To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware that an American Commission on International Exchange is visiting the different Governments of Europe with the view of discussing monetary matters and the means of establishing stable ratio between gold and silver; and whether an opportunity will he given to the House to discuss the question of international currency upon a sound basis acceptable to gold and silver using countries. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The hon. Member will see that in the present state of public business and at this period of the session it is not possible to find time for the discussion of currency relations beeween gold and silver using countries. The question is doubtless important; but since the arrangement for closing the mints in India its importance to the British Empire has diminished.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government intend to take over the bonds of the Northern Railway of the South African Republic, as recommended by the Transvaal Concessions Commission; and if so, at what date. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I am not yet prepared to make a definite statement on this subject pending the conclusion of certain litigation now proceeding in this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has declined to sanction the proposal of the Governor of Lagos to permit under regulation the exaction of tolls by native chiefs at Ibadan and elsewhere in the colony; and if so, will he state by what other method he proposes to maintain in the future the system of local government under the chiefs. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The proposals, which relate only to Abrokuta and Ibadan, have been sanctioned.

To ask they Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an arrangement has been come to between the Transvaal Government and the military authorities as to the run aunt to be paid by the former for repairs and improvements to the Central African Railways; and, if so, what is the amount to be paid to the military authorities out of the loan. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) No arrangement has yet been arrived at. The matter is under discussion between the Colonial Office and the War Office.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Dominion of Canada by, their present tariff imposed an import duty equal to 12 per cent. ad valorem on English wool, but admits foreign wools free; and, if so, if he will make representations to the Canadian Government for the removal of this preference. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The Canadian tariff imposes on wools such as are grown in Canada a duty of 3 cents per pound if the produce of foreign countries, and of 2 cents per pound when the produce of the United Kingdom. Wool and the hair of the camel, alpaca goat, and other like animals, not further prepared than washed, with the exception stated are admitted free.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the widows and children of soldiers who lose their lives by accident whilst on duty will receive a similar recognition as regards pension to that recently conceded to sailors and marines. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The answer is in the affirmative.

To ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the proposed Victoria Memorial there are planned five turns or corners within a very short space for all vehicular traffic to pass; and whether having regard to the present traffic and that in future to come direct from Charing Cross, it is in contemplation to open to the public the main avenue of the Mall. (Answered by Mr. Viet or Cavendish.) The First Commissioner is aware that the road as now being temporarily laid out necessitates more turns than is desirable. It is in contemplation, when the extension of the Mall to Charing Cross is completed, to open the main avenue to the public, when the greater width of the road will provide for such increase of traffic as may be expected.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that in the contracts made with coolies for labour in Assam there is no stipulation for repatriation, and that few are ever able to return to their homes at the end of the term of contract for want of funds, will he consider the expediency of recommending the Government of India to take such steps as may be necessary to secure arrangements for repatriation in all labour contracts of this character. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I do not admit that coolies who emigrate to Assam are ordinarily unable to return home for want of funds, and I see no necessity for making the recommendation suggested to the Government of India.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of coolies recruited for labour in Assam for each year from 1898 to 1902, inclusive. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Report for 1902 has not yet been received. The following are the figures of coolies imported into Assam for labour on tea and other estates for the other years mentioned:—

	1898.	1899.	1900.	1901.
Adults	35,516	25,872	45,044	19,887
Children	13,653	6,036	17,689	6,336
Total	49,169	31,908	62,733	26,223

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will ask the Government of India to ascertain from the local authorities under what circumstances a sirdar with fifty coolies, when travelling to a labour contractor in February, 1902, was stopped by the native police at Parbatipur Junction, on the Eastern Bengal Railway, detained two and a half days, and required to pay money to the native police before he could proceed on his journey; and will steps be taken to stop this system on the part of native police at railway stations in India. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member's Question on this subject given on the 22nd instant.† The matter should be represented to the local authorities direct by the person or persons aggrieved.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if it is his intention to publish in this country the Report of Mr. Thomas Robertson, the Special Commissioner sent to India to report on the Indian railways; and if so, when it will be procurable. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I stated on the 2nd instant, in reply to a Question,‡ that I hoped that copies of Mr. Robertson's Report would shortly be distributed. A considerable number of copies have now been received from India, and they will be distributed without delay.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, has any report been received from the chief medical officer at Quetta, or through the political department at Simla, regarding the outbreak of typhus fever amongst the workmen on the NushkiSeistan Railway route, and cases of cholera at Quetta; and can some report be presented showing what progress has been made with the earthwork on that desert route, describing the sanitary conditions and the question as to water supply that is likely to affect the construction of the line and the future facilities for traffic such as the Nushki-Seistan Railway is intended to offer. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) A railway is being constructed from Quetta to Nushki, but no proposal for its extension from Nushki towards Seistan has been made or sanctioned. I have no information as to the prevalence of epidemics among the workers on the Quetta-Nushki Railway, but I have heard that there is an epidemic of typhus at Quetta and in other parts of Baluchistan. Cholera is also reported near Quetta and at Nushki.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the Durbhanga case, in which Babu Chandi Persad, a Rajput gentleman of high caste and social position, was cast into prison on the information of a certain Mr. Miller that Chandi Persad had threatened to assault him, by Mr. M. B. Heycock district magistrate, who asked the prisoner for fifty sureties of 1,000 rupees, and ref used those offered by the most respectable men in the neighbourhood; and whether, seeing that Chandi Persad was only released on the order of the High Court, he will cause Mr. Heycock to be removed to some other district. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have no information as to the circumstances referred to in the Question, but I have no doubt that the local government and the Viceroy will take any action that may seem to be called for.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education on what grounds the Board of Education now require a superficial space of 18 square feet per pupil as regards secondary schools, in view of the fact that in the case of elementary schools 15 feet was allowed. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The requirement referred to is the result of careful investigation, and is made on the recommendation of the best authorities. The requirements of elementary schools and of secondary schools cannot properly be treated as being on the same basis.

To ask the President of the Board mf Trade will he give the total valve of the exports and imports of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Germany, and France for each year from 1892 to 1902, showing separately the value of foods, raw materials, and manufactured or partly manufactured articles, together with the amount of shipping (tonnage), and the population of each country during the same period. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The particulars which the hon. Member I squires, so far as they are available, will be found in the latest issue of the Statistical Abstract for Foreign Countries [Cd. 1237], in Tables 18, 4 and 1. A new issue of the Abstract is in preparation.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if a retired national teacher in receipt of a disablement pension elects to accept a capital sum in lieu of pension, the Superintendent of the Teachers' Pension Fund will pay him the capital sum (their other conditions being fulfilled) immediately on the expiration of one year from the date of his retirement, even though such retirement takes place other than the last day of a quarter; and whether he will arrange to have the capital sum paid as soon as the Lord Lieutenant and the Treasury sanction the pension, and the teacher agrees to commute it, instead of delaying it for a year. (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The superintendent of the National School Teachers' Superannuation Office has been advised that it would be illegal to commute a disablement pension until a year has elapsed from the date of the teacher's first receipt of the pension. The suggested abolition of the interval of a year would require the abrogation of No. 10 (3) of the Irish Teachers' Pension Rules, 1897, and I am unable to recommend this change.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how much money was paid to owners of fishery rights since the year 1834, between Castleconnell and the Lax Weir, Corbally, Limerick; can he state the parts of the river claimed for, and the names of the claimants; whether such claims were for total or partial loss, and the amount given in each case; whether any claims were disallowed, and, if so, what was the cause; can he give the names of those who were compensated for salmon fisheries, and those who were compensated for eel fisheries. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I will endeavour to procure this information if it is practicable to do so. An examination of transactions over a period of seventy years will be necessary, and some time must elapse before I shall be in a position to communicate with the hon. Member.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the letter addressed to the Secretaries of the National Board of Education on let July, by the manager of the school, Roll No 11,829, District No. 11, has ever been submitted to the Board, and, if so, on what date; and whether he can state what allowance has been made by the Board in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that the letter is a repetition of letters which had been already fully considered. So far back as April, 1901, the manager was told, after a special investigation of the complaints of the teacher (William Boyle), that the Board had no power to make good out of the public funds loss of income which the teacher alleged he sustained through local causes. It is not intended to submit the letter of the 1st instant specially to the Board.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 25th instant an officer attached to the Westmeath Militia was dangerously wounded during target practice at the butts on Maryborough Heath; and whether he will cause steps to be taken to protect those there engaged. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) A Court of Inquiry on this matter is now sitting. Special instructions had been issued and notices posted warning persons concerned that the earth wall connecting the butts was not bullet proof.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the accommodation for officers, petty officers, and men in the naval barracks at Whale Island, and what was the number of officers, petty officers, and men sleeping in the barracks on the night of 27th July this year. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The accommodation for officers and men at Whale Island Naval Barracks is as follows:—Officers 74, warrant officers 39, petty officers and men 1,279, total, 1,392. The number who were actually victualled on the 27th inst., and who could have slept on the island that night, were:—Officers 29, petty officers and men 629, total, 658. The numbers actually sleeping on the island on the night of the 27th inst. were: —Officers 7, warrant officers 3, petty officers and men 403, total, 413. The small numbers are accounted for by the fact that the Naval Manœuvres were about to commence.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Gosport water supply has been condemned as unfit for domestic use, and on that account forbidden to be used as formerly on board His Majesty's ships, he will state what steps are now being taken to procure a proper supply for the naval establishments situated in the Gosport district, including the barracks occupied by the Gosport Division of the Royal Marines. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The Admiralty have for some time past been pressing the local authority (the Gosport and Alverstoke Urban District Council) to take action in this matter. The Council have now appointed a special Committee to deal with the question, and it is understood that action will be taken, if necessary, under the Public Health Act of 1875. It is thought desirable to await the result of these proceedings before considering the advisability of taking independent action.

rose to move to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies by £5,000. He admitted that in the critical state of South Africa at the present time considerable responsibility attached to every hon. Member who initiated a debate on South African affairs, but realising as he did how absolutely ignorant the House was of the present condition of affairs there, he felt it was his duty to tell hon. Members the truth in regard to that unhappy country. He first wished to call attention to the manner in which Lord Milner and his Government and the Colonial Secretary had dealt with the recent great discovery of diamonds in the Transvaal. He was not aware whether the Colonial Secretary had received any Report on this subject, as on two occasions the right hon. Gentleman had given evasive replies to his Questions. He should, however, assume that the right hon. Gentleman had received such a Report. He would state briefly the charges he made against Lord Milner, and would then proceed to amplify them by quotation. His first charge was that Lord Milner, on the discovery of these great diamond fields, had reserved them entirely for a syndicate of financiers, and had shut out the general public from participation, with the stated object of creating a monopoly in diamonds, and preventing a fall in their price. He had a word or two to say about the value of this discovery, because, for some reason unknown to him, the subject had been boycotted by the Press of this country. In South Africa there was only one topic, the value of this discovery; but in this country practically, no report had appeared in any of the leading newspapers with the exception of the Daily News. Sir A. Lawley, speaking to the Transvaal Legislative Council some months ago, said—

"Investigations have brought to light the existence of a diamond field which bids fair to rival in rainless, if not excel, any field which has hitherto been discovered. Among the most important measures which will be submitted for your consideration is an Ordinance to amend the existing Diamond Law, No. 22 of 1898, which is admitted by a general consensus of opinion to be unsatisfactory in many respects."

And again, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, addressing the same Council on June 29th, used these words in connection with the value of the discovery—

"There would be in the first 50 ft. alone of the Premier Mine upwards of eight millions sterling of profit. Under the present law the owner would he entitled to one million of this and the State to seven millions. Every eighth which they gave away was worth over a million."

Without going into detail, he would explain the provisions of the Gold Law of the late South African Republic. This law, which up to recently was the basis on which all precious stones and minerals were allocated, provided that when a discovery of diamonds was made on any farm, intimation should be given to the Government, which would proclaim the farm as public property, the owner being entitled to one-eighth and the rest being thrown open for the general public, rich and poor alike—millionaire and pauper being equally entitled to participate in the wealth of the country. What had Lord Milner done in this case? Instead of at one proclaiming this mine open, he had deliberately increased the owners' share from one-eighth to four-tenths of the whole area, and had reserved the right in his own hands of letting out the rest of the mine to the same owners, with the avowed object of keeping out the public and artificially raising the price of diamonds. In the Legislative Assembly, on June 17, when the Ordinance was introduced, the Attorney-General, Sir Richard Solomon—against whose honour and integrity he had not a word to say, except that as he had been associated all his life with the De Beers Company, and as their legal adviser was connected with the late Mr. Rhodes, and he therefore feared he had simply followed in the lines laid down by his friend Mr. Rhodes—used the following words—

"The late Mr. Rhodes saw perfectly well that the only way to save the diamond industry in Kimberley was to amalgamate the different companies working claims in Griqualand West, so as to bring the mines under one control, and thus regulate the out put of diamonds, seeing that the world could only take a certain amount of diamonds during the year. One of the lessons—one of the most important lessons—taught them by the diamond mining in Griqualand West was this to beep their diamond mines as much as possible under one control. That, he ventured to say, was an axiom the Government had endeavoured give effect to as far as possible in this Ordinance."

