the gold is found. In these circumstances I ask the House to come to the conclusion that we are asked to adopt a policy which must be taken to be a great experiment. If that experiment fails the injury we shall do to South Africa will be enormous, and we do not know enough of our own knowledge at the present time to say whether that experiment can succeed or will fail. The suggestions made to us by the Under-Secretary and other people are all hypotheses, and it is not safe to risk the security and prosperity of a great Colony—it is not fair to them, and it is not right in the interests of the Empire, to do this unless we have absolute knowledge. I claim from the Government, on no Party grounds, but on grounds of commonsense and reason, that they should agree to the suggestion which I made at the beginning of the session, that they should send out an expert Commission in which all the world, and British people especially, will have confidence in order to ascertain what are the true facts about these disputed matters. So much for the economic question.
  Now about the moral question. Are the Government themselves agreed about this moral question? We have one Minister saying that this system is slavery, naked and unabashed; another Minister says it is semi-slavery; and another Minister says it has the taint of slavery. The last Minister, to whose opinion the greatest importance should be attached, because he is responsible for the situation in South Africa, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, says he declines all responsibility for these general statements, and deeply regrets that they have ever been made. After all, many hon. Gentlemen opposite feel very strongly upon this subject. Have they made up their minds? May I appeal to them to ask themselves upon what sufficient grounds they have made up their minds, upon what actually
  410
  acquired knowledge they have come to this decision that it is slavery, naked and unabashed, or semi-slavery, or has the taint of slavery? I ask them, before they rush upon a proceeding which may involve this country in serious consequences, that they will convince themselves that for the opinions they have formed they have already sufficient knowledge, and that they will bear in mind that those whom they follow and support have not made up their minds, because it is perfectly clear from their utterances that they have arrived at different conclusions. Is it unreasonable of me to ask the Government to settle the question once for all? Why cannot they settle their own minds first? South Africa is not so very far away; the people speak the same language and have the same ideal. Why cannot we have evidence taken on the spot by people competent to judge the evidence, who would bring home to us the result of their inquiry, instead of depending upon those instinctive feelings of perfectly honourable but, I would say, perfectly ignorant people? What is the objection? It is not going to delay any important action by a single day. How long will the Commission take? Three months. Say six. Well, you are not going to deal with the thing for six or ten years. How will the Chinamen be benefited, how will morality be benefited by your acting in a sort of paroxysm of morality? Surely your action will be all the more effective, will be justified by the opinion of the civilised world, which is something, if you proceed on actual knowledge. It never will be justified if you act under the suspicion—I will not say that the suspicion is justified—that you are acting in order to cover up your tracks or to find an excuse for the statements you have made before the evidence was produced. We were horrified, and I think every humane man must have been horrified, by the statements which have been made continuously down to the present time of outrages by British subjects abroad upon the Chinese imported into the Transvaal. Well, are you not going to have any inquiry into that? I want to know whether these statements of outrages are true.
  MR. J. WARD: Lord Selborne say yes.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, Lord Selborne admits certain abuses. There may have been abuses at the commencement of a new system, as there very often are; but Lord Selborne says that they are not continued. But if serious abuses have been alleged ought not we to satisfy ourselves by a more direct inquiry—an inquiry by a Commission would be more impartial than by any one holding the position of High Commissioner—ought not we to have some inquiry to assure us that these outrages ever did exist? Again, what harm can be done? Why are we to leave our fellow-subjects under the general imputation—because, remember, it is not an imputation that here and there some scoundrel or another has misused his temporary powers. I suppose we believe in parental responsibility and affection, and yet we know that the most horrible outrages on children are perpetrated by their own parents in Great Britain. Are we going therefore to condemn the whole civilisation and morality of Great Britain and place a stigma on its name because these outrages take place which everybody condemns? But cannot you place yourselves for one moment in the position of your British fellow-subjects abroad? Do you think that they do not feel these accusations when they are made in this general way, when there is no discrimination? Do you not think that they feel deeply your inability or unwillingness to discriminate between the wickedness of one or two and a general condemnation of the humanity almost of a nation, a nation of the same blood as ourselves? Now, I say again, why am I to be treated almost with contempt by the Prime Minister [cries of "Oh"]—why is it not reasonable to ask, if these outrages have been committed, that they shall be brought home to their authors and that those who have committed them shall, if it be humanly possible, be punished? And, on the other hand, that the nation at large shall, if possible, be relieved from a stigma that is perfectly discreditable? I have tried to think what can be the reason for the refusal of what seems to me to be such a reasonable request. I ask the Prime Minister,
  412
  will he consider the matter? How are the Government going to suffer if they appoint this Commission, which I hope would be so constituted as to secure universal confidence? Let us take two hypotheses. They will report in one of two ways. If they report that there has been a mistake, that there is no outrage, and that there is absolutely no abuse in connection with the system, then are the Government afraid of the truth? They cannot be afraid of the truth, and if I might submit to their political sense this additional argument I would say, think of what a burden it would relieve them. If the country were convinced upon this impartial authority that they had been misled as to the existence of serious abuses in the Transvaal, then the Government would no longer be committed to a threatened diplomatic intervention in China, or to vetoing a self-governing Colony or to any other of the proceedings to which they apparently have committed themselves. They would then be justified in saying to the House and the country: "This is only an economic question; the question of morality is no longer concerned. We have an economic question to deal with, and that question we are going to leave to the absolutely unfettered discretion of the self-governing Colony we are creating." That is one alternative. I will take the other. Suppose they confirm all the worst anticipations of the gentlemen, who, without hearing the evidence, have come to a conclusion; suppose that, after hearing the evidence, their instinct, their extraordinary keen perception of the wickedness of everybody else but themselves is justified, and it appears that what has been going on is really repugnant to humanity, see how strong the Government will be. Who is there, then, who will deny their right to interfere in those circumstances? They will have all the justification anybody can expect them to obtain. They can take strong steps. They can also have the advantage of the advice of the Commission they appoint, because they may instruct the Commission to report, if they find the state of things there unsatisfactory, their recommendations as to what steps should be taken for reform. It appears to me that from a political standpoint alone there is a very strong

  413
  argument in favour of adopting this course. But look at the present situation. The Government are all at sea. They do not know in the first place what is the condition of things, and they do not know how they are going to relieve the possible conditions of things. They have shown that in their speeches. Read the speech of the Colonial Secretary in the House of Lords. Read the last speech of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. Can anyone say that those two speeches are consistent, or even that the Under-Secretary is consistent with himself? Does anyone pretend that his last speech is consistent with his first speech? I take the last utterance of the Under-Secretary, and I ask the House to consider what is the position in which we are placed by our Government in face of a condition of things which they profess to believe is repugnant to morality and a stain on the honour of the British name. This is what they propose, unless I am misrepresenting them, which I will certainly not do if I can avoid it. They propose to postpone any drastic dealing with this subject for the present. They propose to leave it to a new Government to be established in the Transvaal which may not meet for a year or more. Now their first expectation and hope will be that when this Government meets it will be so animated by their own principles of morality that it will take exactly the same view as they do, and thereupon immediately get rid of the unclean thing. But that is a hope, an expectation; it is not a fact. The Under-Secretary himself showed in his last speech that they did not think it was probable. What will be the real opinion of the Transvaal? Though I do not generally predict, I venture to predict that they will not accept the views of the Government. They will not put a stop to Asiatic immigration, although they may alter in some details the Ordinances. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Yes, but you can do that. You have already done it. You say that you have removed from the Ordinances the principal objections. Very well. I doubt very much whether any alteration made by the Transvaal Government will remove any objection held by the hon. Gentlemen who interrupt, but it may
  414
  remove the objection to the economic working of the Ordinance. But I doubt whether it will be in the direction of sentimental or humanitarian views. [Cries of "Oh," and "What about the humanity of the Transvaal?"] Pretty defenders of the humanity of the Transvaal on the other side of the House. But as they have put a wrong meaning to what I have just said I will add this. My own conviction is that the members of the new Transvaal Government will think that the precautions already taken for the humane treatment of the Chinese immigrants are sufficient, and therefore such alterations as they may desire to make will be in regard to other matters in the Ordinance. I rest on statements made by the Under-Secretary. He does not think it probable. He has seen something of the Colonial Office, and he knows much more than hon. Members below the gangway. He thinks it very probable that they will not take the extreme view taken by the majority. Then what will he do? He will interfere in China and forbid British Consuls to carry out their part under the Convention. I wonder whether the law officers of the Crown have been consulted. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the Convention of 1894 is an essential part of the Treaty of 1860, and that without the consent of both contracting parties no part of the Convention or of the Treaty can be abrogated or altered at our discretion. Has the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself by communicating with the Chinese Government that they would be glad to abrogate the Treaty of 1860? If he has assured himself of that assent, then I should ask him to produce the Papers in reference to this matter. It does seem to me that the proposal is illegal and a breach of treaty obligation. But, if this course were possible, the intervention of the Consuls is wholly to the advantage of the Chinese immigrants, and it is they who would suffer if the intervention of the Consuls were withdrawn. Even the Government feel that that is weak, but they say, "We have our great reserve. We will veto any legislation of a self-governing Colony which conflicts with our ideas of morality." That is the most serious thing that has yet been opened up in these debates. I see already that hon. Gentlemen

  415
  are taking warning by the storm of indignation aroused in the Transvaal. It is brewing in the rest of South Africa, and unless the Colonies are very different from what I have found them it will spread to the other self-governing Colonies. They will never tolerate it. Who is that rush in where angels fear to tread? Hon. Gentlemen speak lightly of this; but remember that in the interpretation of your relations with the Colonies depends the continuance of your Empire beyond all question. It is funny to Gentlemen on the back benches on the Ministerial side, but it is a serious thing for everyone else who cares at all for the future of his country and the Empire. This statement by the Under-Secretary is treated by the Colonies as a menace to their liberties. What is it? It is the suggestion of a totally new form of government unknown to the Constitution. We know the Crown colony form of government. We know the different forms of Constitution which have been evolved out of the Crown colony. We know representative government and responsible government. But we have never known in recent years the extension of the right of veto which has been demanded by the Under-Secretary, which is to extend not to what have been understood as Imperial interests, but to questions of morality—questions not of any absolute ascertained principles of morality, but the morality which may be professed by a particular Party in a particular country at a particular time. I will quote your own great authority against you. The Lord Chancellor the other day was criticising the Lyttelton Constitution. He said that that—
  "Apparently was an attempt to make this country act as a kind of Providence to the people of the Transvaal instead of letting them govern themselves."
  But what is this new Government doing? We are to be a Providence to the Transvaal for the purpose of looking after its morality, forsooth! It is impossible. Have Gentlemen opposite, I wonder, read a report of a letter by Sir Willem Van Hulsteyn, one of the most distinguished Afrikander lawyers in the Transvaal? He is a man who is entitled to have an opinion on a great constitutional question. He points out that
  416
  Chinese labour does not fall into either of the two categories for which the Imperial veto is reserved by tradition—namely, questions affecting the rights of other British subjects or the relations of the Empire with foreign Powers. He shows the danger to the other self-governing Colonies of the precedent apparently contemplated by His Majesty's Government. He says—
  "If to-day they arrogate the right of rejecting by direct or indirect means our legislation on the subject of indentured labour, they may with equal justice claim the right to-morrow to reject any legislation in the self-governing Colonies which does not suit their notions of right and wrong. Nor would the precedent be less dangerous if it were assumed that a special standard of constitutional usage is to be set up for the particular benefit of the Transvaal. If we are not fit for self-government, then do not give it us. But the home Government have declared officially that we are fit for immediate self-government and that they intend to confer it. Yet at the same time they avow their intention of interference with our purely domestic concerns after self-government has been granted. I ask. What, then, is the status of a self-governing colony?"
  If after full inquiry—for I will not contemplate any action which is not based on full inquiry—you have evidence that satisfies the House and the country that evil practices are going on in the Transvaal, and that it is your business to prevent them, then do not give them self-government until you are certain that these practices will not continue. If you are going to stop it, remember the position. At present the whole question is in your hands. You have Crown colony government of a very limited kind in the Transvaal. It would be very unwise now to interfere with them in a matter of this sort, one of purely domestic concern. But if you think otherwise, deal with the question now while you can, when no constitutional impediment can be raised against you. If to-morrow you say, "Chinese labour must cease," on constitutional grounds no complaint can be made against you. But it is a different thing to postpone your decision until you have created a self-governing colony with a limited liability whose morality you are going to supervise. What is our experience with our Crown colonies and with the greatest of all our dependencies, India? We interfere with India every day on economic questions.

  417
  I do not think the Secretary of State will contradict me when I say that if we gave self-government to India tomorrow, one of the first things they would do would be to impose a protective tariff. You do this in the case of Crown colonies. But I do not think the Secretary of State would like to introduce a Bill into this House to institute an inquiry as to whether certain practices in India are entirely consistent with our ideas of morality. Occasionally in the Crown colonies there is more or less evidence of practices, not uncommon in savage tribes and even in civilized countries whose ideas of morality differ from ours, which would not commend themselves to the morality of which we have heard so much. But even in a Crown colony or a dependency the less you say the better. Unless you are willing to incur the greatest danger, you will not inquire too closely whether the ideas of morality in this country—[MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh"]—I challenge you to inquire as to whether the ideas of morality which prevail in this country are exactly the same as the ideas which prevail in many British possessions. It is not our responsibility. Have we not admitted—and think where the admission carries you—that countries under the British flag have a right to their religion unrestricted, and even at times supported by the British Government? Are we not a great Mahomedan Power, and do not we tolerate religions compared with which that of Mahomed is a gospel of mercy, truth, and justice? And you cannot separate morality from religion. If you look after morality you will find you are trenching very closely on the confines of religion. What you already consent to in the case of religion you are obliged to do in the case of a great deal of what is called morality,
  In conclusion, I will say that before you carry out your decision, even in respect of the steps which you have taken as a sort of preliminary to a more important interference, had you not better appoint this Commission, had we not better see whether the charges are well-founded? I have already reminded you that you are not risking anything by doing this, except, perhaps, the reversal of some cherished but
  418
  erroneous conviction. If your views are confirmed you are losing nothing in the way of your ultimate action or time. Will the Government not be wise, then, and grant this Commission? Are they not unjust if they refuse it? Is it not wrong in a great Government which necessarily represents and is responsible for the Empire to allow charges of this kind to be brought and to be circulated and to be believed without any sufficient investigation? I asked the right hon. Gentleman a civil question a short time ago, but I received to the question nothing but a very curt answer. When I first proposed this inquiry at the opening of the Session I thought myself that the tone of the right hon. Gentleman was rather in favour of the inquiry for which I asked. In the interval something had occurred to change his mind. The position at the present moment is one of absolute refusal to an inquiry; but I say that you must desire to have the information so as to give the Government a basis on which they may safely proceed, and thus to avoid the greater part of those tremendous risks which I have endeavoured to bring before the House. I beg to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'this House declines to proceed with the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill without an assurance from His Majesty's Government that they will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire and report on the economic and moral effects of the system of Indentured Labour at present in operation in the Transvaal.'"—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham asks us to decline to proceed with the consideration of the Consolidated Fund Bill until we have appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the moral and economic effects of Chinese labour in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman has disclosed his Amendment at the last possible minute, and therefore I hope that he will not think I desire to treat it with any disrespect or discourtesy by not giving

  419
  him as full a reply on this question in all its branches as I should have wished to do to a right hon. Gentleman of his great position in the House. But the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech touched on many subjects which, I think, were hardly relevant to the proposal for the appointment of a Royal Commission. I do not intend to enter into a discussion of the technical details of how the labour supply of the Witwatersrand mines may be stimulated or expanded, nor do I think I should profitably detain the House by an examination of those various native customs which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, or by plunging into a somewhat perplexing dissertation on the different classes of morality with which the right hon. Gentleman regaled us towards the close of his remarks. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn for us a dark picture of the situation in South Africa and of the misdeeds of the Government, and of the dangers and disasters which he apprehends may follow from them. What is the right hon. Gentleman's remedy for all this? A Royal Commission. I admire that touching faith in the virtue and efficacy of Royal Commissions which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to preserve through his many years of Parliamentary life. For my part, having seen the utility and efficacy of Royal Commissions appointed under the late Administration, I observe that they were usually appointed with a desire to hang up a subject or to stifle a popular demand by battening it down under a mass of bulky Blue-books. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman before making this demand upon us for a sovereign remedy for all the evils of South Africa should have thought out clearly what is the sort of Royal Commission that he desired. It is, he says, to be a Commission to inquire into the moral and economic aspects of this question. I should have thought that, if it were desired to inquire into the economic aspects of this most complicated and technical question, it would have been probably desirable that the Commission should be appointed to consist principally of mining experts, of people who had great experience of the working of gold mines and also of native labour. But if, on the other hand, we are to inquire into the moral issues which now
  420
  excite the concern of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not suppose that such a body would be specially well suited, whatever their technical qualifications, to investigate the moral aspects of the question. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Is it then seriously contended that a Commission of mining experts should be appointed in order to investigate questions of morality? I submit that on the face of it the right hon. Gentleman would require, not one Commission, but two Commissions, to inquire into two sets of circumstances which are totally separate. Let me say, first of all, that His Majesty's Government remain of the opinion which was conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman by the Prime Minister, that no useful purpose would be served at this juncture by the appointment of such a Commission or Commissions as he suggests. We do not think that it would allay the anxiety and the uncertainty by which the South African situation is surrounded. We think also that, while the inquiry was being prosecuted, it would be possible that the unrest and disturbance might reach a height greater than will be attained if nothing of the sort is done. Taking first of all the Commission of mining experts, I am bound to say I do not believe that the investigations of such a Commission would alter the general position of this controversy. I do not think that a Commission of mining experts, if they arrived at conclusions favourable to Chinese labour, would appease many of the opponents of Chinese labour in South Africa, nor would they procure the general assent of South Africans to the system. I am quite sure that if such a Commission came to conclusions unfavourable to Chinese labour it would not convince the mine-owners, for it is said that they know their own business better than anyone else; and I am bound to say that I do not think the employers who are able to secure indefinite supplies of cheap labour will ever give them up merely because they are recommended to do so by the report of a Commission. It would be in conflict with the general policy of self-government as declared by the Government to institute such a Commission as this. If it reported before responsible