On the 29th of the same month Sir Richard Solomon said—

"The world could only take a certain quantity. The output must be restricted, and if they sent out all the diamonds they could produce they would bring down the price. In gold mining they could put out as much gold as they liked and they did not affect the price, but in diamond mining it was different, and any mines discovered there would have to reckon with the output in Griqualand West, and restrict their output accordingly. If they exceeded the world's demand, down would come the price, and away would go the value of their property."

And-again, with reference to the profits of the diamond mining, Sir Richard later on the same day said—

"The guiding principle was that the mine, as much as possible, should be under the control of one person or company. When they found that the owner of land on which diamonds were found had a large interest, it was surely better for the Government to try and make some agreement with the owner than that another person should do so, and thus destroy the principle for which they were contending."

He hoped that hon. Members would bear those words in mind. Sir George Farrar, one of Lord Milner's nominated representatives on the Council on June 17th, said—

"He (Sir George Farrar) was not in any way interested in diamond mining in South Africa, and therefore he thought he was entitled to express an unprejudiced opinion. He quite agreed that under Law XII. of 1898, the owner's rights in the diamond mining industry were certainly very restricted, and that more liberal treatment was necessary."

And again—

"Whether the Government had gone too far he was not prepared at the present moment to express an opinion, but what he did know was that diamond mining was quite different from gold mining, and the control of one monopoly must be created."

Mr. Hull, who was a solicitor to some of the De Beers directors, used these words on the same occasion—

"Any criticisms which were directed at this Ordinance should be in the direction that the Government had given too little to the owner, and when they got to the Committee stage he intended to move an Amendment to the effect that the owner's rights should he further increased."

Not satisfied with giving the owners four-tenths instead of one-eighth, to which only they were entitled under the old law, Lord Milner proceeded to still further increase their rights. Mr. Bourke, a shareholder, I believe, in the mine, on June 17th, said he was unable adequately to express the satisfaction he felt from a perusal of the Ordinance and from the remarks which had fallen from the Attorney-General, and he went on to describe the creation of the monopoly in South Africa. He said—

"The Government, immediately an area was proclaimed, would enter into possession of six-tenths of any particular area which was diamondiferous, and they proposed under the clause referred to to hand that over or leave it to the owner, or persons representing the owner, who possessed the other four-tenths. If they had live or six mines dealt with in the same way, they lost the single control that was absolutely essential to maintain the value of diamonds."

There they had a definite statement that it was the object of the Transvaal Government to create a monopoly in diamonds. It was important to bear that in mind, for after all the House of Commons was the final arbiter on questions relating to legislation in South Africa so long as the Crown administration continued in that country. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies say on the previous night I He said—

"What is the ultimate object of a bounty? It is to secure a monopoly. Was the bounty in process of securing a monopoly? Yes, was. Do you suppose the working people of this country are such fools as not to know that it would be worth almost any present sacrifice to prevent the creation of a monopoly of which ultimately they will be all victims?"

Yet the right hon. Gentleman's lieutenant in South Africa was—no doubt with his approval—urging the creation of a monopoly in South Africa—a monopoly Which was absolutely contrary to the interests of South Africa. The Attorney- General, speaking to the Legislative Council on June 17th, said that—

"They had provided that, in the first place, the Crown, not working the diamond mines itself, might make an agreement with the owner of the mine, and work it for the mutual benefit of the Crown and the owner, and to work it on such terms as might be directed by the Lieutenant-Governor, who will 1;e advised by experts, and subject to statutory, conditions embodied in the Ordinance."

There was the clear and definite issue of the intention of the Government and Lord Milner to create a monopoly, and to place the whole of this vast discovery in the hands of one syndicate. In March, 1901, Sir D. Barbour made a report on the Finances of the Transvaal, the consideration of which at the present time he earnestly recommended to the Colonial Secretary. In that report the following passages occurred—

"As regards any valuable mining rights which may exist in lands that have not hitherto been proclaimed as public diggings, or which have not been granted to private persons, it seems to me that it is still possible to take measures for protecting the interests of the State. For the past failure to safeguard the State assets for the benefit of the community there is now practically no remedy. On the other hand, it is beyond question that in some cases the law was modified, strained, and even violated, with the connivance of officials of the Transvaal Government, in order to secure illegitimate advantage for mining speculator and others. The principle which I recommend for adoption is this: that as the gold-mining rights in the Transvaal belong to the State, a large share of the profit should in future be reserved for the State, in all cases where these rights are known, or believed on good grounds to be, of special value."

Sir D. Barbour went on to say that—

"The first measure to be adopted with this object would be the reduction of the privileges with regard to mining rights which had been granted to the owners of the land."

Instead of that advice being followed the rights were to be increased by 300 per cent. A few months ago Lord Milner appointed a Gold Commission. That body was fairly representative, both capitalists and working people being represented. The capitalists naturally reported in favour of the owners' rights remaining as they were under the old Transvaal Government, but the Minority Report, signed by all the representatives of the people not connected with the mining industry, advocated the reduction of the rights. The action of Lord Milner was wholly dictated by the desire to create a monopoly in diamonds. The price of diamonds to-day was approximately 50s. a carat, whereas before the amalgamation it was 10s. or 15s. The chairman of the New Jagers-fontein Company speaking in Kimberley stated, on June 6, that the price of diamonds had increased during the last five years by 75 per cent., a result which had been brought about by the De Beers Company regulating the output. The De Beers Company produced 95 per cent. of the diamonds of the world, and had bought up practically all the mines in South Africa. He could not say definitely whether they had bought the Premier Mine, but he firmly believed they had. The company did not transact their affairs on the house-tops, but the shares, which would be of little value if the Premier Mine were thrown open, had not fallen in the market. The amount of money originally put into the company was very small; its present capital value was £40,000,000, and the annual profits were £2,500,000. In addition to that, they had by an arrangement with the Chartered Company, the pre-emption of all discoveries of diamonds in Rhodesia; nearly all the mines in Brazil belonged to them; in fact, practically the whole of the diamond mining industry of the world rested in the hands of this corporation. For sixteen years Kimberley was worked by individual claims; the owners of the surface received no privileges whatever; and South Africa was never more prosperous than when that practice obtained. In many respects diamond mining was the antithesis of gold mining. For the latter a large expenditure on machinery was required; for the former no machinery whatever was necessary. The answer of the Government to all the distress, poverty and misery in South Africa was to shut out the people from all participation in this valuable discovery, and to hand it over to a syndicate of financiers in order that the State might derive a larger revenue. The view of the Government was absolutely illogical. Before the amalgamation of the mines in Kimberley there were, he believed, 50,000 people employed, whereas to-day the number was only 15,000. How was that state of things to be remedied? If the price of diamonds was reduced from 50s. to 10s. a carat an enormous profit would still be yielded to individual diggers working the Premier Mine. At Kimberley the yield per load was carat and the cost of mining 10s., deep mining being very expensive. But in the Premier Mine the surface ground could be washed at a cost of 2s. a load, and the returns so far yielded not ¾, but 1¾ carats per load, so that the diamonds, if sold in the free and open market, would give an enormous profit at even 5s. a carat But supposing the price was reduced from 50s. to 10s., and only £5,000,000 worth of diamonds could be taken by the world—as argued by Lord Milner's Government—they could sell five times as many diamonds for the money. Surely that would be greatly to the benefit of the industry of South Africa, as five times as many people would need to be employed. He contended that it was outside the province of the Government to regulate monopolies, or in any way to give their assent to them. This Premier Mine would have been worked entirely by white labour, but through the action of the Government the compound system was to be established in Pretoria, and the mine worked by Kaffir labour, although there were thousands of white people out of work. Had this new discovery been thrown open it would have caused a rush to the fields, brought prosperity to those who were now suffering, and changed the whole aspect of the financial situation. No one would say a word against the honesty and integrity of Lord Milner They were above suspicion. But there were only two parties in South Africa—the party of Lord Milner, backed by the capitalist Press, and the party whom Lord Milner had described as "blubbering pro-Boers." It was quite certain that Lord Milner could not dissociate himself from those persons with whom he had worked so long. Therefore Lord Milner must necessarily by force of circumstances be influenced by them. He had to work with those people and they were his close advisers. Therefore he could not dissociate himself from their policy. A very curious position had arisen in regard to this question in the Transvaal Legislative Council. Sir P. Fitzpatrick had strongly opposed the proposals of Lord Milner. He was not going to repeat what had been said in the Press in regard to his reasons for taking this course, and he would merely state what Sir P. Fitzpatrick said with regard to these proposals of Lord Milner. This was what Sir P. Fitzpatrick said:

"Under the Gold Law it was specially provided that the Government should by no means proclaim any more land than was known to be mineralised. Thus the owners would have obtained under my pact not one-tenth of the farm, but one-tenth of the mine. The mine being less than 50 morgen in extent, they would have obtained one owner's claim of gold claim area, which was equal to 60 diamond claims. Hon. Members would see then that the Premier owners would have obtained one-tenth of the area of the mine, which would give them 400 claims, plus 60 owners' claims, making 460 diamond claims in all. Under the Diamond Law or 1898 they would obtain one selected eighth of the mine, plus 30 discoverer's claims, making in all 530 claims, while under the proposed new law it was suggested that they should get 1,600 claims. Now he could not see any possible justification for that."

Continuing, Sir P. Fitzpatrick said:

"Taking the lowest figures, lower figures than had ever been put before them, it was proposed to give away millions of money which belonged to the state."

That was a statement coming from a gentleman whom the Government, at all events, relied upon for a written defence of their policy in South Africa. He went on to say:—

"The strongest possible case had to be made out by them to justify them for paying away the proportion which belonged to the Government."

What did the Government say? They declared that they did not propose to throw this mine open to the public, because they did not wish to encourage any gambling in these claims. The only people who were likely to gamble in this respect were those very financiers. He dissented absolutely from the view that individual diggers would gamble with their property. Therefore, it was idle to put forward an excuse of that character. The only possible answer the Colonial Secretary could make to this question, was that there was a danger of gambling in public assets. He did not wish to deal with what occurred under the late Transvaal Government as to public pegging, but that was not the reason why the system was altered. The real reason why the system of public pegging was altered was owing to special advantages the capitalists were able to obtain. The Government decided that each person in the State should have an equal chance of pegging, and should be able to participate in the discoveries, but the Attorney-General under Lord Milner said that this would create gambling in public assets. Who were the men to whom they were going to give this immense wealth? They were men whose money had been made by gambling, and therefore it was idle to put forward this objection. Not satisfied, however, with this, the Government went still further, and introduced one of the most iniquitous laws which ever found its way on to the Statute-book of a British colony. They had introduced the Trapping Law of Cape Colony, which was passed through the influence of the De Beers Company. This law had been the source of great trouble in South Africa, and had been the subject of debates in the Legislative Council, and, notwithstanding that, Lord Milner had now introduced the very same Bill. He was not going to discuss this law in detail, but he would simply mention that under that Bill a Government detective was entitled to go to a man in the street whom he suspected of being engaged in diamond dealing; and he was entitled to go to that man, although he might be a perfect stranger, and offer him a stone to buy. If the man bought that stone from the Government detective he was liable to be sent to penal servitude for 15 years. To allow Government detectives to place temptations in the way of innocent men in this way was a scandal. Not only had this been done once, but it had occurred many times. He had many letters to prove this had happened quite a number of times, and many men had been trapped by this system of detectives; and yet, notwithstanding this abominable law, the Transvaal Legislative Council were putting it in force again. He would give the House one example. On the 30th of May, 1903, a report appeared in the Diamond Fields Advertiser of the trial of a Cape driver named Henry Daniels, who was discharged after having undergone a trial for an alleged contravention of Section 3 of the Diamond Trade Act. In passing sentence, the Judge said:—

"Although they must convict the accused on this charge on the evidence, it was the sort of case he did not like. Prisoner was charged with being in the unlawful possession of two rough diamonds on a certain day, and a witness swears that he handed the diamonds to the accused for the purpose of sale—a witness who primâ facie there was no reason to discredit, he being a guard in the employment of the De Beers Company, and whose duty if anyone approached him in regard to dealings in diamonds, was to report the matter to his superiors. As he had said he did not like this case. When they found the detective department through an agent putting diamonds in a man's hand, and then charging him with being in unlawful possession, it seemed rather like sharp practice."

That was the law of a British Colony passed through the Cape Assembly with the aid of the money of some of the De Beers directors, which had corrupted the whole public life of South Africa There was a speech delivered by Sir Gordon Sprigg with regard to the action of the De Beers party. Be would not quote it, but he would advise the Colonial Secretary for his own information to study the Speech made by Sir Gordon Sprigg in September, 1888. He was afraid he had rather inadequately, and not very clearly, explained to the House a question of immense importance in regard to diamond discoveries in South Africa, but he had Lone his best to place the matter as clearly before the House as he possibly could. He could go on bringing case after ease against the administration of Lord Milner, acts which he was sure this House would neither sanction or approve in their individual capacity. It was almost incredible to believe, but it was an absolute fact, that Lord Milner and the Colonial Secretary had set up a new dynamite monopoly in South Africa. Before the war the Colonial Secretary took an active part in the agitation in this country against the late Transvaal Government on account of its dealings with the dynamite monopoly. The right hon. Gentleman then sent many cables to Lord Milner on this question, and between them they created an agitation both in South Africa and this country against the crying injustice the Transvaal Government were doing to the oppressed dynamite industry. The Colonial Secretary had now deliberately set up a new dynamite monopoly for the benefit of the De Beers Company. On January 13th, 1899, the Colonial Secretary made the following representation to Sir William Butler:—

"The question of the importation of explosives into the South African Republic has, as von are aware, been brought to my notice by British manufacturers who complain that their manufactures are refused admittance into the Republic, and that they are thereby debarred from carrying on their commerce within the Republic conformably to Article XIV. of the London Convention.

"On receipt of these representations it became my duty to give the whole subject my full and careful consideration.

"His Majesty's Government are advised that the creation of a monopoly in favour of the State is not necessarily inconsistent with Article XIV. of the London Convention even when exercised by a concessionaire, provided that the concession is intended in good faith to benefit the State generally, and not simply to favour the concessionaire."

The De Beers Company soon after the outbreak of war commenced to erect an immense dynamite factory near Cape Town. Then there was a monopoly in dynamite, and they naturally considered that this no would be removed. When the hon. Member for Warwick took out his Commission to South Africa a great deal of evidence was tendered as to the injustice caused to the Transvaal State by the creation of a monopoly in dynamite, and the Report upon this question states:—

"The company in our opinion should have no advantages in the competition for the manufacture of and trade in explosives in the Transvaal other than those which it has secured by the establishment there of its factories and its first occupation of the field of industry."

Then came Mr. Qninans, the manager of De Beers' dynamite factory, and he stated before this Commission that:

"In regard to the location of a factory, supposing that there are no determining political factors and the usual open-door policy of England is followed, the best situation is near the sea coast. The materials have to he imported and the railway freight on the raw material is saved."

Then came Mr. A. R. Goldring, Secretary of the Chamber of Mines the De Beers directors control the majority of votes in this Chamber. He stated that the dynamite monopoly was prejudicial to the public interest and that it should be abolished. Sir P. Fitzpatrick stated that the dynamite company were "absolutely thieves at that time. The monopoly, whatever it is to-day, was a swindle." The Chairman asked, "In your judgment is this monopoly prejudicial to the public interest?" and his answer was "Certainly." In 1897, all these gentlemen connected directly or indirectly with the De Beers Company stated in evidence that free trade in dynamite was absolutely necessary. Now, what did they find? Within twelve months of the giving of that evidence, and after the hon. Member for Leamington had reported in favour of free trade in dynamite, Mr. Goldring wrote to the Colonial Secretary asking for a new monopoly in dynamite. His letter, dated 11th July, 1902, contained the following:—

"In view of the statement made by His Excellency at the interview accorded to a deputation of my Chamber by the Government on June 16th last, 'that it was the desire of the Government to so arrange the rate of taxation (on explosives) that the dynamite company could live and make a reasonable profit, and no more,' it seemed to my Chamber that as there was a probability that this question 'night he dealt with at an early date, it would be of assistance to the Government to have before it the opinion of the mining Industry on the subject. The Chamber has hitherto advocated the establishment of free trade in explosives in order that the industry should secure the benefit which would result from competition between rival manufacturers, and was prepared, if necessary, to ensure this by erecting a factory in Europe or by making permanent arrangements with existing factories. To secure free trade and competition, either of these courses is still open to the mining industry. Certain new facts in connection with this question have, however, to be borne in mind. First the reduction in the price of explosives which has been already effected, and second, the establishment of a competing. South African Factory. And accepting His Excellency's statement, above quoted, as a final declaration of Government policy on the subject, the various points which the Chamber had to consider were:—

"(1) That it is the intention of the Government to afford the local factory sufficient protection to enable it to carry on its business at a reasonable profit.

"(2) That, subject to this consideration, it is to the interest of the mines to obtain their explosives at the lowest possible prices.

"(3) That the local factory is armed and controlled by the huge monopoly known as the Nobel Trust.

"(4) That this being so, it is essential for the maintenance of reasonable price, that there shall be competition with the local factory.

"(5) That the establishment of the De Beers Explosives Company's factory in the Cape Colony affords an assurance of the necessary competition if the conditions are such that it is placed in a position to work at a reasonable profit.

"(6) That it is desirable that any protection which it may be decided to grant to the local factory should not operate so as to exclude South African competition, nor yet he such as to enable the local factory and the De Beers factory to effect a monopoly or by any other arrangement to unduly raise prices.

"To bring about the conditions which in the above considerations it is desirable to establish, the conclusion at which my Chamber have arrived is that an import duty of 5s. to 7s. 6d. per case, but not exceeding the latter, should be levied on explosives at the coast. The Chamber will further suggest that it is inadvisable at present that there should be any re-classification of the raw material use,. in the manufacture of explosives with reference to railway rates which would give the local factory a special advantage over the De Beers factory; for, although such a reclassification might result in a reduction in the price of explosives, there would be no guarantee that it would do so; and it might merely put the local factory in a position to completely oust the De Beers factory from the trade. And in making this suggestion the Chamber would further point out that the re-classification would reduce the railway returns, which are-one important element of State revenue."

What was a reasonable profit in the eyes of the De Beers Company? Were governor's fees of £100,000 each? Was a profit of £2,500,000 per annum made by raising the price of diamonds five tittles above the cost of production, what they would consider a reasonable profit? This same Mr. Goldring who gave evidence in favour of abolishing the old dynamite monopoly and the establishment of a factory by the De Beers Company, suggested that an import duty of 5s. to 7s. 6d. per case, but not exceeding the latter, should be levied on explosives at the coast. The Colonial Secretary granted this protection of £14 per ton on all dynamite imported into the Transvaal. He had asked many questions on the subject, and had been met with the usual evasions. The right hon. gentleman had said—

"This matter is having my attention."

The British dynamite manufacturers, who, hail kindly provided him with the material for this case, sent a petition to the Colonial Secretary in June a year ago, in which they pointed out that this was a great injustice to them. They pointed out that they had contributed to the cost of the war and made great sacrifices, and that if this duty of £14 per tort was placed on dynamite they would he placed outside the market of South Africa. What justification had these men who led the bogus agitation against the Transvaal Government, and against the dynamite monopoly, for asking that a monopoly should be granted in favour of the De Beers Company? The Colonial Secretary had taken twelve months to consider the question already. What was the reason for putting a coast duty on? It was because the De Beers factory was there. There was no good reason to justify such a policy. Was this to be a sample of the new policy of the Colonial Secretary in the granting of these monopolies. Last right the right hon. Gentleman advocated a policy of broad Imperialism, lent it would appear from what was taking place in South Africa the new Imperialism was to be of the "three acres and a cow" description. The monopoly could have no justification whatever, and it was not in the interest of South Africa. There were no ingredients in the Transvaal itself from which dynamite could be manufactured. The De Beers Company made a great mistake in putting their factory on the coast, and the Chamber of Mines had brought pressure on Lord Milner not to lower railway rates. Here were some of the men who advocated the lowering of rates in Mr. Kruger's time asking that they should he maintained in order to bolster up their monopoly. The people of this country were absolutely ignorant of all that was going on in South Africa. The only journals through which information came were controlled practically by the capitalists in South Africa. They also controlled the news agencies that supplied the public in this country—some of them, not all of them. There was another equally monstrous thing, and that was the municipal franchise. The members of the Legislative Council were the nominees of Lord Milner directly or indirectly. In regard to the municipal franchise, he gave Lord Milner credit for the action he had taken. In the first municipal ordinance, he at all events showed his consistency, because it gave to the subjects of all Powers—French, German, Italian, and American—the right of exercising the municipal franchise. That was discussed in the Legislative Council, and all the official Members voted according to Lord Milner's instructions, with the result that the ordinance was carried by a majority of two. What happened? In view of the fact that all the capitalists had voted against the proposal, Lord Milner came down and said that the Government hail reconsidered the question, and had decided to bring a new clause restricting the franchise to British subjects only. ["Hear, hear."] An hon. Member said "Hear, hear." Why should Americans he excluded? Lord Milner said that he wished every civilised man to have a vote and to administer his own property, but the Legislative Council said "No." Lord Milner then climbed down, and a new ordinance was brought in. Mr. Money-penny said in the Johannesburg Star—

"Further satisfaction would be felt if the franchise were limited to British subjects."

This gentleman formerly advocated the franchise for the Uitlander, but now he denies it him. We were regarded as hypocrites on this question. Everyone knew that we were not honest when we went to war on account of the franchise, dynamite, and other questions. Our conduct proved that, and degradation was the right name to describe the proceedings. The argument was that there. was a law which over-ruled every other law — viz., that of self-preservation. What did the Attorney-General say?—

"Without fear of contradiction, he declared that there was not a municipality in any part thereof—in Cape Colony, in Natal, in the Orange River Colony, in Rhodesia — winch excluded aliens from the franchise."

Passing on to deal with coloured persons, the Attorney-General said that

"If the ease against the exclusion of aliens was a strong one, that against the exclusion of coloured British subjects who had reached a certain stage of civilisation, and who had the necessary qualifications, was still stronger. In other parts of South Africa, in Cape colony, and Natal, the municipal franchise was given to every person who held the necessary property, no matter what his colour might he. The same system prevailed in Rhodesia. In the Orange River Colony before the war the municipal franchise was based upon property a vote being given to every male person who, whether as owner or lessee, was in occupation of premises of a certain value."

He hoped the Secretary of State for India would allow no exportation of coolies to South Africa until a very different mode of dealing with Indian subjects had been introduced. Even the most civilised members of the British Empire, of which they were all proud, were excluded from administering their own property. The Attorney-General went on—

"What they objected to was the shutting the door entirely, and saying to these men, 'No mater what your no matter how highly educated you are, you shall not have the municipal franchise which is in no sense political." Let them take the case of a British Indian who came from India to this colony. He might be a highly cultured man, he might even belong to the profession to which he (the Attorney-General) belonged—he could not give him more credit than that. In his own country he was entitled to all the privileges of a British subject, and there was no position there to which he could not aspiire. He ventured to say that if they took up that position they were bound to be driven from it sooner or later, and bound to be driven from it with disgrace."

Would the right hon. Gentleman drive them from that position with disgrace? He ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman would not. In conclusion, the Attorney-General said that—

"As far back as 1857 in Cape Colony, and 1858 in Natal, an alien was entitled to hold property on exactly the same terms as a British subject. It had not been so in other countries. And in regard to naturalisation, that was granted in Natal after two years, in Canada three years, in the Transvaal five years; and in the Orange River Colony it was five years because the Transvaal Naturalisation ordinance had been taken over by the Colony."

He did not wish to speak as an alarmist, but the information he had received from South Africa was that the condition of affairs was rapidly going from bad to worse. The people of this country had no knowledge of the state of the country. The British public were told just what the De Beers directors, who held the channels of information, chose to let them know. The Colonial Secretary was so much engaged in other matters that the question of South Africa was of minor importance to him. He had reason to believe that the fiscal policy the right hon. Gentleman had sprung upon the country was intended to hide up his miserable failure in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman had played South Africa for all it was worth. His conviction was that we had now lost South Africa. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Nonsense,".and "No."] Hon. Members said "No," but he was not exaggerating when he said the position in South Africa was graver -to-day than it had been either before or during the war. Sooner or later it would Ire impossible to hide from the House and the people of this country the fact that there was a great revolution—not a revolution in arms, but a social revolution, taking place which would shake South Africa to its foundation, and therefore we ought to introduce a far-seeing policy into that country.