  421
  government were given, and if this report were adverse to the system, it would throw the responsibility for immediate action on us. If, on the other hand, it reported after the grant of responsible government—as I should expect it most certainly would—the recommendation would clearly not decide the question. The question of Chinese labour would be fought out in the Transvaal Assembly on Party lines, and it would be certainly decided over the heads of any Commision, and without particular reference to any report which a Commission might make.
  Now let me approach the other section of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Would such a Commission remove the objections which, rightly or wrongly, but with perfect sincerity, are entertained in this country? Let us first of all take the question of outrages to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Do we stand in need of any more information on this subject? [Cries of "Yes."] We have here in the Blue-book published at the beginning of this session Lord Selborne's account of his investigation of the charges which were made by Mr. Boland. Lord Selborne is clear in saying that these charges were exaggerated; but he is also perfectly clear in showing that there was a considerable foundation for them, and that improper and illegal practices prevailed to a very considerable extent and for a considerable time over a large portion of the Witwatersrand region. Lord Selborne says—
  "Now, it is not denied, and, indeed, I have Already informed you, that prior to June, 1905, illegal corporal punishment, after trial toy 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, i.e., in a manner borrowed from the practice of the Chinese Courts of Justice. I do not defend such proceedings, but I repeat what I have already stated, that I am convinced that they have entirely ceased since Mr. Jamieson's assumption of office as Superintendent of Foreign Labour."
  And again—
  "Mr. Mackarness's letter is accompanied by a reproduction of a photograph of a Chinese coolie being punished by being made to wear what is termed in China the 'cangue.' Mr. Mackarness's description of this form of punishment is
  422
  substantially accurate. I absolutely condemn its use, which is clearly illegal; but, as in the case of flogging, I am quite satisfied that this form of punishment has been wholly discontinued since June last."
  I should have thought that this report, written on the authority of Lord Selborne, the Governor appointed by the late Government, would have satisfied hon. Members opposite. Lord Selborne sat for a long time in the Cabinet with right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench opposite, and certainly no one would be more inclined, more eager, to free any British subject abroad from unwarrantable and unfair charges of this character than Lord Selborne. But with the utmost frankness and candour, and without the slightest exaggeration, Lord Selborne has thought it to be his duty to place on record an admission that such practices prevailed. Although I do not deny that a Commission rummaging about on the Witwatersrand from month to month might accumulate a larger body of evidence, I do not think that it would overthrow the conclusions to which Lord Selborne has come—conclusions which have justified the alterations which the Government have decided to make in the Ordinance, as well as the speeches which have been delivered in condemnation of the system as instituted by the late Government. But would it remove the other and wider objections? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has ever properly comprehended the objections put forward on this side of the House to the use of Chinese labour. Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen may think that this is one of those unreal objections put forward for the purpose of assailing the political opponents of the Government; yet I should have thought that the spectacle of a white community consisting of no more than 120,000 adult males, proposing to erect itself permanently upon a foundation now of 60,000—I believe it was contemplated that the numbers would be very nearly doubled—imported labourers from the other end of the world, who are restricted to the lowest possible form of employment, who are prohibited from raising themselves by any skill which they may have in their trade, who are forced to live—these 60,000—in a state of unnatural celibacy, who are prohibited from residing, at the conclusion of their contract, in

  423
  the country which their labours have enriched, I should have thought that that would have been considered by the right hon. Gentleman, with all his wide experience of human nature and life, as a somewhat unsatisfactory footing on which to build a State. That is not an objection which the Report of a Commission on the facts which indeed are not in dispute between us would remove. I have heard it said that the majority of highly educated people do not agree or sympathise with the views of the Liberal Party and of the democracy of this country upon the subject of Chinese labour. Well, Sir, I can quite understand that a man who works with his brain, however hard he works, cannot—unless he has a gift of imagination, the rarest and perhaps the best of all gifts—understand how this alliance, this conjunction between cosmopolitan capital and the immense unmeasured reservoirs of Asiatic cheap labour, how this strange conjunction which the improving civilisation of the world has, I think for the first time, rendered possible—I do not think it is easy, I say, for a man who works with his brain to understand how such a conjunction strikes the man who has nothing to sell but the sweat of his brow. I say the apprehension which is felt by the working masses in this country of such a system, such a conjunction, becoming permanent and extending in the future is well founded, for, if that were the case, it would strike a deadly blow at the under-pillars of European civilisation. That again is an objection which I do not think the Report of a Commission would be likely to remove. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that uncertainty is bad for trade, and I only wish he had thought of it before. But a Royal Commission, which is his panacea for all evils—he is so fond of them that, when he cannot institute them under the authority of the Government, he institutes a private Commission of his own—would not terminate the uncertainty which prevails; it would only aggravate the uncertainty, because of the greater disturbance, heat, and partisanship which would be developed while it was engaged in its labour. There would still remain the uncertainty of the decision of the Transvaal Government. The right hon. Gentleman takes that for granted. He is quite certain that the Transvaal
  424
  Assembly will not decide in favour of humanitarian views.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that. [MINISTERIAL and LABOUR cries of "You did."]
  MR. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman said that the people of the Transvaal were not able to share our sentimental or humanitarian views. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that the decision of the Transvaal Assembly will be in favour of a continuance of Chinese labour. We are not so certain of that.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: You said you thought it probable.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, on the contrary; the right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I put the two alternatives. The first alternative was that they decided against the continuance of Asiatic labour; then I said, in that case all would go well, and the policy which the Government have adopted would have been vindicated in a complete and convincing form. In the second alternative, I admit I sketched less rosy possibilities, but I expressed no opinion at all, in the second speech I made on this subject, as to which of those alternatives it was more likely that the Transvaal would adopt. In the first speech which I had the honour to address to the House of Commons on this question I distinctly said His Majesty's Government had every hope that the Transvaal Assembly will come to a decision with which His Majesty's Government may find themselves in agreement. But that uncertainty, whatever it is, would not be removed by the appointment of a Commission. Is not Chinese labour in itself rather an element of uncertainty. When I contemplate this great industry, upon which so much of the future of the Transvaal, upon which so much of the economic development of South Africa as a whole depends—when I contemplate that great industry, standing as it does upon a basis of speculative finance, and supplied from day to day by a stream of Chinese labour which is liable to interruption at any moment by the caprice of an Oriental ruler [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, Oh."], I incline to think that of all the elements of uncertainty which have been introduced into the South African situation the element

  425
  of Chinese labour is the most disturbing and the most dangerous. No one will dispute for a moment that the gold mines are the mainspring of the modern development of South Africa, and we shall all agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the great importance which he attaches to fostering the development of that industry and not unnecessarily hampering it. But if Chinese labour is of such importance, what a pity it is that the right hon. Gentleman treated it with such levity. Every one knows that in the debate on the Address the right hon. Gentleman attacked the policy of the Government, not on the ground that the Government were going too far in what they were doing against Chinese labour, but he endeavoured to excite censure against the Government on the part of their supporters by representing that they were not going far enough. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] And he even allowed himself to say that he knew—how he knew I do not investigate—that the mineowners had been consulted on the policy and were perfectly satisfied. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London has come back refreshed with the latest views of the Stock Exchange. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] The right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham is now what I believe he once called Lord Hartington, the "late" Leader of the Opposition, and now he has very obligingly entirely changed his position in regard to the policy of the Government upon Chinese labour. Just as before he endeavoured to inflame the feelings of some of the supporters of the Government who take the most extreme views upon this question by representing that they were not going far enough, so now he endeavours to inflame the feelings of the Colonies by representing that some fearful collision between the Colonies and the Mother Country upon the question of self-government is likely to occur. As the right hon. Gentleman has brought this question into the arena of our debates to-day, I must take the opportunity of saying that I do not believe that the course he has adopted in the discussion of the Chinese question has been a wholly patriotic course. The right hon. Gentleman has contracted deep obligations to this country in respect of South Africa. At his bidding, and on the faith of his instincts
  426
  and foresight as a statesman, and by the force of the appeals he addressed to the House and the country, this nation and the Empire have made unparalleled sacrifices for South Africa. No sooner had the war come to an end, and while all the business of settlement was still upon hand, the right hon. Gentleman got tired of the South African situation, pushed it away from him as a toy which had ceased to amuse, and embarked at once upon another adventure which was as rash and as uncalculated as the first, and the only difference between the two was that, whereas the first enterprise of the right hon. Gentleman has had the effect of nearly ruining South Africa, the second enterprise has had the effect of politically ruining himself. His Majesty's Government are deeply conscious of the anxiety of the South African situation. We are not responsible for the repeated raising of these debates. We know how difficult and complex these questions are, how every word spoken by unpractised speakers is carried to Colonies concerned, and how it is very often represented there in the worst possible light. We know the tremendous ramifications of newspapers which support the right hon. Gentleman and which carry his words also to the Colonies concerned, and we know it is in his power, in Opposition though he be and with however insufficient a following behind him, to cause anxiety and doubt in the Colonies because of the great attention that is paid to everything he says.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: You said I was politically ruined.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman may still retain some capacity for evil. Therefore, His Majesty's Government do regret the repeated raising of these debates, which are sprung upon us at a moment's notice, and which are pressed with insistence, in the hope, as I believe, that something may be said which will furnish further capital to the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters in the country. The policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Chinese labour has been laid quite clearly before the House. We have redressed, and we are redressing, those features of the Ordinance which we consider unsatisfactory. We desire to leave the decision of the question to the Transvaal Assembly, which will be formed as

  427
  soon as reasonably possible, having regard to the most important constitutional issues at stake. It is not proposed by the Government to exercise over the Transvaal, when it is a responsible self-governing Colony, any powers or restraints which are not now exercised, and which have not been frequently used, over every self-governing Colony of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the self-governing Colonies would never tolerate the idea of the Imperial Government's being a party to the decision of questions which solely affected themselves. He said that they would never tolerate any interference by us in any action they might take with regard to Chinese labour. It is a curious thing that I was reading the other day in The Times the account of a case which occurred in Western Australia which bears on this very point. It seems that the Legislature of that Colony passed the Factory Bill of 1904, which, I gather, inadvertently received the sanction of Mr. Lyttelton as Colonial Secretary and became law. The Colonial Secretary seems to have imperfectly apprehended the character of the measure. It was an Act for restraining Chinamen, curiously enough, and other Asiatics from working long hours, which would make their competition injurious to white men. A prosecution was instituted under the Act against an employer whose Chinese labourers had worked longer hours than the Act permitted. The employer appealed to the High Court of Western Australia. The case for the appellant was based upon a reference to all these questions of constitutional morality upon Magna Charta, and all these principles of British freedom which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham mistakenly assumes are only honoured and respected in these islands. Mr. Justice Carter, a judge of the High Court of Western Australia, said, in summing upon this case—
  "The discussion which has taken place before us on the constitutional question has been very interesting, and I trust that at some future date this Court may have an opportunity of again hearing the arguments on this question, and of arriving at an opinion; and I trust that when that time does arise, we shall have a bench of at least three judges. I express no opinion, nor do I desire to express my opinion, upon the arguments which have been urged before us, but I will say this, that it seems to me that this Factories Act is the most extraordinary piece of legislation "
  428
  —I ask the House to mark this—
  "and I am astonished that objection was not taken to it by the Imperial authorities. Portions of it are apparently adopted from the Queensland and New Zealand Statutes, but apparently the most stringent clauses referring to the Chinese and Asiatic races in Western Australia are original."
  Here, then, is a judge of the High Court of Western Australia expressing astonishment that the Imperial authorities had not more carefully examined colonial legislation which came to this country for approval. Yet the right hon. Gentleman tries to make out that we propose to embark upon a wholly new procedure in regard to colonial policy. One other quotation I will make. When the right hon. Gentleman was at the Colonial Office in 1897 he himself made a departure upon what he would have us believe is a totally new form of treating responsible self-governing Colonies; and the curious part of it is that the right hon. Gentleman did so upon those very grounds of morality which he now says ought never to be put forward as a cause for Imperial intervention. A Bill was passed by the Newfoundland Legislature which, it appears, would enable the Party in power to exercise very improper influence over the conduct of elections. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of a letter which he authorised to be sent from the Colonial Office, expressed himself as follows—
  "The effect of the measure would be to enable the political Party, for the time being in power, to employ public funds for the purpose of corruptly securing themselves in office. Mr. Chamberlain hesitates to believe that it is the deliberate wish of Newfoundland electors that the public funds should be so employed, and feels that it would be impossible for him to advise Her Majesty to assent to such a measure in its present shape. He trusts, therefore, that you will take the earliest opportunity of bringing it again before the Legislature with a view to its further consideration and to the introduction of amendments."
  And this is the new constitutional departure which, it is represented, we intend to make; this is the application of a new system of morals to our colonial policy. I need hardly say to the House of Commons that His Majesty's Government entertain a most sincere respect for those great traditions of self-government which have always been, and will always be, the guard-rails of Liberal colonial policy. We have no intention of going in the slightest degree beyond the powers

  429
  which we properly possess; and having regard to the immense importance of these issues in South Africa no effort on our part will be neglected to promote the welfare of the great industry concerned, or to prevent any evil collision or deadlock arising between the Imperial Government and the Assembly which is about to be created in the Transvaal.
  Now, I have done my best to reply to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech. I am sure it is not out of any desire to be discourteous to him that the Prime Minister has refused the Royal Commission. It is only because we think that so far from simplifying the difficulties and allaying the uncertainties it would rather aggravate them, without any compensating advantage that we are unable to accede to his wish. Let me say, in conclusion, that if we desired counsel and guidance in regard to this grave situation in South Africa, it is not to the right hon. Gentleman we should appeal, however great our difficulties might be, for we know that if we have to find some path that will lead us into a happier state of affairs than now prevails in South Africa, it will not be through any assistance we may receive from the patriots and Imperialists who sit on the opposite benches; but it will be in spite of every obstacle that perverted ingenuity, stimulated by resentment of defeat, can suggest to them.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERthought the speech of the Under-Secretary would do little to reassure those people in this country who did not think that the policy which was being pursued by His Majesty's Government at the present time was a wise or a safe one. He did not think the speech of the hon. Gentleman, though more careful in its terms and more vague and uncertain than usual, would do more than to incite a further demonstration against our fellow-countrymen in South Africa by the people in this country who, through sentiment or ignorance, were inclined to take what he might call the anti-colonial or anti-Imperial view. There was no use disguising the fact that there was a considerable body of people in the Liberal Party who did not believe in the Colonies, and they would receive encouragement from the speech of the Under-Secretary. What he had to say came from some knowledge of
  430
  the country of which the hon. Gentleman had been speaking in such eloquent and rhetorical terms. The hon. Gentleman spoke of founding a State upon servile labour, and said that Oriental labour was an ill basis upon which to build up a State. That was to say that Oriental labour was the whole basis upon which to build up a State in the Transvaal. He would refer the hon. Member when he spoke of 60,000 Chinese in the Transvaal to the 60,000 Orientals in Natal.
  MAJOR SEELY: They are citizens.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked what that had to do with it. The hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool was a little too swift in his interruption. In Natal the prosperity of the Colony had been built up by black labour—native Kaffir labour, Zulu labour, and Indian labour. Did the hon. Member challenge the civilisation of Natal and the condition of its industries from either a moral or political point of view? Did they find in Natal any demonstration that the citizenship here was alone of that high standard which the hon. Gentleman represented so well in this country amongst his fellow-citizens? If we pursued that line of argument to its logical conclusion we should also have to rule Queensland out, because the civilisation of Queensland was built up by native and imported Polynesian labour. The hon. Member had spoken of the civilisation of the Transvaal being built up at the caprice of Oriental rulers. Such a phrase might have been expected from the pen of a clever journalist, but not from the mouth of the Minister to whom they looked to allay the anxiety now felt in the Transvaal as to what course the Government were going to take — an anxiety which his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham well understood. The Royal Commission had been refused on two grounds; one, that it would be necessary to send out a combination of mining experts in order to appreciate their judgment. The hon. Gentleman repudiated the idea that those mining experts would have any authority to inquire into the moral aspects of the question, so that if a Royal Commission were to be sent out, the hon. Gentleman, he supposed, would choose

  431
  for that purpose a deputation of the prevention of profanity league or some kindred association housed in Exeter Hall. He supposed the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary expected the Unionist Party and the Colonies to take his words seriously, and unfortunately his position was such that they were obliged to take them as the serious words of the Government. But when the hon. Gentleman presented to the House the reasons why a Royal Commission should not be sent to South Africa, he could not possibly think that all those who sat with the hon. Gentleman on the Government Benches were in accord with him, or that they would offer the same reasons for its refusal. The hon. Gentleman appeared to have the idea that the mining industry of the Transvaal could be carried on by white labour, and he had made some statement recently as to the comparative cost of production. But did the hon. Gentleman seriously think they could get cheap white labour in the mines there, and preserve the mining industry in the condition of prosperity in which it now was? Had the hon. Gentleman read the experience of Mr. Creswell, who showed that when 8s., 9s., and 10s. a week was paid for cheap white labour on the Village Reef mine, the wages paid to white skilled labour had to be reduced in order to pay such sums to the white unskilled labour? White unskilled labour could not live on 8s. and 9s. a day. The cost of bare living in the Transvaal was £16 a month. The experiment of cheap white labour in the Transvaal has been tried and had proved a failure, and if it were tried elsewhere the result would be the same. In order to insure that there should be 300 men always in the Village Main Reef mine a thousand were passed through Mr. Cresswell's hands in the course of six months. And the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that his expression of opinion with regard to cheap white labour was only meant to cover a difficult point in his political experience. These difficult points would become much more difficult if the kind of statements which the hon. Gentleman had made concerning the veto—made with more restraint to-day, he noticed—continued to be made. The instances the hon. Gentleman gave of his right hon. friend's so - called interference were ludicrous in the extreme. To
  432
  give advice to the Transvaal on a matter not of great consequence to that colony was practical, but any interference with the judgment of the people of the colony would be disastrous. Let them presume that the Government of the Transvaal passed a Chinese Ordinance securing to the colony a continuance of Chinese labour, a thing which they believed to be absolutely necessary to preserve not only the gold industry, but every other industry in South Africa in order to give it its present condition of prosperity, and let them presume that by a veto of this Government they were prevented from carrying out that Ordinance. Did the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division think these people were of a different sort of make from ourselves, and that they would act differently from ourselves in the same position? Did the hon. Gentleman realise that these men, who represented the interests, industrial and commercial, in the Transvaal, were men of our own race, who had the same independence of thought, and who, if we in one way or another interfered in these affairs would resent in set terms any interference on our part to hamper or destroy the product of their own industry? He did not think there was any one who had any interest at all in the Transvaal who was not aware that in the Transvaal at the present time there was a most alarming state of uncertainty as to the action the Government would take. As the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had pointed out, uncertainty was bad for trade. He was not one of those who would willingly cripple the efforts of the Government in settling the Chinese difficulty, if they were only going to alter certain minor conditions of the Ordinances. He thought they could bear a good deal of recrimination if the alterations to be made made the conditions more oppressive so far as the mineowners were concerned and more lenient so far as the Chinese were concerned. To that they did not take exception. What they did take exception to was that the Government, instead of leaving this matter to the Transvaal to settle under responsible self-government, were going to say to the Transvaal that if they did something not in accordance with the ideas of the Imperial Government in this matter proper restraint would be placed upon them. That could only mean one thing, which