said he was sure the Committee would thank him if he took them away to the cooler waters of Sierra Leone, and so check the ardour aroused by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He hoped he might be able to elicit a sympathetic response from the Colonial Secretary to a request that for some two years he had waited for. A rebellion in Sierra Leone occurred in the spring of 1898, and it would be in the cognizance of the Committee, that at that period there was a change in the fiscal system of the country—in his opinion, a very wise and proper one. The taxation put upon huts naturally created, in the first instance, an exhibition of feeling which took the form of nothing less than a rebellion. Long before this, certain merchants in Liverpool, people of the strictest honesty and of good position, who had for years engaged in important ventures in Africa, had started stores, and by their energy had helped to promote the civilisation of what were really at the time outlandish districts. When this exhibition of popular feeling arose their whole enterprise was in serious jeopardy. There were risings all round them, and their up-country stores were promptly destroyed by irritated natives. Happily they were able to send to headquarters and beg the assistance of one of His Majesty's gunboats to defend their property. They told the captain if he could only spare a modest squad or bluejackets they would be able to hold their own and keep the natives off. As a matter of fact, for many years this district had been subject to the amenities of a celebrated chief named Samory, and they were confident that with the friendly assistance and a mere handful of troops they would be able, as he had said, to hold their own. The captain of the gunboat said he could not spare any troops and he must take the merchants to Sierra Leone. This was disappointing to the merchants, because they had a considerable stock of goods lying close by, which they were told they would have to abandon. The captain said he could not leave the store buildings, as they might possibly become a stockade, and without more ado kerosene was thrown over the goods, and they were set on fire. He was aware that they had no legal claim or right to expect any compensation from the Government for any action of His Majesty's forces, but he hoped the Committee would show such sympathy as to enable the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more benevolent towards the claim put before him, a claim for some special consideration. Laws, even though based on public policy, should be subject to legitimate exceptions. A few years ago, there was a similar, though not quite such a strong case as he was now submitting; and he thought that the merchants for whom he was speaking, and who had lost their all in this matter, might fairly claim some special consideration. All they desired was that his right hon. friend should be a little kinder to them in respect of the property which was destroyed by His Majesty's gunboat. Only last week this House guaranteed a loan to compensate for the losses sustained hi the great Boer war; and the Committee would allow that what was right and fair in South Africa was not wrong or unfair in Sierra Leone. It required a great deal of enterprise and patience to open up these inhospitable regions, where the climate was very trying and where the death rate was quite extraordinary, although it was now being reduced by the recent discoveries of Dr. Ross and others. He was Trite certain that the Committee would sanction the action of his right hon. friend if he compensated these merchants, who had lost altogether a sum of £12,500. They did not ask that the whole of that sum should be recouped to them, but only such part of it as represented property destroyed by the gunboat; and they were prepared to submit the matter to any arbitrator or valuer appointed by the Colonial Office. He had been informed, although he could not give chapter and verse for the case, that when a factory was destroyed by His Majesty's ships in New Guinea, compensation was paid. If there was, as he had no doubt there was, a law which exempted public authorities from liability for acts taken in the public interest, there ought to be exceptions to it in certain cases such as the present.

said he wished to say a few words on a. particular point connected with the Transvaal. There was an ordinance published last year relating to the criminal law, which was of unusual strictness and severity. Among other things, it empowered a magistrate or police officer to arrest without a warrant any person who was reasonably suspected of any of a lumber of offences, including the use of language calculated to promote ill feeling and hostility between different classes. In case of arrest, no accusation need be preferred before any Court for twenty-one days, and, accordingly, there might be arbitrary imprisonment for that period attire discretion of a magistrate or police officer. Then again, the ordinance empowered officials in charge of post offices to intercept letters, which the resident magistrate might open if he had reasonable suspicion that they contained treasonable or seditious matter. There was also power to order any person to quit the colony who had not a permit, and to order any person who, in the opinion of the Governor, was dangerous, to quit the colony within fourteen days. There were various other provisions, one of which referred to the circulating of false intelligence calculated to create panic. The ordinance undoubtedly resembled the regulations which were enforced in a state of siege, when personal liberty was, of course, greatly restricted. Powers of this character were exceptional, and, however carefully administered, experience always showed them to be dangerous and liable to abuse—he did not mean abuse by reason of malevolence or tyrannical disposition. but abuse because of the essentially arbitrary character of restrictions which did not require any preliminary proof, and in which the person responsible acted on suspicion. Of course, it was impossible, while such regulations existed, that persons could be considered as in any sense secure from arbitrary arrest, and very often from unfounded arrest. In fact, common law was by means of this ordinance suspended, and instead of it there was a short, summary, and most unsatisfactory proceeding. He was under the impression that about two months ago a supplementary ordinance was passed increasing the penalties. At all events, the ordinance was now, a year and a half after the termination of the war, in existence. He wished to ask the Colonial Secretary how long it was contemplated to continue an ordinance which it would be admitted very seriously affected personal liberty. He thought it would be much to be deprecated if it were continued one day longer than was absolutely necessary. He should like to ask how many persons had been arrested under this ordinance, and kept in prison for a period not exceeding twenty-one days without being tried; to what extent letters had been opened; and how many persons had been deported. The reason he asked these questions was that information was quite inaccessible with regard to a great deal that happened in South Africa. The greater part of the Press had at no time during the last three or four years been accurate with regard to South Africa. They had been silent very often, no doubt from the absence of information, and it was therefore all the more necessary that the Committee should be given information. He said that all the more because information, which he himself did not regard as absolutely reliable, had reached him to the effect that there had been a very considerable exercise of these powers. He was not prepared to accept that information; but undoubtedly there was a very uneasy feeling abroad that there had been a very considerable use of these powers. If that were so, it meant one of two things. It meant either that there had been an improper exercise of this arbitrary authority; or, what was even still more serious, that there was a state of discontent and serious social and political disturbance in South Africa, of which they would all deeply regret to hear_ He would also wish, and it was a matter of great moment, that the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee what was the condition of the country. He would not ask it it was in a condition of loyalty, because a nation which had been fighting in the field could not be expected to immediately accept the position, and assume an attitude of loyalty towards this country. There was a time after the war was concluded when there was a great deal of friendly feeling displayed by the Boers who had fought against this country; and he himself heartily cherished the hope that that well-affected disposition towards this country might grow up. He would like to know now if the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee any information as to that. If the ordinance to which he referred was necessary, it could only be necessary on very serious grounds. What were these grounds; and how long did the right hon. Gentleman anticipate they would last? Did he expect to be able to restore the ordinary common law at an early date in the Transvaal; and when, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, would the state of society permit that? The right hon. Gentleman had said in respect to the native question that there would be no importation of coolies or Asiatics into the country unless the general sense of the population was expressed in a way favourable to it. If the general feeling of the population was to be considered on such a subject as that, then it ought also to be regarded in other matters, such as the government of the country itself. And as to how far that could be done was the question he desired to ask.

called attention to the recruiting of natives from Central and East Africa for work in the Johannesburg mines. These men were brought from a tropical climate and were quite unsuited to mining work, and their being unaccustomed to the climate, the food which was provided for them, and the work, resulted in a considerable amount of sickness and mortality. As he had before said it was no use ever to bring: these men to Johannesburg to work in the mines unless the matter was perfectly explained to them, and he did not think it was possible to explain the conditions under which they would have to work to so ignorant a people. In the' first, place they were recruited at a wage of 45s. a month, which was far less than the miners' wage, which was 60s. a month, and it was a great pity that they should be taken away from Central Africa just at the time when their services were required for railway construction. He could not conclude his remarks without calling attention to, the excellent report of Mr. Munson. He-was glad there was a British officer who was not afraid to place before the Government the difficulties of recruiting in Central Africa, and the danger that might be caused to men transferred from a. tropical climate to o her parts of South Africa. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

called attention to the dismissal of a large portion of the South African Constabulary. He pointed out that at the end of 1891 a great many men were enlisted in this country for this force, that they went to South Africa and fought for their country as long as the war lasted, and they naturally hoped that some of the inducements which had been held out to them would be realised. Seventy-five per cent. of them however had been discharged, and all the compensation they haft received had been their passage money to Cape Town, and even that had been very meagre; and in many cases when they arrived at Cape Town they had no money to go on with. He had brought the matter before the Colonial Secretary as to whether a breach of agreement had not been committed by the authorities, and whether compensation could not be given. In the negative reply that he had received from the Colonial Secretary the right hon. Gentleman had evidently relied on Clause 11 of the Memorandum of Enlistment. The first part of the agreement treated of the formation of the force, the second with the qualifications, and the third, and this was rather important, stated that the term of enlistment was three years. It seemed to him quite plain from that clause that under the terms of the Memorandum of Enlistment these men had enlisted for three years. No suggestion was made in that that they could be dismissed. Paragraph 2 said that a non-commissioned officer or man could be discharged at any time by order of the officer commanding the division. with or without a gratuity, and if that was the paragraph the right hon. Gentleman relied on it was not quite fair, because the paragraph obviously applied to the dismissal of a man for a dereliction of duty or for some particular cause, and not to the dismissal of a considerable portion of the force. No recruit, looking at the conditions, would have supposed for a moment that, after serving in South Africa for some time, 75 per cent. of the force would be dismissed without compensation. They ought at least to have their passage paid home. That was done in the case of the men found medically unfit. The conditions of service were supposed to offer a career to enterprising young men, and a first-class force was brought together. They were promised employment for at least three years, a chance of settlement, promotion, and higher pay; now, through no fault of their own, they were sent away with only their fare to Cape Town paid, and they would come home penniless, although many of them in order to go to South Africa had given up careers which it would be very difficult to resume. Unless something was done for these men he considered it would be a disgrace to the country.

said that a short time ago, by an unstarred Question, he asked the Colonial Secretary if he would make a statement with regard to the practically unanimous request of the inhabitants of the island of Tristan da Cunha to be deported to South Africa. The island contained a population of 32 children and 44 adults: it had no Government, no clergyman, no schoolmaster, no disease, and no crime; its only drawback was that it was infested with rats. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman might well give the matter his serious consideration; the expense would be infinitesimal, and the population of the new colonies world be increased.

said the able speech of the right hon. Member for the Mansfield Division with regard to the diamond concession—unless there was some complete answer to it—went to show that the public interest in these mining rights had not been properly safeguarded, and that certain persons had been greatly advantaged at the expense of the general public. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to put a different complexion, on the matter; otherwise the confidence of the country in the management of the affairs of these Crown colonies would be considerably diminished. With regard to the important point raised by his hon. friend in regard to the still existing deportation ordinance, he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman did trot think the time had come when some relaxation might be made. All were anxious that at the earliest possible moment the feeling which naturally existed at the close of a war should be allayed, but the existence of this ordinance was a source of irritation to a large body of people, and if it could be amended or dispensed with a step would have been taken in the right direction. He further asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any information—a Return would perhaps be the best form in which to give it—as to the manner in which the money already voted for compensation and repatriation had been expended. There appeared to be considerable uneasiness as to whether the money promised had been expended, and, if expended, whether it had been spent in the proper direction. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he made no insinuation of any kind; he did not suggest that the money had not been properly expended; but it would be very satisfactory, both here and in South Africa, if the right hon. Gentleman would give some information in regard to the matter, especially as to who had been responsible for the carrying out of the repatriation, the direction and extent of the assistance in stocks, farms, and rebuilding of houses, and the general lines on which repatriation had been carried out. The recent speech of the Colonial Secretary, confirmed as it was by the dispatch of May 23rd to Lord Milner, regarding the conditions under which Asiatic labour might be introduced into these colonies, had given great satisfaction. In the dispatch the right hon. Gentleman, referring especially to the labour question, stated—

"In adopting any important line of policy in the new colonies, His Majesty's Government would need to satisfy themselves that the essential features were acceptable to the general opinion of the white population. The new colonies must be regarded as destined, at some day not far distant, to enter upon the privileges of self-government, and in anticipation of the event no such serious step should be taken as would be likely to be reversed by any autonomous legislature."

He was glad the Colonial Secretary had expressed his views on the matter so clearly, as the pressure put upon the right hon. Gentleman by Lord Milner and others—according to the despatech—had been very great indeed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he had any anticipations as to further steps being taken in the direction of self-government. The difficulty was that until representative institutions were given to these Crown colonies it would be practically impossible to discover what the real public opinion was, as the decisions of the Legislative Council would not necessarily represent the views of the people at all. The right hon. Gentleman had had strong pressure put upon him by Lord Milner. Lord Milner used the very greatest possible pressure to induce the Colonial Secretary to agree to the immediate importation of Asiatic labour, and he said that they might be landed into financial embarrassment if Asiatic labour was not imported. That was the view of the present Governor of the Transvaal, who declared that unless he was enabled to go to India for additional labour the Transvaal would soon be landed in financial embarrassment. The Colonial Secretary had declined to give Lord Milner power to go to India for native labour, and his refusal was dependent upon the state of public opinion in the Transvaal, which was hostile to Asiatic labour. He thought it would be some time before that opinion altered, even if it altered at all. That opinion, however, was totally different to what they heard the other day in the debate upon the South African Loan. Lord Milner took a very rosy view of the financial position of the Transvaal, and estimates had been given them which seemed almost incredible. It had been stated that the revenue would be sufficient in a year or two to cover, not only the ordinary expenditure, but also the interest which would have to be paid upon the £35,000,000 loan and the £30,000,000 loan. That did not seem consistent with the statement that if Asiatic labour was not imported the country would be landed in financial embarrassment. He should like from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation of the present financial position of the Transvall.

said that, in view of the fact that one of the British colonies had recently had its constitution suspended, he did not think the House of Commons could do better than discuss for a short time the reason for that suspension. He wished to make his position clear with regard to the teaching of the English and Italian languages in Malta. His whole contention about the language question was as to whether the Italian or the English language was to have the uppermost position in Malta. In spite of the withdrawal of the proclamation by the Colonial Secretary on the 28th of January, 1902, the elected members of the Council of Malta resigned in a body on the 15th of February. Although they resigned, they were reelected a short time afterwards absolutely unanimously. No opposition was offered to their re-election, and for years they had been elected on the understanding that they would continue to press forward the Italian language as against the English. The Colonial Secretary claimed that they did not represent the wishes of the people, but nevertheless he had always refused to extend the franchise. If it were true that the elected members did not represent anyone except a small fraction of the people, why not extend the franchise; He had always felt that one of the great difficulties in Malta arose from the position which Sir G. Strickland occupied, and when he was transferred to another post he thought that difficulty would have disappeared. That, however, had not been the case, and the state of affairs had been just as bitter as before. He agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had made some substantial concessions with regard to the position of the Italian language. Those concessions had been made since last year, and he only pointed to them as a reason and justification for the determined attitude of the people of Malta in bringing this question to the front. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman had always been that the substitution of English for Italian was desired by the people of Malta themselves; that nothing in the way of coercion had been used; and that they had accepted it of their own free choice, but this contention was not borne out by the Report of Mr. Tagro, one of the inspectors of schools in Malta. Directions were given, on page 29 of the recent Blue-book, that very important matters mentioned in the Report should be taught, but the language was to be English, and no mention was made that at least an equal opportunity should be given to have Italian taught at the same time. Reference had been made to the figures in the Official Returns for the year 1902. In the first and second standards it was found that the percentage was 81·4 English and 18·6 Italian. In the case of secondary instruction in the third standard the percentage for English was 85·4, and Italian 14·6. These figures showed that the over-whelming voice of the parents in Malta was in favour of the English language, but he did not think the Committee could accept them as absolutely final. This inquiry was instituted by direction of the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly throughout there had been an effort on the part of people in Malta to have the figures come up to the desire expressed by him. The Legislative Council applied to be represented on the inquiry, with the view of having the witnesses tested, and they suggested that the witnesses should he examined on oath. That permission was refused, and the whole inquiry had been conducted by Government officials only. The Colonial Secretary himself demanded that there was to be a free choice in Malta between English and Italian. There were many cases still, and certainly one important instance, in which a free choice did not really exist. If they were to have a free choice given to the parents and their children, there must be equal facilities for both languages right through the education ladder. He took it that the Lyceum in Malta was a secondary school. Seven of the Professors there were Italian, and eleven were English. He had seen it stated, and believed it was correct, that only two subjects in the course at the Lyceum—Italian and Latin—were transacted in Italian. In all the other subjects, including mathematics, physics, and, of course, English history and English literature, English was the language in which the instruction was given. That was not giving the people a free choice. If English was the language of instruction in the majority of the subjects at the Lyceum, that was putting a premium on English. It was telling the people practically that in the lower standards English should also be the language taught to their children. It would probably be said by the Colonial Secretary that the Italian-speaking population in Malta was very small comparatively speaking, and he would probably include in English-speaking communities British subjects connected with the fleet and garrison, and also the English officials. That was not a fair test. English Malteseborn British subjects who spoke English numbered 18,922 according to last Census, while the Italian - speaking population numbered 21,027. It was only by adding in the number of those connected with the fleet and the garrison and English officials that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show that there was a greater number of English than Italian speakers in Malta. The right hon. Gentleman might say that Italian was not the language of Malta. It was, however, the language of culture and of literature, and he held that the removal of it, or supercession of it, would be detrimental to the interests of Malta. What was being done was an attempt to Anglicise the people, which he believed would never succeed. It had always been the contention of the Colonial Secretary that this agitation in Malta was of a purely temporary character, and that the people against the English language were only a small clique, the representatives of which saw reason for keeping it out. If it was only a temporary agitation, what necessity was there for suspending the constitution? If the English language was gaining ground, and the Maltese people wanted it, why not leave the old constitution as it stood?

It was unworkable.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman meant that it was unworkable because of the attitude of the elected members on the language question or on ether questions? He might at least have given it a few years' trial. It was not fair or statesmanlike to say that the constitution must be suspended because there was a temporary agitation going on which had not the people behind it. He was conviriced that although the Maltese people might he beaten and the constitution abolished, their strength was so great that they would go on with this agitation for the revival of the Italian language, and in this they would have the sympathy not merely of the Italian people, but also of everyone, even in this country, who desires to see a small people retain its own nationality, and who would regret to see a small people have forced upon them in any way, anything which would tend to remove that special quality of nationality which frequently found expression in the national language. By the national language he meant that it was the literary and cultured language of the Country.

said he wanted information on e neater with regard to which he put, last Thursday, a Question to the Under- Secretary for Foreign Affairs—namely, the Canadian Papers on the dispute between Canada and Germany on the tariff matter. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to submit the Papers to the House. The Papers which had been submitted to the House by the Foreign Office related solely to the correspondence between the Foreign Office and Germany, and he could understand that this was outside the Colonial Secretary's Department. But the Paper; which he thought ought to be submitted to the House, and on which the right hon. Gentleman alone could give information, were letters written to his Department by Lord Strathcona. There was one letter of which he had obtained a copy in the official Hansard of the Canadian Parliament.

said that he should, of course, be most happy to communicate to this House anything already communicated to the Canadian Parliament. If it had been puldished in Canada there could he no difficulty in communicating it to the House here.

said he thought the best plan would be to state what, according to the report of the Canadian Parliament, was said in the speech of the Minister of Finance. The first letter read by the Minister of Finance, dated 11th July, 1898, was from Lord Strathcona to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. The other document Which he thought ought to be in the possession of the House was one submitted by the Canadian Minister of Finance to the German Consul of Montreal, Herr Bopp. This was also placed before the Canadian Parliament. It was a Memorandum stating the whole ease of Canada in the controversy, and he must say that it seemed to him to place a totally different aspect on the case from the one communicated to the House of Commons. He did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman would object to that Paper being communicated to the House. The only other paint he should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman was this. He thought it would be for the convenience of hon. Members to have these Papers before the House separated, and he believed that would be possible if the right hon. Gentleman would communicate with Canada on the subject by cable. The House would not separate until the 14th or 15th of August and there would be plenty of time to get the documents from Toronto or Montreal if they were not already here. He would like to suggest also that as colonial matters were coining very much to the from in regard to fiscal affairs, it was important that their information regarding the colonies should be more complete than it was at the present moment. He submitted that it was really of first class importance that they should have in the library copies of the Hansard of the self-governing colonies, and all the Colonial Blue-books on questions bearing on the trade and industries of those countries. If they had had copies of the Debates in the Canadian Parliament they would have had all the speeches of the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Opposition, which presented the whole of the Canadian case in its relation to Germany. He did not think it would be unfair to ask the Colonial Secretary to include among the Papers he was going to present to Parliament on the tariff question some of these Canadian Papers He had in his hand a Paper which showed that the Leaders in Canada were quite disinclined to enter into the question of international free trade, and he would read a very brief extract from it. The Canadian Minister said—

"As between British and Canadian manufactures, we thought we had gone as far in the way of reduction as we could."

And then the Minister went on—

"What we have got to do is, first, to protect our own industries."

He asked the Colonial Secretary to present the House with all the documents showing what had transpired between Germany and Canada.

As the discussion is so very miscellaneous, perhaps I had better deal with it so far as it has gone, lest any of the points should be missed. In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon, I have no possible objection to give any information in my power which bears on this great subject. Any Papers which have been published or laid by the Canadian Parliament I shall certainly be happy to obtain and lay upon the Table of the House, or place in the library, according to their importance. I am under the impression that I have already telegraphed for these Papers; but I cannot say whether they will be laid before the House rises. There is no record of these Papers in the Colonial Office at present. As regards the Debates, there is no precedent for publishing as Parliamentary Papers speeches delivered in the Dominion Parliament; but, of course, it is open to everybody to consult the Canadian Hansard which is in the library of the House. The hon. Gentleman was, I think, a little hazardous in quoting the opinions of Members of the Dominion House. That makes it absolutely necessary for me to say that the question whether the Canadian Government will or will not be willing to give further reductions upon those goods which are or may be manufactured in Canada—in other words, whether they will give us a nearer approach to free trade as far as Canadian manufacturers are concerned—is not concluded by anything which has been said up to the present time. I imagine that the answer will depend on the offer we can make to Canada. This, at all events, I can say—that when we were discussing the matter with the Prime Ministers we had many conversations, not carried on in the Conference, but carried on between the Board of Trade, as representing British trade, and the Minister representing Canadian trade, to see whether it might not be possible so to rearrange Canadian tariffs without ruining—which was the word used—Canadian industries, and yet give considerable advantages to British industries. But, no doubt, all that will be definitely decided when we are in the position to make anything in the nature of a definite offer. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire asked about Tristan da Cunha. There is a small population there, upon whom, like other small populations under similar circumstances, their lonesome lives and the fact that they are shut out from the rest of the world has had an injurious effect. It might be desirable to deport the population to South Africa; but the question is one which cannot be answered without communication with the Government of South Africa, and until we have had such communication I cannot give a definite reply. The hon. Member for Devonport raised a question about the treatment of certain members of the South African Constabulary, but, without notice of the particular cases in writing for the purposes of inquiry, I am unable to give any answer. Since the close of the war the force has been reduced from 10,000 to 6,000, but the reduction has been made carefully and cautiously, generally by the voluntary resignation of those who desired to follow other occupations, and where it was by dismissal there was reason to complain of the conduct of the person dismissed. So far as I know, there has been no case of harsh dismissal such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but if he will give me the particulars in writing I shall inquire into it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Norfolk referred to the importation to South Africa of natives from British Central Africa, which he regarded as a failure. I do not know whether the facts are correct, but I have asked for information. I will only say that most successful of our emigrations to the West Indies was in its inception attended by somewhat similar circumstances. The wants of the natives were not then so well understood as the are now, and consequently in the first instance there was a considerable amount of sickness. Therefore the fact of such sickness among the natives of British Central Africa who have gone to the Transvaal would not be a conclusive reason against continuing the experiment. Assuming the facts to as stated by the hon. Baronet, they are not at all satisfactory. On the other hand, I refuse to pay the slightest attention to such statements as the hon. Baronet read from gentlemen in Central Africa, whose one object it is to keep the natives there, adscripti glebae, attached to the soil, in order that they many have a sufficiency of labour at an exceptionally low cost. We have it form the able Administrator the Protectorate, on whose good faith I have the fullest reliance, that there is a great amount of surplus labour, and that, apart altogether form the question of South Africa, it would be of advantage to the Protectorate to try its hands at South African work. Then the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs asked me some questions as to the Peace Preservation Act. There also I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that it is impossible for me to state the actual results and extent to which the Act has been put in operation. I believe it is not the case that a further ordinance has been issued imposing severer penalties. On the contrary, when I myself was in South Africa I arranged some alterations and some modifications of its provisions. My own impression is that up to the present time it has been very little used. The hon. and learned gentleman put the question somewhat in the shape of a dilemma. He said: "If the condition of the country is not satisfactory, a great, deal of what von told us before has proved to be incorrect; if, on the contrary, it is satisfactory, what do you want with the Peace Preservation Act?"

I said that if the statements which reached me as to the extensive use of the ordinance be true, then it meant one of two things—either there has been maladministration or there is a serious state of things which requires the use of the ordinance.

My answer the question would be that it would be unwise, in my opinion, to dispense with legislation of this kind. We must have the powers, even though we may not require to put them into operation. And here let me say that one of the great difficulties we have to deal with in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony does not concern the relations between the Boers and the British. Not at all. They concern the relations between different sections of the Boers themselves. There was at one time a very bitter feeling between those who surrendered in the early stages of the war and those who stood out to the end. That is a state of things most unfortunate, most disastrous, and not at all tending to the general peace, order, and prosperity of the country; and that was one of the things I did my best to address myself to when I was in South Africa, imploring both sides to forget the past and not to bear any unkind memories or malice in the way they were doing. The feeling had proceeded so far that some of the Dutch Reformed Church predikants refused to baptize the children of Boers who surrendered early in the war and refused to give them the Holy Communion.

Those were the National Scouts.

Almost the whole of the National Scouts were persons who surrendered early in the war.

And afterwards drew the rifle on their own flesh and blood.