  433
  was "proper restraint," as interpreted by the hon. Gentlemen opposite—the Imperial veto. The speech which the hon. Gentleman had made to-day would, he ventured to say, be received in the Transvaal with the same doubt, with the same criticisms, and with the same indignation which his previous speeches had evoked. The hon. Gentleman would find that he had only stimulated the determination of the Transvaal to have their own way. The mining industry, he thought, was not quite understood in this House. It was the one great industry of the country, of the whole of South Africa; it was not, as some supposed, a speculative industry. Any one who had been on the reefs and had seen the amount of machinery at work there—most of which was made in England—could never again look at the Transvaal mining industry as a speculative industry engineered by people from Park Lane bent on meeting great fortunes. It was true that some fortunes had been made, but they were made before the Chinese came in and were made out of the use of native labour. The mines were the real basis upon which the future development of the country must rest, and to interfere with their prosperity would be to interfere with the progress of the Transvaal as a whole. It was important in this connection to bear in mind that prosperity was the cement which would be most efficacious in binding together Boer and Briton in South Africa.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken seemed to imagine that South Africa could be made prosperous and contented only by the aid of Chinese labour. Most Ministerialists were of exactly the opposite opinion. A great British Colony could not be built up by the aid of Chinese labour. If the money spent in recruiting Chinese labour and building compounds had been used for cheapening living in South Africa, we should have found respectable white working men settling in the colony. When they saw capitalists on one side and Chinamen on the other, whose only object was to work the mines out and then leave the country altogether, did anyone think a market would be created for British goods? A quarter of the
  434
  number of labourers, if white, with their wives and families out in South Africa, would make a far better market for British goods than the Chinese did. The Leader of the Opposition, in a speech he made recently, gave his audience to understand that South Africa would be ruined if the mines had not Chinese labour. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that in 1898 the mines in South Africa paid nearly £5,000,000 in dividends without a single Chinaman being employed. How, then, could he say that South Africa would be ruined if there was not Chinese labour in the mines? More than that, from 1897 to 1898 the output of gold in South Africa increased by nearly 1,000,000 ounces. In fact, the output of gold since Chinese labour had been imported had not increased in so great a ratio as it did without Chinese on the Band. The Leader of the Opposition had quoted the opinion of newspapers in favour of Chinese labour, but such papers as the Leader and the Star of Johannesburg were notoriously under the influence of the mineowners. It was not the opinion of the Transvaal. If hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side wanted the opinion of the Transvaal, why did they not have a plebiscite taken before the Chinese Labour Ordinance was passed? The Ordinance had been the greatest curse a British Government had ever foisted on a British Colony, and it would never create a real British Colony and one that would help the mother country by taking her goods. If the policy of indentured labour were continued, as soon as the mines were worked out—and, according to the great authorities, the output of gold would begin to diminish in about twenty-five years—the chances were that Johannesburg would eventually become derelict, and the Transvaal would revert to the Boers. If we were to have a prosperous British Colony in South Africa the mining industry must be principally worked with white labour. He believed this could be done, because if they had Kaffir labour they could employ white labour as well. They could not have a white man and a black man digging in the same hole, but they could have different sets of workers. There were thousands of white labourers who would be only too glad to go to the Transvaal if they could make a living

  435
  wage. That living wage could be paid and yet the mines could make good dividends. Fortunes in South Africa had not been made out of the gold-mining industry at all, but in the floating of mines. All the Park Lane money had not come from the working of the mines, but out of the pockets of the British public. Men got hold of a certain number of claims for which they paid perhaps £250,000, and in addition had £250,000 of working capital. They immediately put the mine on the British market at, say, £800,000. They did not issue a prospectus, but perhaps offered the shares at £4. The British public subscribed about £3,000,000, and that was where the money came from. Yet they were told they must have Chinese labour to pay dividends on these enormous capitals. It would be infinitely better for South Africa if there were a lot of white men there earning good wages, than to have Chinamen employed and that the dividends should be sent to Park Lane, Germany, and France, where he believed the greater portion of them went. He was a shareholder in South African mines before the war, and was still, and his opinion was that if they had not had a single Chinaman on the Band they would be better off than they were to-day. The shares were worth more before the Chinamen went there. If the Chinamen had done any good the value of the shares would have appreciated. Therefore in every way possible, so far as he could see, the Chinamen were a very bad thing for South Africa and for this country. What we had to contemplate was this: if these mineowners were to have their own way, they would have 250,000 Chinamen in the mines, and he did not think anyone in the House would contemplate with equanimity such a vast preponderance of yellow men over the small white population. It had been seen that the Kaffirs were not quite so contented as people had been led to think, and if there was any such thing as a Kaffir rising and there were 250,000 Chinamen in the compounds, he did not think it would be a very happy state of affairs for the white population in the Transvaal.
  MR. BOULTONsaid that in his view it would not be a dangerous thing on the part of His
  436
  Majesty's Government to veto any legislation that the new Government might pass, if that legislation were similar to the Ordinance of the late Government. Nor did he think that our great Colonies would for a moment resent the action of His Majesty's Government in vetoing any such legislation, because our great Colonies were absolutely agreed that they did not approve of the action of the late Government in introducing Chinese labour into South Africa. There was the unanimous protest of the great Australian Colonies as expressed in the Commonwealth Parliament against the introduction of Chinese labour, and there was the same thing in New Zealand. Canada thought it was inadvisable under the circumstances to interfere, but the opinion of Canada from one end to the other was against the Chinese being brought into any of the great Colonies of the Empire. If the suggested veto were exercised under the circumstances he believed it would have the support of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and in that case he failed to see how it could be a menace to the Empire. As to the question of precedent, those who had studied the constitutions of the colonies and their relation with the mother country knew it was a fact that the Imperial Parliament had a right of veto, and had exercised it with regard to Australia and Canada, though, of course, it had never been exercised unless a Colony had passed something which was ultra vires. Surely, if the Transvaal Government were to pass an act of the legislature which authorised the practice of slavery, or anything which was akin to slavery, His Majesty's Government would be justified in exercising that veto. There were many reasons why personally he would much sooner His Majesty's Government, when they gave a constitution to the Tranvaal, inserted—as had been done in the case of California—an express provision prohibiting actual slavery, or anything partaking of the nature of slavery. If that was done then it would be for the courts of law to decide what was, and what was not slavery and His Majesty's Government would not then be obliged to exercise the veto. He himself, knowing something of the great Colonies, did not believe that the Transvaal, if the new constitution was based on popular representation, would do anything to introduce into the Colony

  437
  anything partaking of the nature of slavery, but if they did His Majesty's Government would be entitled to exercise the veto upon it, and in doing that he believed they would have the support of all the self-governing Colonies in the Empire.
  MR. NIELDsaid he had heard laudations of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister by a certain section of the Press in this country who had been his good friends during the election, and to whom the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his deep sense of his obligation—a section for which he had the most profound contempt, and especially the section which emanated from Stonecutter Street and issued in the morning the Morning Leader and in the evening The Star. It was the Morning Leader which was the source of that cartoon which it delighted to describe as the "famous poster," that pictorial falsehood which dealt with Chinese labour and called it "slavery," but which he (the speaker) designated the "infamous poster." Yet the Party opposite professed themselves perfectly satisfied with it, notwithstanding the fact that right hon. Gentlemen were juggling and playing with the word "slavery," and betraying a strange want of unanimity as to what the condition of the Chinese in the Transvaal really was. Even the last speaker had repeated as an accepted fact that slavery did exist, while the leaders preferred to use such phrases as "ingredients of slavery," and "taint of slavery." For British Ministers to be driven into a corner and to discriminate so finely as to what prevailed in the Transvaal was a sorry spectacle for this great Empire. When the Government declined to give effect to the suggestion which had been made from time to time that they should appoint a Commission of inquiry to ascertain what were the true facts, the only inference which he as a lawyer practising in the courts could draw was that they were afraid to submit the circumstances to an impartial tribunal lest it should be found that the verdict would be against the methods they had used, and on the strength of which they had sailed into power. An hon. Member opposite who talked with an air of authority about South Africa and its problems had been obliged to admit that he spoke from other
  438
  than the point of view of practical experience, since he had never been there. It was this kind of assumed knowledge on the part of politicians of which he (the speaker) complained. Hon. Members condemned persons and systems of which they had no personal knowledge, and in the face of the recorded experience of those who, by long residence and practical acquaintance, were entitled to speak with authority. References were sometimes made in the South African debates to the magnates who lived in Park Lane, but he did not see why they should be subjected to obloquy by hon. Members, some of whom did not live far from that place. The truth was, and it had been told over and over again, that mining shares were held not merely by persons directly interested in mining operations, but by the great volume of the British investing public, and the effect of these charges of slavery was to hurt a great number of innocent persons who had invested their money with the best expectation that they would have the ordinary reward for their investment. They were all familiar with the argument about the Colony of New Zealand. In that Colony the question of slavery in connection with the employment of the Chinese in the South African mines never entered into their calculations. It was purely a question of the white man as against, the coloured man, and, therefore, they had not considered it from the moral or the economic point of view. Australia for the same reason determined that whatever came she would not have a coloured population. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] An hon. Gentleman said "Hear, hear." Did he know that in the northern part of that great Colony there were mines of very great wealth which could only be worked by coolie labour? Because of the policy of preventing any but white men from working, these mines must remain in a virgin condition merely to keep up a fetish which was economically wrong and absurd.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say what the mines are that can be worked only by coolie labour in Australia?
  MR. NIELDsaid he was always ready to give information. He should have

  439
  thought that it was information which the hon. Gentleman himself possessed. There were mines on the north coast which, owing to conditions of temperature, could not be worked by British-born subjects. Rather than admit coolie or Kaffir labour the colony allowed these mines to go unworked and unproductive. He ventured to think that the restriction put by California on the introduction of Chinese labour had arisen from a totally different reason. There had been plenty of Chinamen allowed to enter San Francisco in the past. He did not think he was very far wrong in stating that the condition of San Francisco to-day was very largely due to the industry of Chinamen. Having utilised the Chinaman for their purpose, they saw what the late Mr. Gladstone said of him, that the Chinaman was much more sinned against than sinning, and that he was disliked for his virtues and not his vices. The Chinaman was capable of exercising great frugality and of laying by more of this world's goods than his American competitor. That was the reason why America had prohibited Chinese labour. [An HON. MEMBER: Since 1879.] He took 1879 as a comparatively modern date. It was about that time that a great labour movement took place, and the people of America saw the necessity for some sort of protection. After all was said and done, if the Chinese were only allowed to go to the Transvaal unfettered and without being obliged to work under special conditions, he thought it would be found that industry generally in the Transvaal would be very much more developed. He had heard it suggested in this House that the Chinese were such a terrible people, that unless they were kept under restrictions partaking of slavery, or tainted with slavery, it was impossible for them to be properly controlled, and that the countryside would be laid waste by their depredations. A return was presented to the late Parliament showing the number of outrages alleged to have been committed by Chinamen who had escaped from the compounds. Hon. Members on the other side had held up their hands in pious horror at these crimes, although they were numerically comparatively small. But would hon. Members believe that those crimes were nothing to arouse any alarm on the part of
  440
  the population of this country? Being a lawyer, he attended the assizes, and he could tell hon. Members that he was shocked when he first made the acquaintance of the assize calendar for the county of Durham. The calendars of crime in some of the northern counties of this country would, he ventured to think, compare with the offences stated to have been committed by the Chinese in South Africa, and not altogether unfavourably to the latter. He thought the time had come when they should clear their minds of cant altogether. Let them face the facts boldly. Let them admit that the conditions under which Chinamen were brought to the Transvaal were such as to compel them to prescribe these regulations, but do not let them say that they had to enforce these because of the inherent immorality or violence of Chinamen. It was done in order to keep faith with the Colonies of Australia and New Zealand and at the same time to meet a great and pressing emergency in South Africa. He was perfectly certain that the mineowners would not have dreamt of introducing Chinese labour by choice. They had been compelled to do so by necessity, and they had incurred enormous cost in providing compounds for the men. He thought it would be more in accordance with the traditions of the Radical Party if the Government were to agree to the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry which had now been asked. This was the second time in the history of the great Liberal Party that they had refused to examine into the facts in a businesslike and thorough war, but had jumped to conclusions prompted by expediency, and in order to make Party capital for electoral purposes. They did this also in connection with the great fiscal controversy, and prevented an independent and non Party examination, preferring rather to go to the country on representations which were not founded on fact. He trusted that the Government would no longer resist the appeal for an impartial tribunal which would clear the honourable escutcheon of this country from the foul stains that had been thrown upon it.
  MR. SEDDONsaid that he was one of those Members returned at the last general election, who as a candidate spoke from the hustings

  441
  of the conditions under which the Chinese indentured coolies worked in the Transvaal as conditions of slavery and contrary to all his ideas of British freedom. And not all the dialectical skill of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches or the "terminological inexactitudes" on the Ministerial side had altered his opinion. He believed he could speak for all the Labour Members and for the largo majority of the working people of this country, in saying that they looked upon the introduction of Chinese coolies into South Africa as not only a flagrant breach of promises made by the late Government, but a breach of those institutions which were held dear by every Britisher. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham seemed to have had quite a passion for Commissions of late, and in asking for a new Royal Commission he referred to people in South Africa speaking the same language as ourselves. It might be true that some of these gentlemen had learned, as a linguistic feat, some words of the English language. But this was not a question of language, but a question of sympathy with British instincts. He asked whether the Member who spoke from the corner block at Johannesburg, who looked upon this House as an annexe of the Stock Exchange, and a hutch of guinea-pigs, represented the sentiments of the people of this country. Mr. Percy Talbot, who spoke for a big Rand firm with foreign names, had said that the natural fear on the Rand was that with the introduction of white unskilled labour there the same troubles would arise in South Africa as had prevailed in Australia, that by their combinations and trade unions they would be able to dictate the rate of wages and by their votes the policy of the country. That was the open and unabashed contention of the Rand mine-owners. He asked the right hon. Member for West Birmingham who were the experts he would send out on this proposed Royal Commission to South Africa, and who were the people who spoke with authority in South Africa? On the Labour Commission of 1897 in South Africa there were two Labour representatives, and those gentlemen declared in their minority Report that there was a sufficiency of coloured labour, so far as the natives of South Africa were concerned, and that there was no neces-
  442
  sity for the introduction of Chinese coolie labour. After that a great demonstration was held in Johannesburg, at which 5,000 white men were present, to protest against the intention of the Government to introduce Chinese indentured labour into the Colony. The hon. Member for Gravesend had brought a photo into the House from that reliable authority—the Daily Graphic—and had made light of the demonstration which took place in December last. The information of the hon. Member had evidently come from different sources from his own. In the early part of this year he received from Mr. Woods, Secretary to the Trade Council in Johannesburg, a type-written description of that meeting. Mr. Woods declared that it was necessary for his council to go to the expense of the type-written report because they could not trust the Press in South Africa, which was under the heel of the capitalists on the Rand. The hon. Member for Gravesend brought this photograph to belie that meeting as to its size. He was there to say, on the authority of Britishers in South Africa, who were just as anxious as Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House to bring about peace and prosperity in South Africa, that the Chinaman was not wanted, and that with the native the Britisher could do all that was required in the gold mines of South Africa. He would like to ask right hon. Gentlemen, including the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who seemed to be briefed for the Corner House in Johannesburg, this question— they heard a lot about the mortality in the mines of South Africa, but had the same conditions been applied to the gold mines of South Africa as were applied to the coal mines of this country? He was told on reliable authority that if the same precautions and regulations were in operation in the South African gold mines as were in operation in the coal mines of this country, the death rate would go down considerably and make it much more easy for white men to work the gold mines. When he was listening to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham he had in his mind one feature of all the debates that had taken place in this House. Either it was a question of cheap labour, or labour under decent conditions. If he remembered rightly, when the Factory Laws were being passed, Gentlemen stood up in this House