It is not my object to raise controversial matters. I am not here to say whether the action of the National Scouts was right or wrong, but it does not be in the mouth of any Britisher to condemn them. what I say is this, that the war being over, and these people being neighbours and of the same race and blood, and being very numerous on both sides, it is in the interests of the country that they should be brought together, and when I found, as I did, that there were some mischief-makers who were trying to maintain the unhappy relations I have indicated between different classes of Boers, I felt it my duty to bring all the pressure I possibly could to bear in order that that state of things might cease. To a very large extent I am glad to say that state of things has ceased. I have heard many satisfactory accounts of the results of what has been done. I might quote as one instance the fact that the Boers are forming agricultural associations in different parts of the country to look after their interests as an agricultural community. An agricultural association, has been formed in the neighbourhood of Pretoria. Speaking from memory, I believe I am correct in saving that the chairman of that association is Andreas Cronje, brother of Piet Cronje, who surrendered at Paardeberg. He was himself the head of the National Scouts, having first fought bravely for the cause of the Boers, but when the country fell into our hands, he thought it his duty to transfer his allegiance, and thereupon became a National Scout. Mr. Andreas Cronje was the chairman of this association, and the vice-chairman is a gentle- man who fought to the end and surrendered with General Botha. In the same way, the other officers of the association are divided between the two sections of the Boers. That is very satisfactory, and I congratulate the Committee and the Government on the fact that they have been in many cases brought together. But this is one of the reasons why it was necessary, and I believe is still necessary, to have strong powers; because if we found our work of pacification being undone, if we found mischief-makers trying to separate those whom we had brought together, we would not hesitate to use out powers and enforce them. The hon. Member for Poplar referred to General Botha. I attach not the slightest importance to the latter form General Botha. I think it will tend majority of his countrymen. He has definitely taken the lead of those who are irreconcilable. As I say, I do not attach the slightest importance to the letter, which was evidently written to order, and as to which I very much doubt whether it was written by General Botha himself. [An HON. MEMBER: Whose order?] I am quite satified with the expression of my own opinion on the subject. I hold an optimistic view. I think the only passage in that letter which is of real importance is that in which he points out the extraordinary way in which the people are setting to work in order to restore the country and improve its condition: and I am satisfied as long as they are so employed. It will not be necessary to go behind that evidence. The hon. Member for Poplar, while expressing approval of what has been stated by me with regard to the importation of coolie labour for the work on the railways, pointed to language in the letter of Lord Milner to the effect that if the labour question grows worse it may cause serious financial embarrassment in the Transvaal. That is a commonplace almost. If efficient labour cannot be obtained, if the mines have to be closed, there will be, temporarily at any rate, very great financial embarrassment in the Transvaal. Nobody, however, supposes that the matter will not ultimately be settled, and my policy is to leave them to work out their own salvation. The hon. Gentleman asks me how we propose to ascertain public opinion in the absence of representative government. In the first place I deny absolutely that there is no representative government. Some Members of the House seem to suppose that the only possible representative government is a constitutional government with all the fullest forms of the British Constitution. That is not the case. That may be the final development, but in the meantime Legislative Councils, such as those which have been established in the Orange River Colony and in Pretoria, are representative and do give indications of public opinion to which it would be monstrous not to pay some attention. It is quite true that they are nominated councils. Somebody said that they are the creatures of the Government. If by that is meant anything more than that they are nominated by the Government, it would be very unjust both to them and to the Government. What is really the fact? There are Lord Milner, Sir A. Lawley, and Sir A. Goold Adams, with a tremendous work upon their shoulders. Their object is to get their business done with the least possible irritation and the most general goodwill. What folly it would be of them if they only called advisers who would be their creatures, who would not give them advice which would be of sound value. I say of my own knowledge—for I discussed this matter with them most carefully—that the Governors took every possible pains to secure as representative a council as they could get. It would have been in the case of the Pretoria Council a little more representative if there were a larger representation of what are called the irreconcilable Boers. But whose fault is it there is not that representation? We took the three men who at that time were the recognised leaders, and had obtained influence by their bravery and conduct during the war. We asked all of them to serve. They refused. It is not our fault that gentlemen who would have represented that section insisted on standing out side. All the other sections have come in. The moderate Boers, the "hands-uppers," as they are called. All the other sections are represented, and represented by men of the greatest popularity and influence in their several districts. In the same way, every class of the community is represented. Now, when a question is put to a council so appointed, no doubt you must weigh the votes as well as number them. We have a Government majority, and if an Imperial interest is concerned we can order the Government members to vote one way, and the whole nominated members can vote the other. But surely if we were anxious to get the public opinion of the country we should in such a case pay a great deal of attention to the votes of those who are the nominated and. representative members. If we found, for example, that the representatives of labour were opposed to us, I should say that was an important factor in the matter. Even though what the hon. Member for Mansfield calls the capitalist class voted one way, I should pay great attention to the fact that the working-class representatives voted the other. Therefore we can get a certain amount of indication of public opinion from a council so constituted. Then we have the Press, which, notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. M ember for Mansfield, is really a free Press. The statement which the hon. Member has made has been denied again and again. We know what are the kind of statements he sometimes makes in this House, and what is the evidence on which he relies for their truth. All I can say is I know nothing about it. I am not behind these papers. All I know is that it has been absolutely denied that there has been any such influence. But if there is in one case, or more than one, there are some papers of which it cannot be true, because they live by abusing the capitalists, and I do not suppose that they are paid by the capitalists for that. Then, the other day, a great public meeting was held, and was addressed by one of the most popular, and deservedly popular, capitalists in the Transvaal, a gentleman who has done a great deal for the public life of the Transvaal, and to whom that country owes a great debt—Sir George. Farrar. Sir George Farrar fought in the war with conspicuous bravery. Millionaire though he was, he did not hesitate to risk his life like anybody else. He called this meeting together and addressed them strongly in favour of Asiatic labour. What was the result? I forget whether an amendment was moved, but, at all events, the meeting with absolute unanimity voted against their popular chairman. I am quoting that as a proof that public opinion is free in the Transvaal, and there is not the least doubt that we shall have very accurate information from time to time of what the opinion of the country may be upon this question. I have said to the House that at the present time we have sufficient knowledge to justify us in saying that public opinion in the Transvaal is against tins importation of this Asiatic labour. It may be that at some future day a different view may be taken. Then the hon. Member for Poplar also asked for a Return of the expenditure upon repatriation and compensation, showing the lines upon which it has been carried through. As to the lines on which it has been carried through, I really think we have given him the information in the Blue-looks which have been published. As regards the actual balance-sheet, I shall be very pleased to lay Papers upon that subject as soon as I can get anything that is at all complete. Meanwhile, I will inquire as to what can he done in that respect. Then, Sir, there is the long speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield, in which he brought various charges against the Government, and against Lord Milner,.and, of course, against the capitalist class. The hon. Member appears to think that the capitalist class is represented by he Beers, and it is against De Beers that he has brought two out of the three matters which he has brought before the Committee to-day. The first question is as to the course which has been taken with regard to a certain diamond mine which the hon. Gentleman says is one of extraordinary value. He complains that I have not answered a Question which he put upon the Paper. Sir, the Question which he put upon the Paper was rather singularly worded. It was,

"To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from Lord Milner, Sir A. Lawley, or any other Transvaal official, any despatch, report, letter, or any communication whatever in connection with -the new diamond law."

No cross-examining counsel could put a more searching inquiry than that, and it seems to imply a suspicion that something very nefarious will take place unless every possible hole and corner is stopped. I refused in the interests of all Secretaries of State to answer a question of that kind, because one of our most valuable privileges is the power which we have to write privately and to receive private letters from the Governors and Ambassadors, from Ministers and from persons in authority representing us in foreign countries. If it were known that we were to be cross-examined with regard to documents of that kind nothing in the nature of that private and confidential intercourse could go on, and it would be a very serious precedent if I were to consent to reply to any Question which would touch upon that privilege. If instead of being so very careful to ask everything, the hon. Member had been satisfied to inquire of me whether I hail received any official despatch or report, or anything of that kind, I should not have had the slightest hesitation in saying practically I have not received any. I have received one telegram, in which Lord Milner states that the matter is too complicated to be dealt with by telegram, and accordingly I told the hon. Gentleman that I had communicated with Lord Milner, asking for information for myself as well as for others, and that I was waiting for his report. I am still waiting for his report, and I am unable therefore to make any statement to the Committee as to the ultimate decision of the Government. But I know enough to be able to say that the statement that has been made by the hon. Gentleman is not accurate. The statement or implication of the hon. gentleman is that in order to benefit De Beers Lord Milner, whose integrity he does not impugn, is deliberately altering the law in regard to diamond mining in favour of De Beers and against the State.

I did not say that.

That is the charge. That is the implication from everything the hon. Member said. Any Member who was in the House at the time will know that what I say is perfectly correct. To say you do not peach the integrity of a man, and in almost the same breath to say that you accuse hint of having injured the State pecuniarily for the benefit of a monopoly, is a very inconsistent line of argument. What are the facts? Under the Transvaal law the State got nothing, the Crown got no portion of the mine, but only a share of the licence money, which is a very small business. We have discussed this question of mining laws, and I found myself absolutely and entirely in agreement, so far as the principle was concerned, with Lord Milner. The details, of course, I assume he will carry out from time to; time. Our object with regard to all new discoveries is to get every penny we can for the State, having regard to the interests of the State in the further development of the industry. If we did not treat the pioneer, the discoverer, the mine-owner, reasonably, we should get nothing done. There is present a Member of this House who used continually to tell us that the Treasury had destroyed all chance of the development of the mining industry in Wales by insisting upon excessive royalties. If so, it was excessively foolish and unbusinesslike of the Treasury. The object of every Government representative should be to increase the development of enterprise, and be content with a fair and reasonable share. We claim the whole of the mine except such part of it as is to go to the owner of the land and the discoverer. The proposal in this case is to give the owner, I think it is four-tenths of the mine as his own. The Transvaal gave to the owner one-eighth of the mine and thirty claims to the discoverer. One point of which the hon. Member seems to be ignorant is this—that under the old law a person so benefited had the right of selection. If you have the selection of a portion of a mine it is quite possible you may take the eye, and all the rest will be of no value at all, and it seems to me that to allow the discoverer or the owner to select even a small portion of a mine, if you give him the first choice, may be to destroy every advantage which the Government hopes to obtain from the discovery. Accordingly, in the present instance we treat the mine as an undivided whole, and we take six-tenths of the profits, whatever they are. I do not know the details of this legislation. As I understand, it is agreed by every expert, and I attach more value to the opinion of experts in this matter than to any other, that you cannot work a diamond mine satisfactorily, or economically, except as a whole And, therefore, the mine is to be worked as a whole and we have six-tenths of the profit. The hon. Gentleman talked at great length about the extraordinary fact that, after protesting last night against a monopoly in sugar, I should now establish a monopoly in diamonds. But diamonds are not the food of the people, and for my part I do not care a brass button whether diamonds are dear or whether they are cheap. I quite understand that it is a matter of State profit. That is the only way in which I am interested or concerned in the matter. I quite understand that it would be the killing the goose that lays the golden eggs if you took all the diamonds at once. It may be a far wiser course to keep a considerable number of diamonds in hand as a resource for future generations. If we applied such a system to what are called "black diamonds," it might be a good thing for this country. We are' considering the best way of dealing with the mine in order to obtain the largest return for the State, and the hon. Member says we are creating a monopoly-that will be an evil to the State. That seems to me to be a perfect exaggeration. The hon. Gentleman's second point was the monopoly of dynamite. There, again he had the nightmare of De Beers about him. So far as I could make out, he confused De Beers with what is called the local factory. At all events, so far as I could gather, he was reading something about the protection of local industries and seemed to believe that it was De Beers. If so, he is entirely mistaken. The question of our protecting local industries concerns only the-original factory at Bloemfontein, a factory which was established by Germans under the Transvaal rule. Against that factory he says, and says truly, we protested, but not for the reason that he suggests. We said we had no power or right to interfere in tins matter if it was a monopoly working for the benefit of the State, because in that case the State would be able to draw its share of the revenue from the industry. What we complained of was that, contrary to the Convention, which provided equal commercial rights for all people, it was a monopoly which did nothing whatever for the State, and was conducted solely in the interests of a particular individual or a particular firm. When we came, I need scarcely say that our first object was to put an end to this grotesque monopoly. We found that we could not do entirely without dynamite as a source of revenue, and accordingly the 7s. 6d. a keg was put on as a revenue duty upon all dynamite imported into the Transvaal. That is the chief thing of which the British manufacturers for whom the hon. Member speaks—that is, Kynoch's and 'Nobel's — most bitterly complain. I have strongly represented to the Legislative Council that if they are going to pat on, as they must put on, a revenue duty of 7s. 6d., then they ought to put on an internal Excise duty of equal amount if that is done the local manufacturer will have no advantage whatever over the British importer, except the advantage of propinquity. But the matter is not settled. Like everything else of this kind the matter Las been referred to the Legislative Council, and I shall give due considers hon to anything which that Council, who will have. I believe, in this matter the real interests of the country at heart, may decide upon. Then there is the case of another manufactory, which is the De Beers manufactory, but which is situated in Cape Colony. It is not subject, therefore, to the coastal duty, because it is in South Africa, and the duty for all South Africa is collected at the coast. Neither is it subject at the moment to a Transvaal duty, because the Customs Convention has, as far as possible, done away with all inter-colonial Customs and has made free trade within South Africa. But, having regard to this peculiar and exceptional case, what is suggested is that a special duty of is. 6d. per case shall be put on the De Beers dynamite, and if that is done everybody will he on exactly the same terms. That is the proposal which has been submitted to the Legislative Council at Pretoria, and at present I am waiting for their consideration of it. That is the second great scandal. Now I come to the third—the municipal franchise. The hon. Member is shocked at our inconsistency because, forsooth, we asked for the franchise for the Uitlanders while, he says, we refuse the municipal franchise to the Uitlanders ourselves. We do nothing of the kind. We do not refuse the municipal franchise to the Uitlanders; we do not refuse naturalisation. Our difficulty in the time of the late Republic was that British subjects could not get naturalised. We never claimed for them that they should have votes without being naturalised. On the contrary, it was pointed out to them that if they were naturalised they would give up their British citizenship, and that that was the only condition on which we could claim the franchise for them. We give to the Uitlanders exactly what we asked for ourselves. We say, "You shall be naturalised, if you like, after five years residence, and when you are naturalised you, of course, give up your original citizenship and you will he entitled to all the privileges of British citizenship, including the municipal franchise." That disposes of the charge of inconsistency. Why should we do more than that I it is no more than we asked for ourselves; it is no more than we do here. To my mind it appears to be a perfectly reasonable arrangement, and it was one which I had no hesitation in approving. I deprecate the lone adopted by the hon. Member, and I really do not think it was necessary for him to have spoken with such violence and bitterness. I hope I have succeeded in convincing the Committee that the De Beers malign influence is non really apparent in any of these transactions. The position of the British Indian, which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman, will, I trust, be satisfied in what appears to me to be a reasonable way—that British Indians qualified by education and character to enjoy the franchise should be entitled to it. I admit the great difficulty of dealing with this Asiatic question. I admit there is this strong prejudice against Asiatics, but I would point out that all the praise that is given and all the enthusiasm that is aroused among hon. Members opposite by the decision of the Transvaal and the South African Colonies to exclude Asiatics is precisely on the same lines as the feeling which leads them to treat them as an inferior race when they do get to the Transvaal. My own opinion on this subject has been sufficiently clearly expressed, and I sincerely hope that some reasonable arrangements may be made in the future. I come next to the question of Malta, which is a very simple one. I know the interest the hon. Member for South Kerry takes, not only in the language question, but also in the question of education generally. He has quite generously given me credit for having been considerate in this matter, and for as he says, the three substantial concessions which I was able to make to the desires, I will not say of the population of Malta, but of the elected members. When this matter was last before the House I explained at great length our views, and it is unnecessary to repeat what I then said. What I then did was to withdraw the proclamation which had given, or was said to have given, considerable offence, and which declared that the English language should be the official language of Malta twenty years hence. I said then I never attached any importance to that proclamation; that, on the whole, I was prepared to admit that it had been ill-advised, as it was never worth while legislating for twenty years in advance. And having regard, also, to a certain sentiment which had arisen on the subject in Italy, I was very willing to take the opportunity of yielding. I also yielded, as the hon. Member said, on certain matters of considerable importance, and I expressed a hope that the elected members would recognise this and be conciliatory on their side. But there was one point on which I said His Majesty's Government would never yield—I will go further and say I do not believe any Government who may succeed us will yield on this particular point—and that was that the people of Malta should themselves, personally and individually, not have the choice of the second language which should be taught to their children. I would do everything to make that choice absolutely free, absolutely independent; but I would not take that choice away to please the little knot of elected members who, as I have pointed out before now, have really very little influence with the population. It is quite true they get to be elected members. It is quite true that I should not think of putting up Government nominees, as the hon. Member suggested, to stand against them. But it is equally true that no person in the better-educated classes of Malta will take part in politics and stand for this position. I very much regret it. I think it shows a want of enterprise and even of patriotism, but I cannot alter their decision. I am told it is due to their fear of the bitter and libellous attacks which are made on every one in public life by the local papers, which are carried on by some of the elected members themselves. I have seen those papers, and they certainly are very often extremely scurrilous, and I can quite understand people not accustomed to the rough and tumble of political life thinking it hardly worth while to go through so much to get so little. The position of the elected member is not of so much importance as to justify a man making considerable sacrifices of his personal comfort, and if he takes part against an elected member neither his public nor his private life is safe from his criticism. The policy of the Government is confined, therefore, strictly to seeing that the parents have a personal and individual choice. We will not allow the so-called elected members to speak for them. We think they had better speak for themselves. The hon. Member opposite has been entirely misinformed when he says that the choice is not a free choice, and that the choice of the parents is conveyed through the children. It is nothing of the kind. It is made the most formal act possible. It has to he made either in writing or before two witnesses, and the documents and the evidence of the choice made are carefully preserved, and the records are at the disposal of anyone who desires to see them. How better, in what other way, would it be possible to obtain the personal wishes of the parents in regard to the education of their children? What annoys these elected members is this, that they go to public meetings and are able, as many of us are at meetings of our friends, to pass their resolutions in favour of the Italian language, and that then the very people who have passed these resolutions go back home and sign documents in favour of English. I confess I am gratified. The hon. Member seems to think it very wrong because the Government said they heard with satisfaction the result of the choice of the parents. I really do not think I am at all wrong in expressing my pleasure at finding, in a British colony, this large proportion of native parents selecting the British language in preference to any other. What has happened? The number of parents choosing English in 1898 was 95 per cent., in 1899, 97 per cent., and 1900, 98 per cent. Then there was an agitation, and when it was at its height some of the parish priests, who have, naturally and rightly, a very great interest in their flock, intervened, and suddenly, therefore, the percentage fell from 98 to 75 per cent. But the agitation died away, and the result was that in 1902 the percentage had again risen to 85 per cent. I do not think the hon. Member can make any complaint as to our action in regard to the elementary schools—it is in regard to the lyceums. In the lyceums both languages are offered to all the scholars, and here again I believe a very considerable proportion have what the elected members consider the bad taste to prefer English to Italian, but if they prefer Italian they can have it. The hon. Member called attention to the statement that seven Italian professors are employed and eleven English. Well, I think that is a very remarkable percentage of Italian under the circumstances. When you find that the elementary schools, which necessarily feed the secondary or lyceum schools, choose English in the proportion of 85 per cent., I think it is a remarkable thing that the language which is least popular has nevertheless seven, as against eleven, of the teachers employed. It seems to me we are lending our weight as far as we possibly can in favour of Italian rather than putting it under any disadvantage. The recent action taken by the 6overnment is in accordance with the warning which was distinctly given in my speech of last April, when I discussed this subject. The hon. Member says, "Why did we not give them a little more time?" Time! We have given them time again and again. We begged them to be reasonable. When they have made amendments, if we could do it without any injury to Imperial interests, we have accepted them, even when we have thought them wrong. But what they have said is this, "Unless you give up this doctrine of free choice and allow us, the elected members, to decide for the parents of the children what language they shall be taught, we refuse all the Education Estimates." They retired into that impossible position; they did it again the other day. We gave them another opportunity; they passed one month's Vote. Then it had to be brought forward again, and then they rejected the 11 months which remained. We brought it forward again, and gave them a further opportunity, asking them whether they would not consider the subject once more, but they rejected the whole of the Education Vote. Then the constitution of 1887 was reverted to; that constitution suits us, and I may say it suits them. If I may believe anything that the elected members themselves say it suits them at least as well as the constitution which the hon. Gentleman says we have suspended. We have not suspended it—it has disappeared, and we have reverted to the older system. But how was the system we have got rid of described by the elected members? Were they grateful for it? We had actually given to these people, who were elected at a General Election by 2,000 votes among the lot, out of a population of 180,000, the right to deal as they pleased with the whole finances of the colony—they could refuse any Vote and bring the whole thing to a standstil. We did this relying on their good sense, but I have shown how they dealt with matters in which they differed from us. And they all spoke in the strongest possible terms against even that constitution which gave them absolute power over the purse, as being altogether insufficient for national needs, and they claimed to have not merely representative government, but responsible government, and they would have made our position in the fortress a perfect and absolute farce. They played this ridiculous game a little too long, but now I am confident that we shall have no further trouble. Passing from that, I feel sorry I am unable to concede what my hon. friend the Member for the Abercromby Division asked me so gracefully. He does not ask it of me personally, but from the State, and there I have a certain public duty to fulfil. It is in accordance with that duty that I am obliged to refuse his application. He applied for compensation for certain Liverpool firms whose property was destroyed during a rebellion which took place at Sierra Leone. Well, the common law and general practice of all countries is that in such cases the liability rests with the individual, and the State is not liable. Where either foreigners or its own subjects reside in a country under these conditions they must take all the risks, and the State is not liable for damage done to them either by insurgents in a rebellion, or by His Majesty's forces in repressing a rebellion, if they have proceeded in a reasonable way. It is not contended for a moment that in this ease His Majesty's forces did net proceed in a reasonable way, and it is perfectly certain that if they had not destroyed some of these sheds or factories the insurgents would have done so, and would have seized for their use all the stores they contained. Although, therefore, I have every sympathy with the persons v ho have suffered, just as I should have if, without any rebellion at all, the factories had been Burnt down, or any other accident had happened to them, yet I cannot make a precedent which would be so very far-reaching. Such a precedent might be applied so widely that I really do not know in what position the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be, or what unforeseen obligations might not be cast upon us. I fear we must adhere to what has been Almost our invariable rule in these matters, and say that this is one of the chances which have to be considered by those who engage in trade under such circumstances, and who, I cannot help thinking, are apt to take such chances into consideration when they fix the rate of profit on their manufactures.

asked whether ex-Civil servants of the late Transvaal Government would be employed by Lord Milner in our Civil Service at Pretoria. He hoped we were not going to make the mistake made by Sir Theophilus Shepstone.

Where they are suited to the work he is not proscribing them in any way.

said he desired to call attention to the condition of affairs in the Fiji Islands. It was some thirty years ago since regulations were introduced for the better government of the Fiji natives, which were intended solely and wholly for their benefit. The idea was that the Government should act as a sort of co-operative store to whom the natives could sell their produce; but the Fijians never relinquished their sovereignty over the islands. Whatever regulations might have been made by-Sir Arthur Gordon, he believed they were utterly out-of-date and insufficient for the carrying out of the work of civilisation and the settlement of those islands. It was common knowledge that a large amount of forced labour was employed in those islands to the detriment of the Fijian natives, and they complained most bitterly that they were not allowed to work when they pleased and for whom they pleased, and they might be said in every respect to be the slaves of the Government. He would not for a moment say anything which would tend to make the administration of affairs there more difficult, and he did not mean to make any attack upon the Colonial Secretary, who was, he believed, doing the best he could in the matter. It was, however, his duty to let as much daylight into such places as possible, and he did not think the present state of affairs in Fiji was at all creditable to this country, or that it was in the interests of the natives. Something like a state of forced labour existed there. No doubt it would be said that it was a good thing for them to work, and that they would only be in mischief if they did not work. That might be said of a lot of other people besides Fijians. These natives were ordered here and there at the bidding of Government officials, and it was with the very greatest difficulty that those officials could be kept within fair bounds, and the tyranny which was inherent in human nature constantly broke out in dealing with people of this kind. The natives complained that they were set to work on Government roads, and had to act as police and work at places thirty or forty miles away from their homes. Their grievances had found vent in a petition which had keen sent to the King. As far as he knew the right hon. Gentleman bad never seen the petition. It was signed by considerably over 10,000 of these natives, and it set out their grievances in a piteous way. Their population was decreasing to a great extent, and they desired not only that their grievances should be formally handed over to New Zealand. The main grievance was that they suffered exactions at the hands of the administrators. They said they were exploited for the benefit of those people, that they were not in any way allowed a free hand, or to do as they pleased, but that virtually and to all intents and purposes they really were slaves. In these days when people really heard of such abuses as had been brought to light in connection with American administration they could not be too particular in endeavouring to throw as much light as they could on the affairs of a large number of His Majesty's subjects, who relied upon the faith, honesty, and goodwill of this country, and had demanded our protection in order that they should enjoy the privilege of living under such a civilization as ours. He had no hesitation in saying that the Fijians were better off 30 years ago than now. They might have more wars then, but they enjoyed themselves to their hearts' content. One of the complaints they made was with reference to forced labour, and another related to deportation. Without rhyme or reason they were taken form one island to another, and though they did not starve, for bountiful nature had provided plenty of food, they suffered in being taken from their wives and families. They were an affectionate and grateful people, to whom it was nothing short of torture to be taken away and thrown on a desolate shore. That was done because the administrators thought it ought to be done. He was justified in demanding for these people a little more freedom from the exactions which were constantly pressed upon them. The tax-gatherer was ever at their door. He had asked the Colonial Secretary a number of Question upon this matter, and from the Answers he had received he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman looked upon it rather sympathetically than otherwise. From all he could learn, the Colonial Secretary was sincerely hopeful that under the present Governor a new stat of affairs would be brought about. There had been one or two special cases brought before the right hon. Gentleman. One referred to a native who was taken out, and upon evidence on which they would not hang the commonest dog, was tied to a tree and cruelly flogged. The right hon. Gentleman, in answering a question on this matter, said the native had committed an abominable outrage on a white woman. It was the first time he had heard the suggestion that that crime had been committed, and he believed that that if such an accusation had been brought forward at the time and found proven the man would have deserved not merely 25 lashes but a good hanging, and he would probably have got it. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed with regard to the flogging of that native. He himself was informed that the man was flogged illegally by order of a resident magistrate. The law required that a medical man must he present when a native man was flogged, and on this occasion there was no medical officer present. The medical officer who should have been there, but who was not asked, was cruelly persecuted because he afterwards endeavoured to throw the light of day on this transaction. Hundreds of natives had been put in prison for signing a respectful petition to the King. It was such a petition as any Member of this House would have signed if it had been put before him. It was not sent back to the administrators because it was felt that severe punishment would fall on those who had signed it, and took part in getting it up. The islands are flourishing. There were over 100,000 people there to whom we ought to pay every respect and attention. The land belonged to them, and he was sorry to say that there were eases, as the right hon. Gentleman would find if he enquired, where large tracts had been acquired most unjustly and without any payment whatever. That showed the necessity of making a searching inquiry into these matters. If such transaction; had taken place, they should be annulled without the slightest delay. He was very glad to have this opportunity of representing the views of a very large portion, he might say the greater portion, of the Fijian population, who deserved to have their grievances carefully and fully enquired into.