  443
  and declared that it would be against the interests of the industry if they did anything to interfere with the morality of the men who were running the factories at the time. The argument was as old as the hills:—"Cheap labour is increasing." What for? He remembered the great price that had been paid for the subjection of South Africa, and he remembered who had suffered most. Hon. Members talked about the financiers and investors who were suffering in South Africa. But what about the Britisher? Many of them had shed their blood there. What about the working-classes of this country, who were taxed up to the teeth and whose scanty hoards had had to pay for this war? If there was any sacrifice made, it was by those who could ill afford it—the working-classes of this country. They ought to have some voice in deciding the future policy of South Africa. What was the result? The democracy of this country believed that the introduction of Chinese coolies into South Africa was slavery. They asked the Government to get rid of it at once, if possible, and failing that, they said:— "Get rid of it as soon as you can." He believed that an assurance had been given by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that Chinese indentured labour in South Africa would finish some time —would finish eventually.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, no; you are mistaken.
  MR. SEDDONsaid he could not take the Loader of the Opposition as the interpreter of the Under-Secretary. If the Under-Secretary had not given the assurance, hon. Members below the gangway believed he had, and if he desired—perhaps he did not—their co-operation in the settlement of this question he would give them the assurance at once. They understood that the Government were determined that Chinese indentured labour should finish in South Africa. He hoped he was interpreting the intention of the Government rightly. If not, then he thought there was trouble ahead for somebody. He wanted to say, in conclusion, that he sympathised with those expressions that had been made on both sides of the House that this was a very serious question. He, along with a good number outside this House,
  444
  felt that the war was wrong when it was undertaken. When it was being waged they were assured by right hon. Gentlemen now on the Opposition side of the House that it was a war for equal rights for all white men. Where was the right of the white now? He had a letter in his pocket which arrived from Cape Town only yesterday morning from a Britisher, which told him that there were thousands of white men walking the streets of Cape Town to-day. Many of them helped to bring about the overthrow of the two free Republics in South Africa. That was their return for their loyalty. He would remind hon. Members on both sides that there were higher claims than those of the Stock Exchange. These people had made sacrifices for the people of the British Empire, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the questions of the development of South Africa not on the lines of indentured Chinese labour, but on lines by means of which he could alleviate the misery of white men who were now walking the streets without employment and in a starving condition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is under the impression not only that has the Under-Secretary for the Colonies made a clear declaration of the policy of the Government, but that the declaration is to the effect that Eastern labour is in a short time, or at all events before long, to come to an end. He is, I think, mistaken in both particulars. The Under-Secretary has never pledged either the Colonial Office or the Government to terminate yellow indentured labour in South Africa.
  MR WALLACE: In existing conditions.
  MR. BALFOUR: I do not know what line of escape the hon. Gentleman has got, or whether the Government contemplate that there should be yellow labour admitted not under existing conditions. Whether that is desirable or not I leave the hon. Gentleman who preceded me to consider.
  MR. SEDDON: I am sorry to intervene, but I wish to make it perfectly clear that so far as the Party with which I am connected is concerned we have no race war. It is not against the Chinaman

  445
  as a Chinaman, but the conditions under which he is permitted to land in South Africa, that we are opposed to.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought that the view of the hon. Gentleman was similar to the view expressed earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Preston, which was to the effect that if yellow or oriental labour was not introduced into South Africa, the white man would have a chance there, that their would be cottages springing up there in which white men would live with their wives and families, that they would go to South Africa in large numbers and carry the principles of British liberty with them, and that you would find that unskilled labour in South Africa would be British labour and not unskilled labour from Central Africa or the Far East. That, I understand, however, is not the view of the hon. Gentleman. He does not in the least object to the unlimited importation and unrestricted competition of oriental labour with British labour in the Transvaal, but he objects to the limitations which have been placed upon the indefinite introduction of the coolie from the East into all branches of industry. He only objects to the limitation of Chinese labour; he does not object to Chinese labour without limitations. That is a view which is perfectly arguable, but those who hold it cannot hold at the same time that their ideal is to see South Africa a country in which the unskilled as well as the skilled labour is carried on by Europeans and especially by men of British birth. The two things cannot exist together; that is certain. It is equally certain that the limitations to which the hon. Gentleman objects are in favour of the competiton of British and European work, and so far from being contrary to the ideal which some gentlemen on that side of the House desire, they are in favour of it. I have corrected one error that the hon. Gentleman has made with regard to the Under-Secretary when I informed him that the Under-Secretary has given no such pledge. I will go further and say, so far as I understand the Under-Secretary's varying utterances, not only has he not promised to carry out that policy, but there is no particular or single policy he has promised to carry out. He has promised to carry out two or three policies, and they not consis-
  446
  tent one with another. I was surprised to hear him repudiate the view which he quite distinctly expressed in the House to at the Transvaal Government when they had obtained independence would probably exercise that independence in introducing Chinese labour. My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham was perfectly accurate. I heard the Under-Secretary's speech, and this brief extract from The Times exactly accords with my recollection. Possibly the hon. Member did not say precisely what he meant, but these are the words he did use—
  "What chance was there of the Transvaal proposals being acceptable when put forward? He felt bound to say the chance was not a good one."
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think it will be clear from the context that the question I asked was what chance was there of proposals being acceptable when put forward, assuming they were put forward.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether that greatly helps the hon. Gentleman. His Government propose to give self-government to the Colony. Three things may happen. The Colony may put forward no proposal at all, they may put forward proposals which are acceptable, or they may put forward proposals which are not acceptable. That they will put forward no proposal at all I think is in the highest degree improbable. Of the other two alternatives, the hon. Gentleman clearly laid it down in his speech that the probability was in favour of the proposals not being acceptable when and if put forward—he says it appears in the context, and I am prepared to take his exegesis of his own oration. If and when these proposals are put forward, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman and the Government the chance of their being acceptable is not a good one. I am bound to say that these words justify all the forebodings which those who know most about the feeling which our Colonies have with regard to this question of the Government interfering with the Colonies possessing self-government—put forward. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one, and professed to have great knowledge of the Colonies, was confident that none of the Colonies would raise the smallest protest if this country interfered to put down slavery. Yes, sir; but I myself think

  447
  the Colonies would probably say "It is for each of us to judge what is or is not slavery. We do not hand over our own moral judgment to the Mother Country; we claim that as part of the rights of Englishmen to whom self-government has been given." Although it may be that the inhabitants of Canada, of New Zealand, and of Australia may think the Government of the self-governing Transvaal has made a great mistake, but I am perfectly confident they will say they are the judges, they and they alone, of their own action, and however much either Great Britain or the other Colonies may differ from them, it is a deliberate invasion of the traditions of this country that we should attempt to impose upon them our own ideas of precisely how they should conduct matters which are intimately bound up with their own welfare, I had almost said their own existence. I do not want to treat this matter with unnecessary controversy, and I do not want to go back to the past. I support my right hon. friend in pressing for this inquiry, not in order to justify us as against hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to what occurred at the General Election. Each of us probably will remain of the same opinion as to the justice or injustice of the attacks made upon us. I am looking forward to the future, and it is in order that the future may carry with it as little difficulty, as little misfortune, and as little peril to the Empire as possible, that I earnestly urge the Government to accede to our request. I venture to think the whole course of this debate has been really in favour of the inquiry suggested, and that the speeches of those who have nominally supported the Government have been really as much in favour of an inquiry as any speeches made on this side. For instance, the hon. Gentleman who has just at down said—
  "I am unregenerate; I hold to the case which I held to at the General Election. I used strong language about the existence of a system which I regard as slavery. I have not changed that opinion."
  The hon. Gentleman I am perfectly certain honestly holds the views which he has expressed to the House, but I also am unregenerate, and I also hold the view which I expressed at the General Election. I certainly honestly came
  448
  to the conclusion that the introduction of Chinese labour was in the interests of South Africa and the Transvaal, and was absolutely necessary. As between myself and the hon. Gentleman, I am perfectly prepared to lot the matter sloop—at all events I do not wish to revive it at this moment. But as regards the future, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that two men, both presumably intelligent, honest, and anxious to know exactly what is the condition of affairs in South Africa, ought to agree upon providing some machinery which should, if not decide the question between them, at all events give them facts which they can both accept. I, like the hon. Member, spoke strongly at the elections. I believe myself, as he believes himself, to have adequate grounds for the views which I put forward. To appoint this committee is, I think, the best policy in the interests of South Africa. I considered—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept my statement—I considered only the situation in the Transvaal. I certainly honestly came to the conclusion that in the interest of South Africa and of the Transvaal this was an absolutely necessary measure. I need not trouble my head about gold magnates and the other extraneous considerations which have been dragged into this debate. I may have been mistaken. I will go this length with the House. It seemed to me that my case was so very clear that I had the very greatest difficulty sometimes in believing that those who took the opposite view were not, even unknown to themselves, violently swayed and prejudiced by those natural passions to which we are all, perhaps, unduly subject in moments of great political conflict. I acknowledge now that I have come to the conclusion that the belief which the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed to - day does represent a very genuine, real, and deep-rooted conviction in large classes of the community. I accept that, and I hope they will accept the statement which I make with equal certitude, that the policy of the Government was in no sense swayed—it may have been mistaken, or foolish, or unnecessary —by any consideration whatever except the good of a colony which at the time was under our control. When

  449
  you have two sets of genuine and honest opinions brought into such sharp contrast, and when those opinions turn on matters of fact, is it not the common-sense thing to have an inquiry by which, those matters of fact can be ascertained? Consider the speech that was made by, I think, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Prestwich. The hon. Gentleman drew a picture of South Africa as he would wish to see it —and I frankly admit that the South Africa that he wishes to see is the South Africa that I myself would very much desire to see. He says, "Why cannot you have South Africa covered with well-built cottages, with the cost of living lowered to a point which will make the wages of the white man remunerative to the white man? Why cannot you have the unskilled labourers here emigrating to another part of the Empire, enjoying prosperity and bringing with them their wives and families, and becoming the ancestors of a race English in speech, English in blood, English in sentiment—a plant, which shall spread to yet another portion of the world, a community not merely of the well-to-do, or the middle-class or the skilled artisan, but of every class, forming the majority of the population?" That is an admirable picture if only it could be carried out. And whether it can be carried out or not surely does depend upon a matter of fact which can be determined by adequate inquiry, and that is whether or not what is admitted on all hands to be, for the present, the great industry of the country, can be carried on except with the help of unskilled labour, remunerated at lower rates than those which Englishmen either could, or would, or ought to accept. That surely is a question of fact, and that is a question on which I do seriously think that the necessity for some certitude is greatly increased now that we know what, at all events, is one of the Government policies upon this matter. One of their policies is to allow the Transvaal Government to make its proposals, and then quarrel with its proposals if they do not like them. It is a serious enough matter for us to quarrel with or over-ride a self-governing colony, but to do that upon imperfect information, to do that with no adequate knowledge of what the real facts of the case are, to do that with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, saying, with conviction, "I believe one set of opinions,"
  450
  and with another hon. Gentleman, say myself, saying with equal conviction and consistency, "I believe another set of opinions," without an appeal to a tribunal, the value of which, whether we accept it or not, both are prepared to recognise— is it not really ignoring the dangers and difficulties of the future to refuse now to carry out an inquiry which would give this House and any Government that was in power that knowledge without which it is really impossible to deal with the complicated and difficult question we have to deal with? By all means, if you wish, exclude any inquiry into the past. Assume, if you wish, that everything said about the abuse of the system under the late Government was true. If you do not want to inquire into that, let it alone. But, at all events, see what is going on now; see whether the system as it is now worked does really deserve or not the attacks which the hon. Gentleman is at present prepared to make upon it; see whether it is or is not the best possible form in which the unskilled labour necessary to the community may be introduced. I think every one who heard the Under-Secretary for the Colonies will admit that, at all events, he was very much put to it to find a reason for not giving an inquiry. He complained of the shortness of notice which my right hon. friend had given of his Amendment, and I presume that was the reason why he spent most of his speech in a personal attack upon my right hon. friend. That, I am aware, is a form of debate which requires no preparation on the part of the hon. Gentleman, or on the part of many of those who sit near him. That is a beverage which is always on tap. But, when he left that familiar field, what had be say to against this inquiry? "Oh," he said, "Commissions. We know what you mean by Commissions. Commissions are always expedients for deferring any action." That is a thing which Oppositions are very fond of saying against governments, but I have never heard it said by a Government against an Opposition. These Gentleman cannot get accustomed to their places. The time will come when they will learn to put off he garb of Opposition which they wore with so much grace for so many years, and to accustom themselves both o the power and to the courtesy which ought to accompany power, when

  451
  they are put in the possession of a following of 500—or is it 600—faithful henchmen. Surely the Under-Secretary was peculiarly unfortunate in this particular line of defence, because, if I remember, the great programme of the Liberal Government now in power which is slowly unfolding and unwinding itself before our eyes began with the promise of a Commission on canals. And, unless I am greatly mistaken, another Commission was promised last night to look into Trinity College, another Commission has been promised to look into sea-coast erosion, and a fourth Commission has been appointed to look into coal mine accidents. And there is a Commission to look into Post Office matters. That is five. Five Commissions in five weeks is not bad. And I am bound to say that when the hon. Gentleman, trading upon his ancient experience in another position, talked of the iniquities of Commissions, it showed surely a very small appreciation of the labours of other departments of governmental activity, and a very small relative appreciation of the importance of the subjects to be inquired into. I do not wish to undervalue sea erosion. I certainly do not wish to undervalue Trinity College, and even canals have my sincere respect. But I would ask the House whether any of the five subjects, even including the Post Office, are of so great importance, as this great issue which has divided, and is dividing, honest and honourable men in this House and out of this House, and on the true knowledge of which so much must depend in the future conduct of what all admit is a very difficult situation? The Government may think, they certainly have said, that the object of the Opposition in regard to South African policy is simply to embarrass them. I can assure them that that is not the case. We feel very strongly upon certain aspects of the question; but this Motion of my right hon. friend might be considered surely as outside the area of bitter Party controversy. It refers only to the facts, it refers only to the future. We ask really to know under what conditions it is possible to carry on indentured labour, or, at all events, under what conditions it is now being carried on, and what kind of labour is necessary to deal with the mines. On that last subject, which is a vital one, not to the mineowners, but to the Transvaal, there seems to be a
  452
  most extraordinary confusion of ideas in the minds of some hon. Members. It does not in the least matter for our purpose what was the original cost to the mineowner, or whether he has unduly watered his capital; whether he has or has not deluded the public, whether the shareholders have or have not been defrauded or deprived of their money. What is of importance, from the point of view of the Transvaal, to know is what constant production will enable the great industry to flourish; and by flourishing I do not mean paying big dividends: I mean paying working expenses with a reasonable profit. Call the capital what you like, you must pay for the working expenses of the mine, you must pay a fair interest on capital, else you will have no development, and you must pay, I suppose, a reasonable commercial interest. Estimate it at that. Put Park Lane and everything else out of your mind, or keep Park Lane for the country. But in discussing what is necessary for the Transvaal, the prosperity or the adversity, the wickedness or the virtue of the capitalist or the small investor —these things are of comparatively small importance. What is of importance is to know the conditions under which the industry can be carried on. That is a different question, and it is a question on which I believe expert opinion could give valuable information. I believe the hon. Gentleman who last spoke and myself would have much to learn from such an inquiry. I did my host to find out. The sources from which I obtained the views I hold may possibly not have been wholly trustworthy. Then appoint a trustworthy authority. Give me a chance. I used the best opinions at my disposal; but appoint a Commission to show whether I am wrong. I cannot understand on what grounds the Government refuse this. My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham pointed out with unanswerable force that some of the objections which may be urged against some Commissions—namely, that they delay the settlement of a question which might be settled without a Commission— do not apply in this case. Not an hour's delay will be caused in the settlement of this great problem if you consent to our demands. Why do you refuse us? Is it the mere insolence of overgrown strength? Is it because you know yourselves to be so overwhelmingly strong in

  453
  numbers that even a most respectful request is to be met with this kind of unargued opposition? Not the semblance of an argument has been advanced against the proposal. Very good speeches have been made against the Opposition, speeches of which I have nothing to complain. They were attacks upon us and upon the mine-owners: they were a repetition of the kind of speech with which we have all been familiar for the last few months; but none of them have been arguments against the inquiry. The hon. Member for Prestwich advanced no argument against it; nor did the hon. Gentleman who followed him on that side. As for the Under-Secretary, those who heard his speech heard a great deal of discussion of the general question, a great deal of abuse of my right hon. friend, a considerable unintentional perversion of his own previous utterances, and a general attack on Commissions; but against this Commission, against the request which we respectfully urge, not one thing that could be called an argument. We have no power to make our appeal effective. If argument is useless we have nothing else to show. I venture to say that argument we have put forward; and if now you express your intention of deliberately refusing information to this House upon subjects upon which the House is honestly but deeply divided, and if that refusal is going to carry with it, as I fear it may, ill consequences in the future, the responsibility must at all events rest upon the Government which has thus, as I think, made a great and unjustifiable misuse of its Parliamentary majority.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman complains of an unargued refusal which has been given to this proposal, and he makes this allegation after having listened to the speech of my hon. friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, which was a prolonged argument. I will repeat now briefly some of the arguments which my hon. friend used. But I am left greatly in doubt as to what the object of the two right hon. Gentlemen is. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham claims an inquiry in order that the culprits may be found and brought to punishment if misdeeds have been committed. The Leader of the Opposition, on the other hand, said, "Oh, we have nothing to do with the past."
  MR. BALFOUR: Oh, no, the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I should like an inquiry covering the past, present, and future. I thought right hon. Gentlemen opposite had an objection to going into matters which were historical, and I said in deference to their view, "By all means leave that out, if you like." But I should personally prefer an inquiry into the whole.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman in his speech did not give us much indication of deference to our view. He was emphatic on the subject that we should turn to the future and leave the past. Therefore, we are in the old dilemma—the old dilemma in which Castor says one thing, and Pollux says another. One right hon. Gentleman said, "Get it out of the area of bitter controversy; we have nothing to do with the past"; the other right hon. Gentleman wishes to inquire into the past. Sir, what are you to inquire into that you have not got already? If evidence is required of misdeeds and abuses under this system, you have abundant evidence in your own Blue-books. And it stands in the nature of things that there should be those abuses, because an unnatural system such as this necessarily leads to abuses. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham the other, day on another subject used a phrase which was very much to the point. We were talking of flogging in the Navy, and he said he had often had to deal with cases of flogging when he was in charge of a great Department, and he added," The difficulty is that you cannot depend upon your instruments." That is the case here above most other instances. Let this be distinctly understood. We have no quarrel with the Transvaal people or even with the leading-men in the Tranvaal. We have no quarrel even with the working of the system—at least, that is not the main point. What we have a quarrel with are the Ordinances which prescribe certain conditions for the Chinese coolie which we believe to be contrary to the best traditions and the purest conscience and the highest views of the British people. No Royal Commission that you can appoint can tell us whether we are right or wrong. That is the feeling of the great majority of the British people. In this, surely, they are entirely within their proper sphere, because, as I have said, these Ordinances

  455
  were passed by the late House of Commons, and at the instigation of the late Government. It is we who passed the Ordinances, and therefore we are responsible. Those of us who voted against them, or protested against them, of course have a slighter responsibility; but still we cannot altogether hold ourselves free, and that is what we complain of. We dislike having fastened upon a British colony certain Ordinances prescribing conditions of labour which we believe—I will repeat the phrase that I have often used—partake of the nature of slavery. But I think it is time we ceased to make any more to do about the particular phrase to be used. The other day the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone said that what the people of this country objected to was popular slavery, not technical slavery. It may not be technical slavery, but in the popular sense and the popular acceptation of the word it is slavery. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the people of this country are not going to stand anything of that sort of system in any country for which they have any responsibility. As to the question of the admission of Chinese to labour in the Colonies for the purposes of free labour, that I regard as a domestic matter in which we are not entitled to interfere. But if that involves—as I know I should not be candid if I did not admit that in South Africa it does involve—the imposition upon them of conditions which we think degrading to the human race, and certain to produce the evil results which in some cases have followed—then, if we find that, we shall have nothing to do with those conditions, and we will endeavour to bring them to an end as soon as possible. That is a perfectly plain and straightforward and intelligible position. My hon. friend the Under - Secretary asked, in stirring language, whether this unnatural labour was the sort of basis upon which to build a new and prosperous community. If its prosperity depended upon that, what sort of fate would be likely to be in store for that community? I do not like, even in the shortest way, referring to one condition of which we hear little, but which is really an important factor in the matter, but my hon. friend alluded to it when he said that these men were forced to live in compounds in enforced celibacy. We know how we insisted, in the early stages of this matter, upon
  456
  ample provision being made for wives and children going with them; we know what promises were made; and we know how completely that intention has been thwarted, either by the want of will on the part of the authorities, or the want of disposition on the part of the men themselves. In either case you have created a state of things which is perfectly appalling. And that is the condition of labour on which the prosperity of these great mines is to depend, and on which you are to build up, forsooth, a great buttress to the pride of the British Empire. The people of this country really do not half understand what is going on. If they once realised it there would be short work made of it, and even of all those pecuniary interests which we have been endeavouring to guard as far as we can. Yes, we have guarded them by what we have done. We have given time when the natural impulse would have been to give no time; and we have said that the future policy with regard to Chinese free labour is to be left to the community under the new constitution, though the present conditions must at all costs be brought to an end. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, both to-day and on a previous occasion, made a great point of this interference with a self-governing Colony. He said he would only interfere where it was a matter of Imperial interest. Is this not a matter of Imperial interest? The right hon. Gentleman repeatedly taunted my friends with being guided by sentiment and morality. Yes, Sir, the British people have always been guided by sentiment and morality, and it is that fact largely which gives them their power and standing in the world. Are we to understand that that is to be given up, and a new policy is to be opened for this country? The right hon. Gentleman says you cannot interfere when you give self-government to a Colony. Here is what the late Colonial Secretary wrote when he was addressing Lord Selborne and sending out his proposal, not for full responsible, but for representative government—
  "His Majesty's Government have been unable, having regard to the terms of peace signed in 1902, to make provision for any of his Majesty's coloured subjects. As a protection for the interests of these sections of the population which are not directly represented in the Legislature, the Governor will, as now, be required by his instruction to reserve any Bill

  457
  whatever whereby persons not of European birth or descent may be subjected to any disability or restriction to which persons of European blood and descent are not subjected."
  That is the instruction given to the Governor with regard to a representative system of government. It equally applies, mutatis mutandis, to a responsible government. You cannot wash your hands of your responsibility altogether. Self-government means that communities are set up which have full powers of representation. But have the Kaffirs and the Chinese those powers? No, Sir, they have no means of making representations. They have no status. That is why an Imperial officer is placed in charge of natives even in a Colony like Natal; and that is why those powers must be always preserved, that we may see that these men who are in stata pupillari are treated with ordinary justice and consideration. That is the plain policy of the Government. I do not see anything dark about it; and in those circumstances, what good would a Royal Commission do? It would have to inquire into two things—into the economic value of Chinese labour and into the moral aspect of it. As my hon. friend the Under-Secretary pointed out, how could the same men be competent to inquire into the two things? [CRIES of "Why not?"] Engineers and experts would be required to inquire into the technical part of the question; and moral experts or men accustomed to consider the interests of morality would be required
  to inquire into the moral part of the question. The two things are inconsistent. No, Sir, on that we can judge for ourselves; and although the economic question is an interesting one, yet the inquiry would take a long time and would probably not be finished until responsible government was established in the country. I think it would be an unnecessary thing to enter upon that inquiry; but I can well imagine that the right hon. Member for Birmingham is anxious for it. Did he not tell the people of this country that they were engaged in a miners' war? Did he not promise, not only equal rights to all white men, but especially proclaim that it was a miners' war on which the miners' prospects of occupation and livelihood depended? I can imagine how it would be an interesting thing for him to inquire how it is that none of his prophecies have been fulfilled. He and his friends are now wondering whether or not the Chinese should be admitted in larger numbers still or whether it would be possible to ransack the country to find a few unemployed Kaffirs. It may be interesting for him to inquire into that question; but it is one that we at least can well leave to the Government of the Transvaal itself.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 378; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 22.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Beaumont. W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bell, Richards

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Belloc, Hiliare Joseph Peter R.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Benn, John Williams (Devonpt

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Allen, A Acland (Christchurch)

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Ambrose, Robert

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Caldwell, James

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bertram, Julius

  Cameron, Robert

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Billson, Alfred

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshre

  Cawley, Frederick

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Boland, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Barnard, E. B.

  Branch, James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brigg, John

  Clough, W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bright, J. A.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Cobbelb, Felix Thornley

  Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hammond, John

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Callum, John M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  M'Crae, George

  Cooper, G. J.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  M'Kean, John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  M'Killop, W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haydon, John Patrick

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cox, Harold

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Crean, Eugene

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Cremer, William Randal

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Crombie, John William

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

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Massie, J.

  Crossley, William J.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Meagher, Michael

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Meehan, Patrick, A.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Menzies, Walter

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hodge, John

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Delany, William

  Hogan, Michael

  Mond, A.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Montagu, E. S.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Mooney, J. J.

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Moss, Samuel

  Dillon, John

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Murnaghan, George

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Murphy, John

  Duckworth, James

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Myer, Horatio

  Duffy, William J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Newnes, F. (Notts. Bassetlaw)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nicholls, George

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Nolan, Joseph

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Norman, Henry

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jenkins, J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Elibank, Master of

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshre

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Connor. James (Wicklow, W.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Dowd, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Grady, J.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ffreneh, Peter

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Malley, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Shee, James John

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lambert, George

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Fowler, Rt, Hon. Sir Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Partington, Oswald

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Paul, Herbert

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lay land-Barratt, Francis

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Gilhooly, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Gill, A. H.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ginnell, L.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Pickorsgill, Edward Hare

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Levy, Maurice

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Glover, Thomas

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pollard, Dr.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lundon, W.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lutterell, Hugh Courtenay

  Radford, G. H.

  Grove, Archibald

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lynch, H. B.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Gulland, John W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Reddy, M.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Hall, Frederick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rees, J. D.

  Halpin, J.

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  460

  461

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Simon, John Allesbrook

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Richardson, A.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Snowden, P.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Spicer, Albert

  Weir, James Galloway

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Robinson, S.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rose, Charles Day

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rowlands, J.

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Runciman, Walter

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Williamson A.(Elgin and Nairn

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Torrance, A. M.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Toulmin, George

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

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Sears, J. E.

  Vivian, Henry

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Young, Samuel

  Seddon, J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Sheehy, David

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southam'n

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wardle, George J.

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cross, Alexander

  Liddell, Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Ashley, W. W.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balcarres, Lord

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nield, Herbert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Percy, Earl

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gordon, Sir W. Evans(T'r Ham

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Renton, Major Leslie

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

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Cave, George

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cavendish, Rt Hn. Victor C. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Keswick, William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Farehm

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  462

  463

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres.

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Younger, George

  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  LORD R. CECILpointed out that this was a Bill which provided that the pension of a policeman should be forfeited if a testimonial was got up on behalf of the policeman on his leaving the force. That seemed to him to be a doubtful remedy for the evils complained of, and he thought the House should have some further explanation with regard to it.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said that that was only in the case of a testimonial being improperly got up. Cases unfortunately occurred of an inspector on leaving the force going round the districts over which he had had control and to solicit the publicans in the district to subscribe to a testimonial for him.
  LORD R. CECILthought that the provisions of the Bill were much more general than that.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid he thought there should be more time given to the discussion of this Bill.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: It has been discussed. It is your own Bill.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid he was in a state of ignorance with regard to the provisions of the Bill, although he was supposed to be a supporter of it.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

  EVENING SITTING.
  One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

  SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSIONER).
  MR. BYLESrose to move, "That this House expresses its disapproval of the conduct of Lord Milner, as High Commissioner of South Africa and Governor of the Transvaal, in authorising the flogging of Chinese labourers in breach of the law, in violation of treaty obligations, and without the knowledge or sanction of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."He said that the fortune of the ballot had cast upon him a task which would have been, perhaps, better discharged by others, and while he would not shrink from the responsibilty placed upon him, he wished at the outset to disclaim all personal hostility to Lord Milner. The Times newspaper and a great many other newspapers and large numbers of anonymous correspondents had thought fit to accuse him for bringing forward this Motion of all sorts of motives, of petty spite, of black ingratitude, of sordid lust for Party gain. All this was very absurd. He had no vindictive spirit against Lord Milner. It was not so much of Lord Milner that he was thinking. It was the honour of the country that he was jealous for, it was the good faith and the self-respect of this House, it was that when the people of this country questioned the King's Ministers they should be able to rely upon assurances given by them. If the country was deceived, if illegality was condoned, if high officials were screened, and if injustice and cruelty were allowed to go unreproved, then in his judgment the highest interests of this country were in danger. In a memorable debate in this House, many years ago, on the subject of the high-handed action of a great administrator in South Africa, the right hon Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, speaking of Sir Bartle Frere, whom he styled "a self-willed politician," said—
  "This new Imperialism of the Government had affected the minds and judgments of those to whom were necessarily delegated the

  465
  powers and authority of this country in distant I lands. Unless this spirit were—either by I Parliament or by the people—sternly and severely repressed, there would hardly be a limit to the difficulties, and even disasters, yet in store for this country."
  What the right hon Gentleman said then he (Mr. Byles) said now. So much for the motive with which he brought forward this Resolution. He was concerned with the office of High Commissioner and with Lord Milner only as the holder of that office. If for no other reason, certain pleasant relations he had had with Lord Milner in days past would preclude any malice on his part. Further than that, he recognised Lord Milner as an eminent public servant; he did not forget the services Lord Milner had rendered to the country while he was at the Inland Revenue, when he gave such real and valuable assistance to the late Sir William Harcourt in the revolutionary Finance Bill of 1894; neither could he nor any Member of the House forget the work which Lord Milner had done in the reorganisation of Egypt and Egyptian finance. While he admitted that the services of Lord Milner at the Inland Revenue and in Egypt were deserving of the gratitude of the country —services which were marked and crowned with conspicuous success — he could not help thinking that his administration in South Africa had been an equally conspicuous failure. This Motion invited the House to express its disapproval of Lord Milner for sanctioning the flogging of Chinese labourers. The facts of the case were very simple. Lord Milner was approached by the mineowners who, after the war were unable to obtain sufficient native labour, and who asked him to allow them to import Asiatic labour. Lord Milner agreed, and the famous Ordinance was passed, solemn engagements were entered into between this country and the Chinese Empire, that the Chinese coolies brought over to the Rand should not be flogged except by order of the Court. Lord Milner, as High Commissioner of this country, broke that engagement deliberately and intentionally, and purposely withheld the knowledge of the decision to which he had come from the Government which he served.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, no. Perhaps I may be permitted. I
  466
  merely wish to know what it is;he hon. Gentleman brings as a charge against Lord Milner. Does he mean to say, as he has just now said, that Lord Milner's action in those matters was taken deliberately, and that he purposely withheld the facts from the Government? The words used by the hon. Member were deliberately "and "purposely."
  MR. BYLESsaid he certainly understood from Lord Milner's speech in the House of Lords the other night that he had done this knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately; he certainly did not desire to accuse Lord Milner of anything he did not wish to say, but that was what he understood him to say. At any rate Lord Milner quite frankly confessed so much in the House of Lords and very properly expressed his regret for it. In other words Lord Milner disapproved of his own conduct, and all that the Motion asked the House to do was to disapprove of it too. The speech in which Lord Milner made this confession was one of great interest from many points of view. It was his maiden speech, and in it he admitted quite frankly that he was responsible for the introduction of Chinese labour into the mines. At first he said he was as much opposed to it as all the rest of the white population of the Transvaal, except a handful of miners, and then he stated by what insidious manner he was converted. He said that white men could do the work, but not so cheaply. That was a most interesting point, because the House had been told thousands of times that white men could not do the work. Now they knew from Lord Milner that they could. He (Mr. Byles) had always said that the whole object of this Chinese labour was to get cheap labour, to get wages down and dividends up. Lord Milner further said that to the white man with his ideas such labour would mean degradation, and he (Mr. Byles) must admit he did not know a British working man who would submit to be flogged in the mines. But, said Lord Milner, it was "almost providential" when the Chinaman came along. Lord Milner was converted, and the Chinese came; they were beaten cruelly, and they complained. At length their complaints had reached this House. Questions were asked as to the truth of this flogging and whether it had taken place, and the Answer was no. But it had taken place, as they now knew

  467
  and it Was sanctioned by Lord Milner Had it not been for Lord Milner's conversion we should not have had Chinese labour. The Chinese were brought because they were degraded creatures and would not mind being flogged. That was the only natural conclusion that could be drawn from the speech of Lord Milner. This state of things was justified on the principle that "the end justifies the means." The end was cheapness, the means were servile labour. It might be cheap and nasty, but it must be cheap. The fallacy lay in supposing that the prosperity of Transvaal the depended on gold-bearing quartz. Yet the people there were never so happy as they were before the gold was discovered, and, in his opinion, they would never be so happy again until the gold was all worked out, and the vultures which had fastened on it had taken flight. In the last generation this country had become far more humane, and men were beginning to see the stupidity as well as the brutality of flogging. Those Chinese labourers had been called "animated machines." Suppose they were not" animated," the last thing anyone would do would be to beat them. When their bearings got hot, oil would be poured on them. But because they were men—of far more complex and delicate organisation than machines made of iron —the people of South Africa proceeded to knock them about in the manner described in Mr. Boland's letter. That was the kind of flogging that had been going on with the sanction of Lord Milner, although China had got the assurance, and relied on British honour for its fulfilment, that there should be no flogging without the sanction of the courts. Supposing an Admiral of the Fleet came to the First Lord of the Admiralty and said he could not maintain discipline on his ship unless he flogged the men, and supposing the First Lord of the Admiralty said, "all right, go on, but don't say anything about it," that would be a parallel case.
  MR. J. CHAMBEELAIN: No it would not.
  MR. BYLES: There was once a philosopher who said you can do anything so long as you say nothing.
  MR. J. CHAMBEELAIN: Lord Milner did not say that.
  MR. BYLES: No, he was not the philosopher in question. When this Ordinance was passed the Chinese Ambassador stipulated that there should be no flogging except under the law, and he relied on British honour to see that that stipulation was carried out. Whoever was subject to the law was entitled to the protection of the law. The facts with regard to this case were not disputed, for the defendant had pleaded guilty. The Lord Chancellor, an illustrious Member of the Cabinet, and the highest judicial authority in the land, had said in the House of Lords
  "It was a flagrant illegality; it was illegal and Lord Milner knew it."
  In these circumstances he was surprised that the Government did not see their way to accept his Motion. How came we to annex the Transvaal at all? Was it not alleged, at any rate, that it was because President Kruger could not enforce the law. Whenever the grievances of the Uitlanders were paraded before them, was it not always the miscarriage of justice that was the chief indictment? It was because the liberties of our people were not safe in the hands of President Kruger that we fought him and took his country from him. Lord Milner's own despatches in 1899 constantly laid stress on these things. It was not for the sake of the Chinese only that this Motion was brought forward. It concerned quite as much our relations with the Boers, and indeed with all races of non-British people in the King's Dominions. A new constitution was about to be given to the Transvaal, and the first thing to establish was absolute confidence in the administration of the law. The Boers were reputed to be a suspicious people. What would become of their confidence in us when they found breaches of the law sanctioned by the highest executive officer of the State, and sanctioned moreover in the interests of the very men whom they regarded as responsible for all the evils of the war, and for the wreckage of their country? There was an Amendment on the Paper by an hon. Gentleman deprecating the stirring up of racial animosity. Racial animosity had never been stirred up by keeping officers in the straight path, but it had been stirred up more than once by screening them and covering their lapses from virtue. He need only instance the

  469
  Jameson Raid. After that event, had Dr. Jameson been punished and cashiered, President Kruger would have been perfectly satisfied, the Boers would not have been irritated, and there would have been no war. This House was the guardian of the national honour. It was also the guardian of the liberties of all the people who enjoyed the protection of our King. It was the guardian of the reputation of England for equality before the law for rich and poor, black and white and yellow. If this Resolution were rejected the offence of Lord Milner would be in a sense condoned. The humblest subject of the Empire would not be safe. Every prancing pro-consul in the Empire would be encouraged to play off his own bat, and pay regard not to the law but to his own sweet will. The Government had put down an Amendment to this Motion, and though in the main it agreed with this Motion it did not go quite so far. It was in material to him in a sense into which lobby Members chose to go. The Motion and the Amendment both condemned the illegal flogging, but those who voted for this Motion desired to put on the journals of the House their express disapproval of that flogging. There was no essential difference between them. He would not be opposing the Government when he called for a division against their Amendment, nor would they be opposing him. If he thought there would be absolute unanimity in the House upon the Government Amendment he would withdraw his Resolution in order that there might be a unanimous vote. But he had reason to believe that that would not be the case under any circumstances, and therefore he should press this Motion to a division, and he hoped that a large number of Members would be undeterred by the great station and influence of Lord Milner from voting with him on the Motion he now moved.
  MR. MACKARNESSsaid he rose to second this Motion, but before doing so he must plead for that kindly indulgence which he believed was always extended to a Member who addressed the House for the first time. He was sure his hon. friend who brought forward this Motion, and they who were supporting him, would not be doing so unless they believed there were great questions at issue in this matter—
  470
  questions which could not be ignored by this House without abdicating some of its most important functions and neglecting a clear duty. The House had known for some time that a high official of the Crown had so far mistaken his position as to permit systematic breaches of the law to be kept for many months from the knowledge of the Secretary of State, to whom he was bound to be frank to the utmost degree. Could any self-respecting government or legislature allow such conduct on the part of one of its servants to pass without rebuke? If any subordinate officer had committed the same breach of duty, would he have been allowed to go unpunished? Everybody must know that it would not have been the case. Why then should it be allowed to pass because the person implicated happened to occupy the very highest position that any subject could occupy in a great dependency? It might be said that Lord Milner no longer occupied that position. But Lord Milner resigned his position amid the plaudits of the hon. Members of the Party who supported him, and who were now on the Opposition side of the House, and the last thing that was said of him was an elaborate eulogy by the late Prime Minister. If anybody looking back on the records of this country should ask what the House of Commons thought of Lord Milner it would find nothing at all to condemn him except the reply given a few days ago by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in answer to a Question, when he said Lord Milner had been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. † The Resolution his hon. friend had moved appeared to him to be no more than an elaboration of the judgment then passed by the Under-Secretary. Therefore he thought they had a right to appeal to every supporter of the Government, at any rate, to support the Resolution of his hon. friend. He confessed that he did not quite understand the Amendment which had been put on the paper in the name of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. The head of the Amendment was quite in accordance with the Resolution, but the tail of it, though couched in a truely Christian spirit, seemed to him to want that sting which every tail ought to have. As the mover had said they were not so much bringing a charge
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 1238.