said he desired to call the attention of the Colonial Secretary to a special grievance with regard to South Africa. He referred to the way in which military receipts, granted by officers during the late campaign, were being dealt with. There was a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction in South Africa on that subject, and he believed from private information that had reached him, that if there was a strong utterance upon it by the Colonial Secretary it would largely allay the discontent which was felt. The situation was this. The method of securing the money which stood against those receipts was the most unbusiness-like proceeding, or at least very expensive, because long distances must be traversed by those who held them. He was informed that after they had traversed long distances they were informed that having been convened to a particular, Court, they must go to another Court. After travelling a long distance to the second Court, they were in some cases even sent to a third. That was a serious matter for people who were at the door of poverty. Added to that there was the system of compounding, which was considered to be extremely hard. They were convened to one quarter and having gone there at much expense they were convened to another, and sometimes to a third, and after all that they were compounded with on what were considered to be niggardly terms. In this way very considerable discontent had been created. He vas not to be taken as for one moment challenging the action of the authorities in regard to the method of compounding, and he admitted that there must have been exorbitant claims in regard to values. But he said that this ease was to be taken as distinct from that of losses for which compensation was to be paid. This was the ease of receipts granted by the military authorities, and the only question was as to value and not as to quantity. There seemed to be an impression abroad, and he earnestly hoped there was no foundation for it, that part of the inquiry into these receipts was to ask the history and record of the claimant, and that, according to the opinion of the authorities of that record, their appraisement was high or low. This seemed so incredible that he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary would emphatically repudiate any proceedings of that kind. There was a third matter he wished to mention. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in which he stated to the House that these military receipts would be honoured, and nothing in the last months of the history of the war had given more satisfaction in South Africa. On all hands it was admitted that the Dutch farmers, whose properties had been devasted as the result of the war, and who had obtained military receipts, the moment that speech was delivered, went in large numbers to the authorities and presented their receipts. That showed that the Dutch of all kinds of political opinion gladly welcomed the statement and acted upon it. That was the best tribute which could have been made to the right hon. Gentleman after his visit to South Africa. But notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, there were still enormous delays in the settlement of these Dutch farmers' claims, and those which had been disposed of had been settled, it was alleged, on a totally inadequate footing. All he asked was that the right hon. Gentleman would repeat, for the benefit of these Dutch farmers, his authoritative statement that these claims would be promptly and fully met. He had no doubt that the prompt and full settlement of the receipt granted by British officers would have a far-reaching and pacific effect. He had no object to serve except the restoration of peaceful feelings and hearty goodwill amongst these Dutch farmers, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some be able to give some consoling information of the kind he had indicated.

said the right hon. the Colonial Secretary had dealt at length with every question raised in the debate, except that which, in his opinion, was the most important. There was a feeling in Canada, as well as in this country, that the position should be made absolutely clear as to what was known as the German difference with Canada. This was a matter of fair play and justice to Canada, because there had been no Legging on the part of Canada to the Colonial Secretary or to this Government to interfere in the difficulty between Canada and Germany. He knew the Canadians did not like to he represented in any way in the light of beggars. Canadians had a natural pride, and they were justified in the belief that they could make their own fiscal arrangements, and that, when made, they were able to look after them. He was glad to hear the right hon. the Colonial Secretary say that he would do his best to provide a copy of the Debates in the Canadian Parliament in the library. The thing was easy, and he knew that the Canadian Government would put at the disposal of this House not only the Debates, but all their Blue-books. He would ask the Colonial Secretary if, only recently, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said—in regard to the dispute between Canada and Germany—that the first step towards a peaceful solution must come from Germany, and that Canada could not, until then, take any further action. Only the other day the editor of one of the leading papers in Canada was sent over here, by his paper, to see what the reason was for all these difficulties, and all this agitation on matters not only affecting preferential tariffs but in regard to Germany. After all the Colonial Secretary was the chief intermediary between the Canadian Government and His Majesty's Government, and to him they should apply for information, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not know that when he same to make his proposals he would find a large measure of public opinion in Canada was against him? He would ask the right hon Gentleman whether a Resolution or an Address, which had been passed by the Canadian House of Commons in its present session, approving of a measure of justice towards Ireland in regard to the land question, and of a measure for Home Rule, had been received by him, and, if so, why it had not been brought before the notice of this House. He knew a Resolution was passed by the Canadian House of Parliament, and it would be a matter of exceeding in- terest to Members of the British House of Commons to have the document before them. There was also another Resolution to which he invited attention, and he would first offer a word of explanation. Let them consider what elements went to make up the population of Canada. The Colonial Secretary the other night spoke of the people of Canada as his children. Who were those children? First there were 2,000,000 of French Canadians; then there were great numbers of Russians, Poles and Germans, as well as Irishmen. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly call them his children.

Order, order! I fail to see what all this has to do with the Colonial Office Vote.

said he was calling attention to a Resolution which he was sure had reached the Colonial Office from Canada, and which it was desirable should be communicated to the House. It was one asking that the Royal Declaration on the Accession should be changed.

That really has nothing to do with the Colonial Office Vote.

said he understood all communications between the Government and Canada passed through the Colonial Office, and this particular Resolution seriously concerned the French Canadians.

said the Vote really had nothing to do with the composition of the Canadian people. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask if certain documents have been received, or will be presented, but he is not entitled to try and show- why the Canadian Parliament passed a certain resolution.

was sorry the rules of debate were so restricted that he could hardly mention anything. In the Canadian Parliament, of which he was once a Member, a great deal more latitude was granted. He now wished to ask if any representations had been made by the Canadian Govern, meat to the Colonial Office with regard to the purchase in Canada of horses and stock for South Africa.

thought the last speaker was perfectly entitled to ask the Colonial Secretary if he had received any Resolution from the Canadian Parliament, for he was sure hon. Members would be greatly interested if these Resolutions were communicated to them, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Galway City, who, by reason of his wide experience of Colonial Legislatures could well give voice to colonial sentiments, would at least receive a courteous reply to his question. He desired on his own part to inquire whether any decision had been come to by the Commonwealth Parliament with regard to the Australian main contracts, and had that decision been accepted by His Majesty's Government. He understood that the Commonwealth Government refused to enter into a mail contract with this country if coloured labour was employed on any of the steamers carrying mails. It would be as serious thing if the contract were refused on that ground. Personally, he was against the employment of coloured labour on ships subsidised by large sums of public money, but he believed that in certain cased it was almost inevitable. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say if the Commonwealth Government had, on what appeared to many people to be a trivial ground, refused to enter into fresh mail contracts, and if so what course did His Majesty's Government proposed to adopt so as to prevent any interruption of the mail service with Australia and New Zealand.

said there was a question in connection with South Africa which had not yet been touched upon, and that was a question of education, which was creating a very sore feeling in the part of the world. The statement was made that the schools were being used for the purpose of forcing children to learn English contrary to their desires, and endeavouring to wean them from their own nationality. It was a fovourite delusion of Englishmen that if they could only teach other nations English they would became English in feeling, and lose all sense of their own nationality. There never was a greater delusion in the world, and he was sure that every effort made in South Africa to Force, English methods of education on the, children, would only lead to the greatest mischief without bringing the slightest ameliorating effect on the Boers. Let the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the contrast presented by Wales and Ireland, and he would see the absolute folly of supposing that language affected the sentiment of nationality. In Ireland the language of the majority of the Irish people was English; in Wales it was Welsh, and yet the history of the past shewed how dissatisfaction reigned in Ireland, while the very reverse was the case in Wales. If any attempt was made to force on the people of South Africa what was a foreign language it would certainly lead to hostility. The right hon. Gentleman had made reference to Malta, and had said very truly that no child there was compelled to learn English unless the parents expressed a desire to that effect in writing. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to extend to South Africa the principle he had advocated in Malta. He quite recognised that it would be desirable for them to learn English, and he had no doubt that if they were left to follow then own inclinations they would eventually do so, but he was certain that if it was forced upon them they would resent it, and he hoped that any such intention would be abandoned.

, in reply, said he was glad to give the hon. Member the most complete and satisfactory assurance in the sense he desired. There was no attempt to force English on the children of the Boers, and their choice was as free as that of the people of Malta; and if there was any complaint whatever of anything to the contrary he would undertake personally to look into it. He had communicated not merely with Lord Milner, but with the heads of the Education Department in the two colonies. They both understood what was intended, and they both sympathised with it. And he might add that they had agreed to allow the predicants to go into the schools themselves to give teaching in Dutch or religion or any subject they liked, and also to send inspectors of their own appointment to go round the schools and see if there was anything of which they had any right to complain. Of course they had decided how many hours should be given to Dutch teaching, but any complaint either of the character of the teacher, or that he was using his position in order in any way to affect either the religion or the politics of the children, would certainly meet with attention, and they should take care to put a stop to it. In answer to the hon. Member for Clare, with regard to the Australian 'nail contract, it was the case that the Australian Government had informed the Colonial Office that they would no longer join in any contract or subsidy to any line which employed Asiatic labour. The Government had said, on the other hand, that they absolutely refused to put a prohibition on the employment of their fellow subjects in those ships, and, therefore, the position was that when he present contract came to an end, they should each have to make their own arrangements. Australia would have a service served by all white men, and we should continue with our service served as at present by Lascars as well as white men. The matter, however, was not immediate, because the contract did not terminate till 1905. In answer to the hon. Member for Galway City, he had not heard that anybody had ever accused the Canadians of begging, and certainly he had not done so. What they had done was contained in the publications that were before the House, and everybody must learn for himself from them what the attitude of the Canadian Government had been. He had no knowledge of private correspondence with Sir Wilfrid Laurier such as has been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, and no statement such as that quoted had been brought before him. Then the hon. Member for the Border Burghs made a complaint as to the distribution of money for compensation for military receipts; he had an idea where the complaints came from, they might be true, but he did not believe they were but the only way to deal with them was for those who received complaints to send them to him, and he would make inquiry into them. Of course he could not go into them for ever, and if he found they were false in the instance, no doubt hon Gentlemen would be satisfied with that assurance. The matter, however, was one of the greatest difficulty. The claims numbered, certainly, more than 100,000. There had been most grievous attempts at swindling, and a good number of them, he was afraid, had been successful. They could not hurry the matter more than they were doing. In regard to the question raised by the lion, Member for Orkney, they had in Sir H. Jackson it Governor who had shown the greatest ability, and he was, at the present moment, conducting an examination into the whole situation in the Fiji Islands. He would, however, warn hon. Members against being misled by information which was not to he relied upon. He did so because he saw the other day a meeting had been addressed by a particular gentleman who had recently been on a voyage to those islands, and if that gentleman was in any sense the informant of the hon. Member opposite, then he would warn the hon. Member that that gentleman's information was not to be relied on. The fullest inquiry would be made, and he hoped it might have good results. He did not think there was nay general desire on the part of the natives, such as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, to be annexed to New Zealand, but if there were it would raise a very difficult question in regard to Australasia, because Australia was as anxious as New Zealand in this matter. He hoped he might now take the Vote.

said he would like to repeat the Question he had put before, which was not answered by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table the whole of the Resolutions passed this session by the Canadian Government, which, he understood, were addressed to the British Parliament.

No, Sir. They were not addressed to this Parliament, or they would have been sent to Mr. Speaker.

May I ask to whom they were addressed?

Not to you.

The hon. Gentleman says the Resolution as to Home Rule was not addressed to me. May I be allowed to tell him that as a matter of fact it was. It was addressed to me in this regard, that it was addressed to the Home Rule Party, of which I am one. It declared that the Members of the Canadian Parliament were quite in accord with us in our demand for Home Rule.

Order, order. The statement of the hon. Member shows this has nothing to do with the Colonial Office Vote.

No, Sir, I would not have been led into it except by the enthusiastic interruption of the hon. Gentleman opposite, whose constituency I am sure I don't know. I ask with all respect a Question which I think ought to be answered by the Colonial Secretary. I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can state to whom the Resolution passed with reference to Home Rule in Ireland by the Canadian Parliament was addressed. Was it sent to anybody in this country? Was it sent to the Colonial Office?

I think the communication was sent to the Colonial

May I have a copy of it?

Surely the hon. Member does not want a copy of it. He says it was sent to him.

I said it was addressed to me as a member of the Home Rule party. I wish to know whether I can have an official copy of what was sent to the right hon. Gentleman.

Oh, yes, I will send it, certainly.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will send a copy to the hon. member opposite also.

rose to continue the debate, when

rose in his place, and claimed to move,— "That the Question be now put."