  471
  against an individual as passing sentence upon a series of admitted facts, which the more they were examined into the more; serious became. They had led to persistent I breaches of the law in regard to a matter about which Lord Milner knew the late Government were peculiarly sensitive. He referred to the flogging of natives. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had always strongly opposed the flogging of natives. The despaches sent by the right hon. Gentleman in 1901–2 showed that he had repeatedly instructed Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner to eliminate from the law of the Transvaal the flogging of natives. Then in 1904 in the negotiations which took place between the British Government and the Chinese Government before the Ordinance was passed, the Chinese Government insisted that in no case should it be allowable for an employer or his servant to inflict corporal punishment on the immigrant, and that violations of this prohibition should be punished at law as common assults. Lord Milner said there would be no difficulty in including that in the Ordinance, and also pointed out that the Chinese, like everybody else, would have the protection of the law, that flogging could not be inflicted except by the order of a magistrate, confirmed by a Judge. There was the clear assurance, given on the faith of the High Commissioner of South Africa, to the ambassador of a foreign Power, that in no circumstances should flogging be administered to a Chinese coolie except in accordance with the law of the land. What followed upon that? The Convention was passed providing that every Chinese coolie should have the same right of redress in the Courts of Justice in the Transvaal as subjects of all other races had. From March down to the end of July last year repeated assurances were given by Mr. Lyttelton that no flogging was taking place outside the Law Courts. Assurances were given in this House and in another place, and the actual number of persons flogged was mentioned, namely, six. The last assurance was given, he believed, by Mr. Lyttelton on the 27th July, to the effect that, so far as he knew, the law was being observed in the Transvaal with regard to this matter.† At the time that the House was being thus lulled into false
  † See (4) Debates, el., 688, et seq.
  472
  security Lord Milner had left South Africa and was travelling slowly about Europe, finally reaching this country in July. On the day Mr. Lyttelton gave his last assurance, Lord Milner was admitted to Parliament, so that it was impossible to argue that he could not have been aware of what was going on in Parliament. He must have known what was going on in Parliament, and yet he allowed the Government, to whom he ought to have acted with loyalty and good faith, constantly to represent a false state of things to the House. Since Parliament rose in August last year the country remained under the belief that flogging was not being illegally carried on, though great uneasiness was felt owing to constant stories coming from South Africa. It was not until December that a Blue-book appeared in which it was stated for the first time that Mr. Lyttelton had found out that a totally different state of things had been going on, and that the High Commissioner had sanctioned the taking of the law out of the hands of the magistrates of the Colony and its being put into the hands of the mine managers. Mr. Lyttelton said he had no idea of this until Lord Selborne told him of it in October, and nobody who knew Mr. Lyttelton would doubt for a moment that what he said was true. Therefore, if there were no other reason for passing condemnation upon a high official, the fact that he had deliberately allowed his superiors to remain under a false impression in regard to so important a matter was a sufficient ground for condemnation. Great abuses had followed on the flogging. There had been other forms of torture inflicted upon these Chinamen which Lord Milner might not have known about, but for which it was impossible not to hold him responsible. In spite of the injunctions, first of Mr. Lyttelton and then of Lord Elgin, that prosecutions should take place against offenders, not a single prosecution had been instituted. The reason of that, he suggested, was that the persons who would be the chief witnesses were the Chinese themselves, and they were under such a state of intimidation that it was quite impossible for them to give evidence. According to the last Blue-book the Chinese, when called before the Commission of Inquiry ordered by Lord Selborne, were not allowed to give evidence before the Commission except on their knees—a form of proceedings which

  473
  was calculated to frighten them from giving reliable evidence. The consequences of the illegal treatment of the Chinese did not stop there. The Chinamen were driven into a state of desperation by the treatment they received; they deserted from the mines, and, being forbidden by law from obtaining an honest livelihood, they were driven to commit crimes, and so the unfortunate people of the Transvaal, who had only just recovered from a devastating war, had inflicted upon them the calamity of having their houses broken into, their property taken, and often murders committed by the Chinese. The Attorney-General of the Transvaal, speaking in the Legislative Council in September, stated that up to that time there had been 2,543 convictions, 735 desertions, and 21,205 cases of refusal to work, out of a total of 46,000 Chinamen in the country. Every kind of serious crime was recorded against the Chinamen in the last Blue-book. In one case an unfortunate Dutch farmer was murdered before the eyes of his wife and child, who were both badly injured, And for that crime alone four Chinamen were hanged. At whose door lay the responsibility for this? Then in order to cope with this very serious state of things, a law had been passed which was worse than the first Ordinance, as it was passed for the express purpose of further restricting the liberty of the Chinese, and took away from them even the right of having their offences investigated by the magistrates of the Colony, and set up domestic tribunals, presided over by persons who were not lawyers, to try them under the eyes of the compound managers. What were called collective fines were levied. In the event of a Chinaman not being able to pay the fine inflicted, the gang with whom he worked had to make it up. Anything less consistent with justice, as it was understood in this country, he could not imagine. Perhaps the most sinister part of the whole business was the part played by the Chamber of Mines. It seemed that it was into their hands that the administration of the law was resigned by the high officers of the Crown; and when at last the flogging was stopped, as was said, in June last, it was by a circular of the Chamber of Mines, issued on the 16th June. It was sometimes asserted that Lord Milner's Government was conducted for and by the mineowners. When they
  474
  found the law taken out of the hands of official persons, and allowed to be administered by the Chamber of Mines, there was very good grounds for the assertion. He hoped the House tonight would make it clear that the state of things that had been revealed would not be allowed to continue, and that when it discovered that one of its servants, however highly placed, had misused his powers, it would interfere with authority to vindicate those principles of freedom, humanity, and justice which were, after all, the most priceless possession of their race.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House expresses its disapproval of the conduct of Lord Milner, as High Commissioner of South Africa and Governor of the Transvaal, in authorising the flogging of Chinese labourers in breach of the Law, in violation of treaty obligations, and without the knowledge or sanction of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."— (Mr. Byles.)
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly think, Sir, of any task more distasteful to a generous mind than that which has been voluntarily undertaken to-night by the two hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me. Of course I accept their own statements that they were animated by the highest and, I will add, a very exceptional sense of public duty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Stafford—[Cries of "Salford"] —the hon. Member for North Salford— [An HON. MEMBER: Do not forget Manchester] I beg hon. Gentlemen to consider the dignity of the House of Commons. [OPPOSITION cries of "Manners"] I think the hon. Member for North Salford will admit a reluctance in pursuing the duty which he thought had been cast upon him. He said he had no feeling of malignity towards Lord Milner, that he was only impressed by the necessity of vindicating his country's honour. Well, Sir, let me say at once that I believe in the hon. Gentleman's sincerity; but it is a very dangerous thing when private individuals upon whom no great responsibility is cast undertake so great a matter as that of vindicating their country's honour. Sir, I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement absolutely as

  475
  to his own motives and intentions. I cannot do otherwise; for if, instead of being inspired by these high intentions he had been animated by Party contentions, by what is worse still, by personal and petty spite—if that had been the cause, what could be meaner, what could be more contemptible in any Member of this House than to persecute a great servant of the public, a great official who, in the words of Lord Elgin the other day, the generous words of Lord Elgin, was—
  "One who, during a time of stress and anxiety showed a courage and devotion to his country that his country will not forget."
  What, I say, could be more despicable than to attack such a man without the sanction of the highest motive, which the hon. Gentleman claimed for himself, and to persecute him for a single error of judgment—[MINISTERIAL Cries of "No, no"] — a single error of judgment—in a long course of public service? "No, no," you say. Then for what do you persecute him? [An HON. MEMBER: Flogging.] The Motion is confined to a single act in a long public life, in a long course of public service. I am not permitted by the rules of the House to go beyond the Resolution, and I am bound to say that the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have confined themselves very strictly to this narrow ground; and for a single error of judgment, upon this single point, they ask the House to inflict this humiliation on a most distinguished member of our great Civil Service. What is the proposal? In the absence, the necessary absence, of the person accused—for you have not called him to the Bar of this House—you propose to call on the House to pass a Resolution which can have no practical effect, and to inflict censure and humiliation on this man, of whose existence and work in our history, at any rate, if not, indeed, in this conflict of petty passion, in history, at all events, the people of this country will be proud. You ask the House to pass this censure on a man who is no longer in office and for an error which you admit you know he has frankly acknowledged, and for which he has expressed regret. Where is the generosity? Where is the magnanimity for which we take credit when you can
  476
  put aside all that you owe to this great and distinguished public servant in order to condemn him, and to inflict this unnecessary humiliation on him after he has himself acknowledged and regretted the error he has committed? The Resolution is retrospective. It is vindictive. Sir, let us have no cant about this matter. We all know, the country knows, that the object of this Motion is to inflict humiliation upon a person who is as honest and as sincere as any Member of this House, but of whose policy hon. Members opposite happen to disapprove; and for that and for Party reasons they pick up a single point in a long history of self-sacrifice and devotion. They pick it up because they have an admission—I am almost disposed to say an unnecessary admission—at all events it is a chivalrous admission — of the person concerned. They dare not question his policy as a whole [Cries of "Oh"], and they pick up the one point, the one little point, a comparatively unimportant point in the whole history of this great man's life. They pick it up because they have his own admission and they cannot be contradicted; and they, accepting his regret, are not satisfied without the additional humiliation which they think they can inflict by a vote of this House, but which will recoil upon the heads of those who have proposed it, and upon those who may be ungenerous enough to support it. Now, Sir, what are the facts? ["Hear, hear."] Yes; I do not wonder hon. Members opposite wish to hear them after the statement that has been made. I know, for I have had a long acquaintance with the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Salford, and I do believe in my heart that he is thoroughly sincere—he means to be accurate—that he would not knowingly impute to even his bitterest opponent anything which ought not to be imputed; but I never heard in my life a statement in which there was more perversion of the true state of the case than the statement we have just heard from the hon Gentleman. He puts in adjectives without apparently any understanding of their importance. He actually declared in this House, when it was not so full as it is at present, that Lord Milner had admitted that he had deliberately broken an engagement undertaken with a foreign nation, and that he

  477
  had purposely withheld the knowledge of the facts from his Government.
  MR. BYLES: I said I understood Lord Milner's own words in the House of Lords to mean that. That is my clear understanding of them. They are not adjectives, but that does not matter. ["Shame."]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Order! order! I was put out for saying "Shame" once.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hate to hear this laughter, whether in my favour or against me. The honour of the public service of the country is at stake. I did not laugh at or interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I most deeply regret the statement he was persuaded to make, and I am going to treat this question seriously in answer to the hon. Gentleman. He understood that to be what Lord Milner meant. But, Sir, he cannot understand English. I am not going to read the whole of the speech, although it is a short one, in which Lord Milner acknowledged his part in this matter with a frankness which every impartial, honourable man will admire, and never, never in the whole course of this controversy has he admitted, or is it possible to suppose, that he purposely deceived the Government which he was serving, that he deliberately did this, that, or the other. In that case, for Heaven's sake, why are not hon. Members consistent?
  MR. BYLESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that this was an accident or was it deliberately sanctioned. That was what he wanted to know. He understood Lord Milner to say that he sanctioned the flogging. He made no objection to what Mr. Evans told him he had done. Therefore he took it that it was purposeful, intentional, and deliberate.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: To my mind, and I will give my reasons for it, certainly nothing was less purposeful and deliberate; and again I say I cannot believe the hon. Gentleman in his sober [Laughter]—his serious moments—I am sorry that there should be this disposition to seize upon any possible slip which,
  478
  in my anxiety to do justice to the subject' I may make—I say I cannot believe the hon. Gentleman in his serious moments can believe that Lord Milner, a great public servant, with whom he says he has been in personal communication, could have deliberately done so outrageous a thing as purposely to deceive his Parliamentary chiefs, and deliberately to do a great wrong which he had subsequently regretted; and I say if that were true hon. Members ought to be consistent. They ought to understand that a charge of that kind cannot be met by the mere censure of the House. It is the most serious thing in the world; and nothing short of an impeachment would justify a charge of that kind. Now let me, at any rate, proceed to give my own version of the facts, as I understand them. Let anyone contradict them afterwards if he thinks I have misunderstood them. When the late Government undertook to sanction the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa they were guided by what had been done in regard to the employment of foreign labour in other colonies, and they nominated an official as protector of the Chinese, and the duty of this protector was to see that the contract entered into was understood by the labourer, that it was completely carried out, that the coolie was treated with humanity, and that his health, comfort, and general welfare were properly looked after. This was the duty of the official, a duty well known and performed in Mauritius, in the Malay Settlements, in the West Indies, and now in the Transvaal. For this purpose the Government nominated—I am not sure if the appointment was made by the home Government—Mr. Evans, a gentleman who had a most honourable record of, I think, twenty years in the Malay States, who had a high reputation for ability, for integrity, and humanity, who knew the Chinese language, and had been in constant communication with Chinamen in the Malay Straits. I doubt myself whether a better appointment could have been suggested. Now this is the authority for any statement of fact that can be presented to the House, and Mr. Evans himself stated to Mr. Lyttelton that on a definite occasion, in the course of a general conversation, in which, no doubt, many other subjects were dealt

  479
  with, he had, casually, as it were, told Lord Milner that he had found it necessary to give permission for a certain limited amount of corporal punishment to be inflicted in the mines, and he stated—I forget whether he gave the explanation to Lord Milner—he stated to Mr. Lyttelton that he had done that because in the case of certain offences against discipline he had found that the delay, the necessary delay, in taking the case to the courts and so on, led to serious difficulty and that a trivial matter easily became a serious riot. It was in his opinion necessary that greater discretion should be given to a manager in the case of really trivial offences. That is Mr. Evans's statement, and for the moment I am only repeating it. It is not his statement that Lord Milner carefully and deliberately considered the matter, and there is no record whatever of this taking place. If it took place at all it took place in this casual way in the course of a conversation on many subjects, and Mr. Evans says that Lord Milner took no objection. ["Hear, hear," "He ought to have done so."] Ah, yes, if we were perfect how many are the things we might have done or done better. Lord Milner says, and no doubt everyone will believe his statement, that he has absolutely no recollection of this conversation, but he has no reason whatever to doubt Mr. Evans' integrity or his memory, and therefore he has taken on himself to accept his statement as accurate. I am therefore debarred from going in any particular behind the statement of Mr. Evans. Lord Milner says he has no doubt the conversation took place as Mr. Evans stated, and now he has only to say, "I think I was wrong in not taking notice of this statement; I regret that I did not do so." ["Hear, hear."] Here we are all agreed, that this original permission which Mr. Evans says he reported to Lord Milner was illegal. The hon. Member for Newbury has been kind enough to give me credit for sincerity in my objections to flogging, and therefore he will not be surprised that I say I deeply regret that any official in the colonial or public service should have given this illegal permission which was given by Mr. Evans. I go beyond, and, accepting Lord Milner's statement say also it is very much
  480
  to be regretted that he failed to notice it, for that is the only charge that is brought against him. Mr. Evans only says, "He took no objection." I very much regret he took no objection, and that in the conversation which passed he did not at once say "No; I cannot listen to anything of the kind." But I also think, in common fairness to Lord Milner, that he was likely to be much less on his guard against a gentleman who was protector of the Chinese, and who, let me say, had been earnest and energetic on all other occasions in protecting the Chinese and was constantly representing their wrongs and grievances, and endeavouring to secure a redress of them. Really, in common fairness, we must admit that Lord Milner would be less on his guard against an evil coming from the protector of the Chinese than he would have been against it coming from any one else. Very shortly after this, and after Lord Milner had left, abuses and outrages on the Chinese were reported to Sir Arthur Lawley, and promptly dealt with by him; he withdrew any permission given, and refused to allow any sort of illegal punishment. May I further remind the House that Mr. Lyttelton, in his position as Secretary of State for the Colonies, the moment the matter was brought to his knowledge, expressed in severe terms his disapproval and his profound regret that anything of the kind had taken place? Now we all regret, Lord Milner himself included, that this incident occurred; and could it not now be allowed to rest? Surely, after such an expression of opinion as appears in the Blue-books by his official superiors, was not that sufficient to vindicate the honour of the country which the hon. Member for North Salford had taken under his special care? It seems to me we ought to be satisfied. When the Motion was put down on the Paper by a private Member naturally my great interest was to know the view the Government were going to take. Did they think the circumstances demanded the censure of a great public servant? I hoped that they would take a very broad view of the situation, and that we might find ourselves in absolute agreement. But an Amendment has been put on the Paper. At an earlier

  481
  part of the day I think the Under-Secretary for the Colonies complained that I had not been able to give him notice of an Amendment which I moved. We have not had much notice. I have much more reason to complain of the action of the Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I did not complain of that.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not complain in the least. I say we have only had short notice of this Amendment. Although the hon. Member's Resolution has been on the Paper for a long time, it was only this morning that we learned the particular way in which the Government propose to deal with it. They have put down an Amendment. Sir, it is a cowardly Amendment. I would prefer infinitely the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman. At all events that presents a clear issue. I should vote against it with a light heart, but I should vote against it with some respect for the hon. Gentleman who, with, I think, a mistaken impression of his duty, has put it down in clear terms. But the Amendment! It is an Amendment which insults Lord Milner, and at the same time accepts the substantial part of the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman opposite. They think to gain votes by distinctly pointing at Lord Milner, and at the same time withdrawing his name. That is Party tactics; Liberal policy. Well, I must refrain. But there is something else. What is this "conciliatory" Amendment to do? It is proposed in the interests of "peace and conciliation." It is an Amendment which a politician may accept, but which on its merits would be rejected by every honourable man. This Amendment is entrusted to the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. What is the history—I am speaking of recent events—of the connection of the hon. Gentleman with this matter? The other day he was asked a question on this matter, and from that almost sacrosanct position which he now occupies he described this action of the High Commissioner's as a grave dereliction of public duty. Brave words! [MINISTERIAL cheers.] You agree? [Cries of "Entirely," and "Yes."] Why, do not you
  482
  see that these brave words have very weak conclusions? There is a man in the very highest position in the public service. He has been guilty in your minds and in the minds of the Government of a grave dereliction of duty, and you are going to be satisfied with an empty Resolution which, if you succeed in passing it, will be treated with contempt by everyone who has the honour to appreciate the services of Lord Milner. You cannot condemn him in terms of this kind without admittedly laying yourselves open to the charge that you do not believe what you say, for if you do believe it you would impeach him.
  MR. CROOKS: I will vote for it if you will move it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I see hon. Gentlemen below the gangway appreciate the force of my argument. They would impeach him. They have the right to do it. They would repeat the experiment in the case of Warren Hastings at Heaven knows what cost to the country. They would have a great State trial occupying many years. It would end in a verdict of complete acquittal, and probably a subsequent Parliament would pass a most effusive Resolution of gratitude and respect to the person whom they had impeached. I appreciate all that; it is consistent. What I complain of is the policy of the Government. Once more it is what it has been over and over again this session, a policy of contemptible weakness. Those who take this extreme view dare not carry their policy to its logical conclusion. The hon. Gentleman who said Lord Milner had been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty said another thing which astonished me, and is quite new in official procedure. He said Lord Milner had made a Party speech in another place, and that relieved him of any obligation whatever to defend him.† Well, I do not think Lord Milner has lost much. But what a statement! The obligation by honourable and long tradition of great offices to defend any public servant who cannot defend himself. [Cries of "Butler" and "Macdonald."] The, obligation to defend any public servant against unjust or excessive censure is
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 1236.

  483
  an obligation independent altogether of all Party considerations. I deny altogether that the speech made by Lord Milner could, by an impartial person, be considered in any possible sense a Party speech. It was a speech made without any attempt to put pressure on the Government. It accepted the plea of the Government that they must have time to form their conclusions, and it put before the Government what they should be glad to have known—the opinion of a man of great experience and great knowledge upon the subject on which they have to pronounce. To call that a Party speech is a misuse of terms. But, even if it had been a Party speech, I will say that the hon. Gentleman cannot, without a great breach of tradition, absolve him self from that honourable necessity placed upon a political chief to say all that can be said in favour of those who serve the Department with which he is concerned.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is not so.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It matters very little to such a man—to a man who entertains that view of his own obligations and of Lord Milner's services. I think it is regrettable that, on the present occasion, the representation of the Government should be committed to his hands. I say it is the duty of the head of a Department, whoever he may be, to defend the servants of the Department.
  MR. FLAVIN: Not for reprehensible conduct.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I say it is the duty of the head of the Department to defend the servants of the Crown against unjust censure. I ask this question—Is it just to censure a public servant who has given eight years, the best years, probably, of his life to the service of his country—is it just to condemn him because he has confessed to an error of judgment on a single occasion? Anyway, that is a new idea of official responsibility. [Cries of "No."] Many years ago—I believe it was in the early fifties— there was a Liberal public servant, a diplomatist of great distinction, Sir James Hudson, who was our Minister
  484
  at Turin, and who made a statement which was held to be, I think by many Liberals, certainly by the Tory Government then in power, of the highest indiscretion, a great mistake of judgment. Attention was called to it in this House, and it fell to Mr. Disraeli, who was then leading the House, to express the opinion of the Government on the subject. He refused to condemn Sir James Hudson, and this is what he said—
  "Great services are not cancelled by one act, by one single error, however it may be regretted at the moment."
  And, therefore, although Sir James Hudson was a political opponent and was known to be a strong adherent of the Liberal cause, Mr. Disraeli in those old days—we are much superior now—had the generosity to defend his political opponent for the reason I have given. Is there not even more reason in the case of Lord Milner? Will the House allow me to try and bring before them the nature of the work which is imposed upon High Commissioners, Viceroys, and Governors of Crown Colonies throughout the Empire? These men are in a way autocrats, and that brings upon them all the disadvantages which autocrats have to suffer. They are responsible for everything, be it great or be it small, in the administration with which they are connected. They are answerable for the security of the possessions for which they are made responsible. They are answerable for order, for legislation, for every detail of administration, for every act, be it great or small, of every member, be he important or otherwise, of the whole administration. For all these things these men are, technically, at any rate, responsible to their Departments and to this House of Commons. They are not infallible. How can you expect to get infallible administrators under such circumstances? I do not believe they are to be found anywhere, but certainly you do not offer much temptation. I have never heard of any one in the colonial service who in these trying positions, having to submit, as he has to do, to this sort of ignorant and irresponsible criticism on the part of people who have none of his responsibility, has become a gold magnate, who has made a fortune, who has even been able to provide for those whom he has left

  485
  behind him, by devotion to the public service, by his interest in the great work he is conducting from the highest motives. These men, some of them never rising to a great position, others occupying positions of the greatest responsibility, have continued to serve the country, and now you are placing a slight on the whole service in the person of one of its most distinguished representatives—Lord Milner. It is admitted that before he occupied his position in South Africa Lord Milner had done great service to the State—and that is to be considered— he had done great service to the Party opposite. But I put that aside. His great service to the country are his services in South Africa. During a great part of that time he was in a sense responsible to me, and as my colleague and friend a greater man I have never known. I have never known even a great man who did not make mistakes. This man has given his life, he has risked his health, he has lived under conditions which very few in this House would be willing to sustain. Eight hours a day! Why eighteen hours a day of continuous brain work very often fell to his lot. He has had to deal with the Administration in the Cape Colony under great stress and anxiety, in the Transvaal under circumstances of still greater difficulty, and during the whole of that time he has shown an ability, courage, and firmness that ought to commend itself to men who appreciate bravery at a time when his life might have been so much easier if he had shown weakness. Hon. Members opposite may not agree with him, but I appeal with confidence to them to admire the character which he showed in difficult circumstances. And if they disagree with him for that, they cannot condemn him. His policy was my policy as long as I was in the Office. It was Mr. Lyttelton's policy when he succeeded me. They ought not to blame him. We were satisfied with all that he did and we take the reponsibility for every action which we have not officially condemned. It is we who ought to be the subject of their censure if they think we are deserving of it. In a debate which took place a day or two ago, I was struck by a speech delivered by Lord Stanmore. He is, I believe, a strong Liberal, and a most dis-
  486
  tinguished official. He has occupied the highest offices in many of our Crown Colonies, and he has been Governor of some of the most important possessions of the Crown. Lord Stanmore upon this matter expressed sympathy with Lord Milner. He went further. He expressed his belief that he himself and every Governor had at some time or another on their own responsibility committed the same error of violating the strict letter of the law. Well, hon. Members opposite will not stop it by absurd Resolutions of this kind. They will only stop it when they can make human nature perfect. I do not go so far as Lord Stanmore. I occupied my position for eight years and I am not aware of any violations even of the spirit of the law. But there were very few Governors in my time—and I was fortunate enough to have the most splendid public servants in that capacity—who did not at one time or another make serious mistakes. Well, I want this House to consider the subject from that intimate point of view. Here is this colonial service of ours, which is known and admired throughout the world for its absolute integrity, its freedom from corruption, its ability, its humanity. It is only by these extraordinary qualities that what I may call the daily miracle of the successful administration of the British Empire is continuously carried on. But for them, how would it be possible for these two small islands of ours to administer so large a portion of the earth's surface and with so much distinction and general satisfaction? Sir, I ask the House to put aside every other consideration but that of their Imperial duty, the duty which they cannot escape, even those who least sympathise with the work, be they Irish, Scottish, or English, and look to those great considerations and principles which have made this Colonial Service what it undoubtedly is. I ask them to recognise the merits of this service; and I ask them to appreciate the difficulties under which every member of it lies, and not to discourage them when one of them has committed a mistake which he himself has freely acknowledged. I ask them not to discourage the whole service by harsh criticism of one of its most

  487
  distinguished members. I hope the house will reject this Amendment. If I may venture to advise my friends I would say that our course is clear. When the Motion is put after the Amendment of the Government has been proposed it will be in the form that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question. I shall vote against that. In so doing I am voting against the Resolution. I shall vote against the Resolution as a whole, and I shall vote against it in part; I shall vote against it in every possible way. If the Amendment is not carried then the Resolution will be put in its entirety and I shall vote against that. If the Amendment of the Government is carried and put as the substantive Motion, I shall then vote against it, as worse indeed, because it is more dishonest, than the Motion. I hope the House will treat this as a question rather outside ordinary political questions, and that it will reject both the Amendment and the Resolution. But if it does not, if it accepts either, if it is carried, in that case I shall rely upon the Parliament of the future whose advent will be quickened by this ill-treatment of one of our great officials—I rely upon the future Parliament to do what Parliaments have done in the past more than once, namely, to repair, tardily it may be, a great injustice and to expunge from our records a Resolution which, if it ever be placed there, will be a disgrace to them.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to-day for the second time to follow the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, but I hope I shall not be drawn by that association into imitating or attempting to imitate the protracted, superlative, and, I think, rather laboured exhibition of contempt with which he has occupied the attention of the House. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has heaped contempt and contumely upon my hon. friend the Member for North Salford, and upon the Motion which he has placed upon the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman has used even stronger, or, if it had been in his power, he would have used even stronger, expressions against the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper by the direction of the Prime Minister, and which enjoys the support of those
  488
  who give him their sympathy and act with him. He described that Amendment as base, cowardly, and dishonest. Then, at least, I hope I may ask for a special measure of the indulgence of the House in order to say anything that may be said in support of a course which has been subjected to such very severe condemnation. I would ask the House to clear their minds of the fierce and bitter elements which the right hon. Gentleman has been the first to introduce into this discussion. I hope the House will try to give a fair consideration to the view which His Majesty's Government desire to submit for their consideration. The Motion which the hon. Member for North Salford has placed on the Paper embodies a proposition, the truth of which I venture to think very few on this side of the House would care to dispute. It has been moved with sincerity and good feeling in speeches of much ability, delivered under great restraint. But I observe that other Amendments have been placed on the Paper during the period that the Motion of the hon. Member has been set forth, and I think that, when divergent views are expressed by Members of the same Party, it would be unbecoming in the Government—and I said something like this last session—to sit silent and refuse to give any clear or direct guidance to the House. Even on a private Members' night, when a Motion of so unusual a character is brought forward, it is the duty of the Government to offer its counsel to the House. We need not lose any time in disputing about the main facts of this case. They have been forcibly repeated to us to-night. We have the admission of Lord Milner that he permitted his subordinate to authorise the illegal flogging of Chinese labourers. We know that, in consequence, flogging was inflicted on a large scale and during several months; we know that that permission was abused, as all permission to administer flogging without the restrictive regulation of the law will infallibly be abused; and we know that actual cruelty and outrage resulted. We know that this was a distinct breach of the treaty obligations which this country had contracted with a Foreign Power, and we know that all the while the

  489
  Secretary of State in this House, and the Under-Secretary in the other House, were occupied in giving Parliament assurances that nothing of the sort was going on or could possibly go on. Any one who reads the Blue-book will see the facts put forward on the authority of Lord Selborne. I have never been one of those who used the exact term of slavery in characterising the Chinese Labour Ordinance. But I say that, in face of the abuses that grew up from this wicked permission, there has arisen a state of things which makes it impossible to wonder that persons should have been carried away by honest indignation to use the strongest language of condemnation about such a system. If Gentlemen on the other side of the House have suffered from such controversial attacks, all I can say is that the responsibility which they have accepted throughout, and which even to-night they are anxious to assume, convinces me that they have received no more than they deserved. When I was asked in the course of a conversation a week ago to express an opinion on Lord Milner's share in the transaction, I said that I believed his action constituted a grave dereliction of public duty and an undoubted infringement of the law †; and that, I had thought, was the opinion of all of us. Can anyone dispute the fact that for a public officer to authorise illegal flogging is to infringe the law? Can any one deny that an infringement of the law by an officer especially charged to maintain and administer the law is a direct dereliction of public duty? Such an expression of opinion on behalf of the Minister who is for the time being charged with the duty of representing a public department was not merely legitimate but necessary. Most of all is it necessary in the case of the Colonial Office. Under the Secretary of State for the Colonies there are thirty or forty officers of high rank administering under different forms and varying conditions as many separate and distinct provinces, comprising a population of something like 30,000,000 of human beings of many races, creeds, and of almost every colour. To the Secretary of State all these important officers are responsible; and it is from
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 1238.
  490
  the expressions which the Secretary o: State, as the servant of this House, may use that these officers all over the world must be guided in the character of their administration and in the manner in which they discharge their responsibilities to all these many races over whom our authority is exercised. So far from withdrawing or minimising in any way the words which I then used on behalf of and with the assent of the Secretary of State and His Majesty's Government, I can only say that in spite of any difference of opinion entertained on the opposite side of the House, I believe these words amounted to a very fair and very reasonable and proper judgment on the transaction that has taken place. But now we are invited to take a much graver step. We are invited to place a formal censure on the journals of the House. Many hard things have been said rightly or wrongly and in different times about many persons through the mouths of Ministers of the Crown. Very few Motions of this character have ever been placed on the journals of the House. While I do not disagree in any way with the terms of the Motion as stated by my hon. friend, while I admit its truth and admire its moderation, while the Government hive no intention whatever of disparaging the motives which induced the hon. Member to place it on the Paper, yet we do dispute the wisdom and the convenience of procedure which he has adopted, and we do most gravely doubt the practical utility of the step which the House is now asked to take. There are certain objections to passing this Motion in its present form which will readily occur to any one who considers the subject. In the first place the offence was committed under another Government and a different House of Commons. It is, I think, clear from what we have heard to-night that had it been brought to the notice of the other House of Commons it would have received a much more lenient consideration than it does at the hands of the new House of Commons. I admit that there is something of the flavour of retrospective retribution in a new House of Commons going back upon events which have happened under the auspices and the authority of its predecessor. Secondly, it is I think contrary to usage

  491
  and to right feeling to censure a man unheard. It is true that as Lord Milner is a peer of Parliament we have no authority to bring him to our bar unless he desires to come; but this Motion does not give him the chance or the option of coming. We have, of course, Lord Milner's admissions contained in the Blue-book. We have moreover his statement and expression of regret which he made in another place†; but although these statements and admissions establish Lord Milner's acceptance of responsibility for a breach of the law, through which disastrous consequences resulted, I cannot help thinking that just-minded men, and I am sure my hon. friend, would say that before taking the serious step of placing this Resolution on the journals of the House we should examine much more closely the circumstances attending the giving of this permission, not indeed for the purposes of clearing the noble Lord concerned from the charge of having condoned wrong, or from the charge of having accepted the responsibility of wrong—for that is beyond dispute, and the right hon. Gentleman himself did not attempt to dispute it—but for the purpose of ascertaining how far really he was cognisant of what was taking place, and how far he realised to what excesses and improprieties his subordinate was committing him. I do not wish to try and put some measure of blame on Mr. Evans; but I am bound to say that after a severe examination of Mr. Evans on the subject at the Colonial Office by Mr. Lyttelton his memory appeared to be singularly unretentive on several important points. He could not remember how, where, when, and in what terms this all-important permission had been given, or how he had conveyed it to those in charge of Chinese coolies. In so far as he referred to memoranda and records his statements, so far from being confirmed, were upset. So doubtful and vague were his statements on the subject that Mr. Lyttelton thought it to be his duty to write to Lord Milner and ask whether, in view of the vagueness of Mr. Evans's statements, he could persist in his acceptance of responsibility for these transactions. Lord Milner, after careful consideration, proceeded to accept the responsibility of the statements
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 930.
  492
  made; and he gave an account to the House of Lords which not merely took the form of the statement that he accepted responsibility, but which purported to be almost a summary, or, at all events, a report of the conversation he had had with Mr. Evans—an account which is so far conclusive that, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, we cannot for a moment attempt to go behind it. I do not attempt to go behind Lord Milner's acceptance of responsiblity. It is quite impossible for us in this House to attempt to do so; and yet I say there is just that element of doubt as to his real moral responsibility for the grave circumstances of this case which I think must tend somewhat to mitigate and also somewhat to suspend the severity of our judgment. But, whether or not, I say without hesitation that it would be peculiar and unprecedented if we were, after only three hours debate, without hearing the person principally concerned, unfortified by the report of a Committee, to record our censure on the noble Lord in terms so solemn and unusual that they have only been employed, I think, twice in the last 100 years. And what about Lord Milner himself? Lord Milner's career has comprised three distinct spheres of activity — Egypt, the Treasury during the famous Death Duties Budget, and South Africa during these last eight lamentable years. With regard to the first of these fields, I suppose there would be no disposition to pass censure in any quarter of the House. With regard to the last two, various opinions are and will be held as between the great political Parties. But I do not think it can fairly be denied in any part of the House that in all these three important sets of public affairs, Lord Milner has worked, according to his lights, strenuously, faithfully, and disinterestedly. Still less can it be denied that during the long period covered by these events, he has played a part which must leave its imprint, for good or for ill, extensively upon the pages of history. I have carefully refrained from passing either censure or eulogy on all or any of these events, not because I am without opinions which at other times I may think or have thought it proper to express—I trust with sufficient clearness—but because I think it would

  493
  be impossible for us to do justice to his conduct either in the one direction or the other within the compass of a three hours debate, and because I am quite certain it is impossible for the House within such a period to make even a superficial examination of such matters. I mention them for one purpose, and for one purpose alone—to submit to the House that they are very grave matters, which will be talked of for a very long time, and that they lie wholly in the past. Lord Milner has gone from South Africa, probably for ever. The public service knows him no more. Having exercised great authority he now exerts no authority. Having held high employment he now has no employment. Having disposed of events which have shaped the course of history, he is now unable to deflect in the smallest degree the policy of the day. Having been for many years, or at all events for many months, the arbiter of the fortunes of men who are "rich beyond the dreams of avarice," he is to-day poor, and I will add, honourably poor. After twenty years of exhausting service under the Crown he is to-day a retired Civil servant, without pension or gratuity of any kind whatever. [OPPOSITION cries of "Shame."] If it is a shame, there [pointing to the Front OPPOSITION Bench] is where the responsibility lies for any neglect. But I do seriously say to my hon. friend, "Is it worth while to pursue him any further?" There is—[Interruption which was unheard in the gallery]—Really, I must ask the right hon. Member for Croydon to practice a little more courtesy in his demeanour—There is another consideration to which I desire to draw the attention of the House. This new House of Commons is full of earnest, purposeful and vehement men. Let them not overlook or underrate
  494
  the vexation and mortification which must be experienced by any vehement and earnest man who sees the ideals, the principles, the policies for which he has toiled utterly discredited—[OPPOSITION cries of "By whom? "]—by the people of Great Britain—and who knows that many of the arrangements in which he has consumed all the energies of his life are about to be reversed or dissolved. Lord Milner has ceased to be a factor in public events. Let my hon. friends beware that with the ever ready aid of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham he may not be recreated. Mr. Speaker, I think that great Parties should endeavour to avoid conflicts with private persons. My hon. and learned friend the Member for South Donegal, who asked me the other day whether we proposed to strike the name of Lord Milner from the Privy Council, no doubt is prepared to support that course with instances from that accurate constitutional knowledge for which he is noted. About twenty years ago there came into power a Government not indeed supported by a majority so large as that upon which we rely, but still a Government not inferior in elements of strength and stability to any other of modern times. That Government was carried away by its exultation of victory and its pride of strength to embark upon what I must call the persecution of a political opponent. The House knows well, the Irish Members particularly know well, how this mood of intolerance led that powerful Government to the Parnell Commission, to the infamous Parnell Commission, as I shall call it. And what was the result? What was the advantage which that Government reaped in the end? That great Party

  495
  was covered with confusion and shame as the result of the course which they followed, and the man against whom all their power was directed was raised high in public esteem and popularity. Great cities conferred their freedom upon Mr. Parnell. He received on every side manifestations of public respect. The cause for which he was fighting was greatly advanced. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: But he was innocent.] I do not for one moment want to institute any exact comparison between the circumstances of that case and the case with which we are now called upon to deal. I do say that in the one case upon the specific fact alleged, Lord Milner is clearly guilty and in the other case upon the specific fact alleged that Mr. Parnell was proved to be unjustly accused. But the moral which I draw from the Parnell affair—a moral which, I think, may be drawn also from the conflict of the House of Commons with Mr. Bradlaugh in 1880—is that it is never worth while for a great Party to pursue a private person, and least of all when that private person happens also to be a political opponent. If we were a political Party clutching precariously at power it might be worth while to strike a blow at a prominent political opponent. But we have won so completely that the very ideas and forces to which we were opposed seem to have melted away as if they had never been. As we have triumphed, so we may be merciful; as we are strong, so we can afford to be generous. There are transactions in the government of States about which people may hold strong opinions, but which it may be much wiser, in the tolerance of overwhelming victory, deliberately to consign to silence and oblivion. I frankly own that I should not press these
  496
  considerations on the House if the range of the Motion and the Amendment we are discussing was confined to this House, or even to this country. The Colonial Office deals with many questions which are almost as critical and almost as perilous as any questions with which the Foreign Office is concerned. But whereas the Foreign Office is increasingly regarded as outside the scope of Party politics, the Colonial Office lies in the heart and centre of the fiercest partisanship and controversy. It is inevitable, in view of what has occurred in South Africa, that the people should follow with the keenest attention events that take place in a land for which they have sacrificed and suffered so much. I do not complain. On the contrary, the Government are prepared to assert the right of the House of Commons to be consulted on all matters affecting: the Colonies which may be said to involve in their largest and truest sense Imperial interests. But the situation in South Africa is difficult and complex. For its difficulty and complexity we are not responsible. We have succeeded to a legacy of financial, social, and racial confusion. There, on that bench, are the testators of evil. And, sir, what an inheritance! A country struggling back to civilization after being laid waste by fire and sword, with all the after consequences of rebellion and civil war, a great army from over the seas mobilised for immediate war, a ponderous constabulary, a costly and not too efficient nominated and imported bureaucracy, the great industries on which the development of the country depends all resting on an essentially unnatural, unhealthy, and unstable basis—in all this vicious tangle no circumstance of first importance can

  497
  be discerned for which we on this side of the House are responsible. But we have got to face them all, and surely we have got difficulties enough without going out of the way to find them. [OPPOSITION ironical cheers.] Do not let hon. Gentlemen on this side be misled by those derisive cries, which, let me say, do very little honour to the Party, the Imperial Party, which, on every occasion for the last ten years, has been swift to impute want of patriotism to those who might not wholly share their views. When we have so many real things to do which must be done in the present and in the future, why cannot we leave the past alone? I feel it my duty to say to the House to-night that we believe, having some access to information of authority, that this Motion, if accepted, would undoubtedly aggravate social and racial animosity in South Africa, and that it would have the effect of increasing any tension which may unhappily exist there without any really effective purpose, or without securing in return any substantial advantage to Parliament or to this country. For 100 years South Africa has been divided by the quarrels of two white races, who are equally intolerant of each other, in a land where they are almost equally balanced. The noble Lord who is the subject of this Motion has played the chief part in the climax of that long and bitter duel; he has left behind him in South Africa many friends and partisans, and many foes. If the House of Commons takes the extreme step of passing a formal vote of censure upon that officer, one party in South Africa will be affronted, the other party in South Africa will be exultant. Every demonstration of hostility against Lord Milner on the one
  498
  hand will be followed by a counter demonstration in his favour on the other—not because of any violent opinion which is entertained on account of the treatment of these Chinese labourers, but because Lord Milner has been the central figure in the tremendous events of the last eight years in South Africa. And I do say that we, who have the real difficulties of this problem thrust upon us day after day, should be incurring a grave responsibility if we lent ourselves to any circumstances or manifestation, however desirable, which had the effect of inflaming anew the bitter passions by which South Africa is racked. It is not my fault that I have been called upon to trespass so much on the good nature of the House to-day. I must ask the House to remember that a very great part of the machinery of public expression in these colonies is controlled by hands none too friendly to the present Government, or to the present majority in the House of Commons. The people out there only hear the worst of us; day after day, all South Africa that reads English is taught to believe that we do not care what happens to them, that we are anxious to ruin their material prosperity, and hon. Gentlemen opposite lend themselves readily to that business. But the Government has no such intentions or desires. We seek the material prosperity of the Transvaal, and of South Africa, we seek it not less earnestly because we believe that material prosperity can never be secured while it stands on a foundation which is unhealthy or unnatural. We desire to act fairly by both the great races in South Africa; we desire to labour, so far as opportunity and power may be given us, to effect a permanent settlement of that country in the interests of that country,

  499
  and without any desire to secure any Party advantage by any particular treatment of the question in this way or in that. The Government nourish large designs for the establishment of Parliaments and the reconciliation of races, and there is no room in those designs for any exact or pedantic meting out of proper doses of justice to individuals concerned in the tragic events of the pest. This Parliament has rightly aspired and has rightly claimed to exert an influence upon the course of politics which shall be intimate, immediate, and direct. No other Parliament in modern times has put forward that claim. Often the House of Commons can only speak words; to night it is enabled to take substantial and definite action; to night, by carrying the Amendment which We have placed on the Paper, by showing that we at any rate are prepared to set an example in saying, "Let bygones be bygones," the House of Commons can send a message to South Africa which cannot be perverted, misrepresented, or misunderstood—a message of comfort to a troubled people, a message of tolerance and conciliation to warring races, a message, indeed, of good hope to the Cape. It is for these reasons which I have endeavoured to set before the House that His Majesty's Government have placed on the Paper the Amendment which I now have the honour to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'House' to the end of the Question, and insert the words 'while recording its condemnation of the flogging of Chinese coolies in breach of the law, desires, in the interests of peace and conciliation in South Africa, to refrain from passing censure upon individuals'"—(Mr. Churchill)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the House will allow me in a very brief speech to make some comments on the extraordinary utterance which we have just had in explanation of the policy of the Government. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies began his speech with an air, I thought, of considerable self-satisfaction by saying that he was not going to imitate what he regarded as the policy of some of his predecessors on this bench, but was going, as he expressed it, to give clear and direct guidance to the House. Let the House compare the Amendment in which he proposes to give clear and direct guidance with the speech in which he has recommended that Amendment. In the first part of that speech the hon. Gentleman, lapsing into an unwonted mood, I think, of justice to the man who is the subject of debate to-night, said he thought it would not be proper that Lord Milner should be condemned without being heard; there were circumstances which had come to his knowledge in his department connected with all this transaction which deserved the attentive consideration of those who desired to pass censure on Lord Milner, and in his opinion that was a ground for not passing the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Salford. But then he went on to say that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Salford, and that there was nothing in the Resolution from which he differed; and I would further point out the fact that in the Amendment which the Government have put forward there is something about the interests of peace and conciliation

  501
  in South Africa, but there is not one word connected with justice to the individual who is being attacked. What is the meaning of that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he said that Lord Milner should be heard, if he really agrees with the Member for North Salford? If he thinks the censure of Lord Milner would be in these circumstances an injustice to Lord Milner, why does not that appear in the Government Amendment? What are we to say of a Government who admit that the Resolution before the House is unjust unless the person who is the subject of it is heard, and who move an Amendment in which that point is absolutely ignored? Then the hon. Gentleman talked about the responsibilities of himself and his colleagues, which, no doubt, are great, in connection with the whole of South African policy, and he said that Lord Milner had friends in South Africa as well as enemies. For my own part, from what I have seen of what has recently passed in this country, if I were Lord Milner there is no Boer I would not prefer as my enemy to some of the Gentlemen who attack him in this country while saying they do not attack the individual, but only the official, whatever that may mean. I do not know what the distinction may be worth. What does the whole argument of the Under-Secretary amount to but this, that they know that for years those who speak our language and who are loyal to our State have regarded Lord Milner as one of the greatest props and one of the greatest supports the British cause has ever had in that country? They may be wrong, but they think so. It is because the Government are afraid of Lord Milner's friends in South Africa, not because that they dis-
  502
  agree with the Resolution—they say they agree with it—but because they are afraid of Lord Milner's friends in South Africa they abandon the Resolution and substitute the Amendment. There may be many Gentlemen on both sides of the House who are far more experienced in the affairs of South Africa than I am; but for my own part, if I were an Englishman living in South Africa, I should be able to see uncommonly little difference between the Resolution backed up by the speeches of the mover and the seconder on the one hand, and the Amendment backed up by the speech of the Under-Secretary on the other. So far as I am concerned I should in those circumstances say that this was an attack on a great citizen, who has done great work for the Empire, and I should infinitely prefer the speeches of the mover and the seconder to the insulting protection accorded to him by His Majesty's Government. The Under-Secretary has made an appeal to the hon. Gentleman below the gangway to withdraw his Resolution on these grounds. He said Lord Milner was a great man. Where is he now? He did wield great power. What is he now compared with hon. Gentlemen below the gangway? He had authority once. That authority has been taken away. He appealed to the Member for North Salford not to recreate him. I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Salford has the power to recreate many Lord Milners, but if he has, I hope he will exercise that beneficent power in the interests of the Empire. I think the Under-Secretary, and I think the House, have rather forgotten that they are arrogating to themselves the position of an historical judge. They are not dealing with an official, but with a man who is

  503
  no longer an official. They are dealing with transactions that are over. They are attempting to record an historical judgment, and it is in the interests of the House itself, certainly not in the interests of Lord Milner, that I would earnestly beg them to reject with equal contempt the original Motion and the Amendment of the Government by which the Government have attempted to make these proceedings palatable to Lord Milner's friends in South Africa. Do let the House remember that Lord Milner's career, whether they approve or disapprove of it, was a long career and a great career, and whatever our judgment may be upon it, no human being with the smallest conception of facts can doubt that, at all events, it was a great career and a long career. Is it wise for this House to look back on that career and pass upon it one single judgment connected with one single event? Of this great career is the House to find nothing better to say than this:—
  "Mr. Byles, South Africa (High Commissioner),—That this House expresses its disapproval of the conduct of Lord Milner, as High Commissioner of South Africa and Governor of the Transvaal, in authorising the flogging of Chinese labourers in breach of the law, in violation of treaty obligations, and without the knowledge or sanction of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
  Is that to be the solitary notice which we are going to put in the journals of the House with regard to these great transactions in which Lord Milner's part has been insignificant neither in amount nor of a kind which can move the contempt or disapproval of any critic, to whatever Party he belongs? This House is all powerful in dealing with the present. With the past it has no more to do than any other historical critic. Do not let us to-night sully the pages of our journals by making it appear that this is all that
  504
  a great representative assembly can say about one of the most eminent servants which this country ever possessed, while they are silent about all the more important passages in his career; do not let it be said that one indefensible blunder and one alone, not carrying with it great consequences, soon remedied, not in any way connected with the great lines of policy which it was his business to deal with—that that incident and that incident alone, is to be selected and have the honour of mention in the journals of the House. It is not for Gentlemen below the gangway on that side or on this, for any Gentleman on this front bench, or any Gentleman on the other front bench, to create or recreate Lord Milner. Such men are the rare fruits of the great political education which this country, whatever else may be said of it, has been able to give to her sons in such measure that no nation in the world can compare with it in its production of great public servants fitted to carry out the work of the nation in every part of the world. Lord Milner is among those servants one of the greatest; and it is in the interests of this House chiefly that I beg it to reject the Resolution which has been put down upon the Paper by the hon. Gentleman below the gangway, to reject that with the respect which we owe to strong convictions, however narrow may be the view taken of the events with which they deal, but to reject with not less decision the far more contemptible Amendment avowedly and openly moved by His Majesty's Government, not because they are zealous for justice, not because they are anxious to protect the individual, not because they have any regard for the great service of the Crown, but for no better reason than that they are afraid of our own

  505
  countrymen in South Africa. The course which is suggested by the hon. Gentleman below the gangway is, I think, narrow and objectionable. The course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman has every defect suggested in the Resolution of the hon. Member, and it is, in addition to that, utterly mean and utterly contemptible. Let the House reject one and the other and show itself worthy to judge of the history of its own country.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACS(Reading) proceeded to refer to the speeches which had been made.
  Mr. G. H. WILLIAMSONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid that the speeches which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London could only have the effect of showing how much they had failed to appreciate the force of the argument which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham himself. What this House was
  asked to do was to express its condemnation of the flogging of Chinese coolies in South Africa. Did hon. Members opposite approve of flogging? If they did not, they were logically bound to support that portion of the Motion which condemned it.
  Mr. BYLESrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid a second Question was whether hon. Members desired to forward the interests of peace and conciliation.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and negatived.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 355; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 23.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bertram, Julius

  Adkins, W. Ryland

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Alden, Percy

  Beale, W. P.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Boland, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bell, Richard

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Belloc, Hiliare Joseph Peter R.

  Branch, James

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Benn, John Williams (Devonp'rt

  Brigg, John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Benn, W (T.'w'r' Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Bright, J. A.

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Flynn, James Christophers

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

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

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Levy, Maurice

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gardner, Col. A. (Herefordsh. S.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lough, Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Ginnell, L.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Grant, Corrie

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Caldwell, James

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cameron, Robert

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Callum, John M.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Grove, Archibald

  M'Crae, George

  Cawley, Frederick

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Killop, W.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. S. (Leicester)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Halpin, J.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hammond, John

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Clough, W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Coats, Sir. T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Hardy, George A (Suffolk)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithn'ss-sh

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Massie, J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Menzies, Walter

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Molteno, Percy Alfred

  Cox, Harold

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mond, A.

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Crombie, John William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Crossley, William J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cullinan, J.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Moss, Samuel

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hogan, Michael

  Murnaghan, George

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murphy, John

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Myer, Horatio

  Devlin, Charles Rawsay (Galway

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Nicholls, George

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

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

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Nolan, Joseph

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Norman, Henry

  Dillon, John

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Duckworth, James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Duffy, William J.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneton)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Dowd, John

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N)

  Elibank, Master of

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Malley, William

  Erskine, David C.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Mara, James

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Shee, James John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Partington, Oswald

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Paul, Herbert

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lambert, George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lamont, Norman

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  508

  509

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Verney, F. W.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wallace, Robert

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

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Radford, G. H.

  Seely, Major J. B.

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

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Reddy, M.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rees, J. D.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Riehards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whitbread, Howard

  Richardson, A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Spicer, Albert

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Robinson, S.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

  Young, Samuel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Rowlands, J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Runciman, Walter

  Toulmin, George

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Keswick, William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Liddell, Henry

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

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

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin. S)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fell, Arthur

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'r Ham.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Haddock, George R.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hardy Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

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

  Harris, Dr. Frederick R.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nield, Herbert

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Cave, George

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Percy, Earl

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hills, J. W.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ronton, Major Leslie

  510

  511

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

  Snowden, P.

  Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Roberts, S ((Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Thomson, W Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Younger, George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tumour, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland - Hood and Mr. Forster.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Smith. F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  Resolved, "That this House, while recording its condemnation of the flogging of Chinese coolies in breach of the law, desires, in the interests of peace and conciliation in South Africa, to refrain from passing censure upon individuals."—(Mr. Churchill.)

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL.
  Bill to amend the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Tennant, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Steadman, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Fenwick, Sir Gilbert Parker, and Mr. Wilkie.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL.
  "To amend the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTmoved the Second Reading
  512
  and was proceeding to explain the provisions of the Bill when objection was taken, it being after midnight.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said he had no objection to the Bill going to the Grand Committee on Law.
  Objection was again taken and the Second Reading was deferred.

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLobjected.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEappealed to the hon. Member not to persist in his objection. The English Bill had been passed, and there was no reason why the Scotch Bill should not also be forwarded.
  Question, "That this Bill be now read a second time," put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and Committed for this day.
  Adjourned at twenty-four minutes, after Twelve o'clock.