To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill providing compensation to the owners of animals purchased at full market value in open market but subsequently condemned for alleged tuberculosis; whether he will in the meantime arrange that a uniform system of inspection of native meat shall be arranged, and that imported, especially boneless, meat shall be inspected in a similar fashion. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I could not promise to introduce a Bill on the subject referred to in the first part of the Question pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis. Legislation would be necessary to secure a uniform system of meat inspection, but a Report to the Local Government Board by Dr. Buchanan, one of their medical inspectors, has lately been issued on administration in London with regard to pigs affected by tuberculosis, which will no doubt receive the consideration of local authorities, and will, I hope, lead to some improvement in the present system.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state if any inspection is made of the boneless meat imported into Great Britain; whether he will cause inquiries to be made; and whether he has any official information showing that this imported boneless meat is being extensively used to make sausages advertised and sold as native pork sausages. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that inspection of imported boneless meat is frequently made at the Central Meat Market in London, and also to some extent by officers of Metropolitan borough councils. I cannot say how far such inspection is made elsewhere in England and Wales, with which I am alone concerned, but I will consider how far it may be practicable to obtain information on the subject. I am informed that in London packages of American "pork cuttings," which are included in the boneless meat above referred to, are sold at the Central Meat Market to sausage makers, but I do not know whether sausages manufactured from these pork cuttings are advertised or sold as native pork sausages.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state when the Report of the Royal Commission on Bovine Tuberculosis, especially respecting the experiments being carried on at Stanstead Farm, will be issued. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that the Royal Commission have a Report in preparation, together with an Appendix containing the details of a large amount of experimental work. I cannot say precisely when it will be issued, but I am informed that it is being pressed forward as speedily as practicable.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland having regard to the common object of all land purchase legislation to deal with the fee-simple, and to the duress under which tenants are now being forced to sign agreements to purchase something less than the fee-simple, leaving in the vendors' hands rights likely to become onerous and sources of further trouble, whether he will protect purchasing tenants against such duress by requiring, in all such cases, proof of their free consent. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) No evidence has reached me to show that such duress as is mentioned in the Question exists to any material extent. The Commissioners have full powers to refuse to make an advance in the case of any agreement which may have been obtained by duress, and they exercise their powers accordingly.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Colonel Smythe, of Collinstown, West Meath, has offered to sell his estate to his tenants, and that the attempted sale has failed owing to his refusing to reinstate two evicted tenants, both of whose farms, are still uutenanted; and whether the Estates Commissioners have approached or will approach this owner in accordance with Section 4 of the Regulations now in force. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have had this case under consideration, and are making inquiries into it.

TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what action the Government propose to take to restrain landlords who, having offered to sell their estates at exhorbitant prices, are now suing the tenants who rejected those terms for rack rents and arrears of rack rents. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Government have no power to take any action interfering with the legal rights possessed by landlords. In any case of a difference as to price in which the Estates Commissioners think that their action as conciliators can aid the parties in arriving at an amicable arrangement they are at liberty to offer their good offices.

TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the real reason why the Local Government Board have disallowed the application of Christopher Clinton for a cottage and plot in the scheme now promoted by the Delvin District Council under the Labourers' Acts, the reason alleged that the applicant is unmarried having been disregarded in other cases. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) This Question is based on a misapprehension. The Local Government Board have not disallowed the application referred to, for the reason that the case has not come before them. No representation on behalf of Clinton has been submitted to the Board.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the County Dublin County Council, and a number of elected public bodies in Ireland, have passed resolutions protesting against the withdrawal of the £12,000 annual grant for the teaching of Irish, and also asking for the immediate reconstitution of the National Board of Education upon a representative and elective basis; and whether he can state what the Irish Government proposes to do in regard to those matters. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Resolutions to the effect mentioned have been received and will be duly considered. The Question as to the provision to be made for the teaching of Irish after 30th June, 1906, is engaging my careful attention, and communications on the subject are passing between the National Board, the Treasury, and myself. I am not in a position to make any statement as to any future reconstruction of the National Board.

In accordance with private notice, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to institute a further enquiry into the question of the wages and conditions of the postal servants; and if so, can he state what will be the nature of the enquiry?

After careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, I have come to the conclusion that a further enquiry is necessary into the position of the principal classes of postal servants. The Government have therefore decided to appoint a Select Committee of the House of Commons to enquire into the question of the adequacy, or otherwise, of their renumeration, having regard to the conditions and prospects of their employment with a view to the settlement of the question.

asked whether the postmasters and sub-postmasters would be included in the scope of the enquiry.

asked for notice of a question with regard to the actual scope of the enquiry. He added that he did not think the enquiry could be extended to every class in the service, but the matter would have consideration.

I beg to give notice that on an early day I shall move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Equalization of Rates (London) Act 1894.

said that the position of a member of the Unionist Party in addressing the present House of Commons was the most inspiring one that the history of the House of Commons had ever presented to any one who had a natural taste for facing fearful odds for the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his gods, or for any other cause. Such, for instance, as the fiscal question; but in view of the announcement of the Prime Minister that he would shortly give a day for that subject, he was not going to deal with it now. He hoped, however, that the hon. Gentlemen would not think he wanted to run away from it.

Where did you go last year?

said he followed his leader—unwillingly. And before long hon. Members opposite would find they sometimes had to follow their leader unwillingly. There was nothing in his record to justify the suggestion that he was likely to run away from that or any other question in which he was engaged. He would be very ungrateful if he ran away from the fiscal question, because he gave it a prominent place in a recent experience with the result that he was able to address the House that day. But before he spoke of the unprecedented size, and character, of the majority they had to face, might he be permitted, as one who for twenty years in that House had watched the formation of Ministries—from a distance he had no particular desire to lessen, and therefore could give a disinterested judgment—to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on the principles that had guided him in the selection of his Ministers? Broadly based in the origins of its appointments; selected without reference to private friendships, and even in unnatural disregard, if they presented themselves to him, of the fond ties of family affection; collecting together all the best intellects and talents the Party could provide; permeated, perhaps dominated, by fresh blood; the Ministry presented in its personal aspects an undoubted claim to their respect. Of course, there was a background to the picture. It remained to be seen how long the Gentlemen, hon. and even right hon., who sat on that Front Bench as representatives of principles which were fundamentally incompatible, and of interests which could never be welded together, would be able to resist the pressure of the heterogeneous groups from which they were derived. For the sincerity, or impatience, as the case might be, of these varied groups would not easily be satisfied with that curious change that always took place in the champions of extreme, sometimes violently extreme, views as soon as they donned the comforting garb of office. The sobering, not to say sterilising, influence which attached to a seat on the Front Bench would be sadly discouraging to the ardent patriots behind and below it, and opposite to it. Each group of those Members owned some special cause or aim, on which it thought the salvation of the country depended. Each had been sent here on the strength of some isolated promise which could probably never be fulfilled, but which the group thought ought to be fulfilled at once, and each would want to be at the head of the great march of progress and reform which this wonderful Government had announced, and which would lead they themselves knew not whither. Might he be permitted to enumerate a few of the elements of this great majority? There were the Irish Members, who did not count for his purpose, because they, apparently, were satisfied with the treatment their favourite had received at the hands of Ministers. That ill-used partner whom they flirted with so violently in the ante chamber, they seemed to have left in a dubious position the moment they found themselves in the big ball-room, surrounded by a respectable domestic circle. The Welsh Members would want to know why the President of the Board of Trade did not disestablish the Church in Wales before the Chief Secretary for Ireland paid so much attention to "a spirit regardful of the wishes and sentiments of the Irish people." And the English Liberal Members who—in spite of the extraordinary inference drawn by the hon. Member for Waterford last night that this election had given a majority in favour of Home Rule—won their elections on condition that they would oppose Home Rule, would want to know just what this phrase in the King's Speech meant. If it meant something that would satisfy the Home Rulers it surely did not mean anything that will satisfy some English Liberal constituencies. And the group led by the hon. Member for Hanley, who had got something, would want to know why they did not get more. And the group led by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil who had got nothing, would want to know why they had not got something, and why the President of the Local Government Board did not municipalise all our industries. The right hon. Gentleman and he had had many bouts across the floor of this House. But no one in this House or outside of it could lie more sincere in his congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on attaining a distinction to which his abilities, his energy, his perseverance, and his eloquence richly entitle him. It would be observed that he did not include his policy. Upon that territory the right hon. Gentleman and he would no doubt soon be able to resume their former embittered relations. To proceed, this group would want to know why the land and the railways were not nationalised, why the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India did not agree to the principle of grants being made to the unemployed from the national funds, and why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not establish old-age pensions from the same source. Further, the Party formerly led by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Member for Northampton, whose absence from the House all humourists would deplore, and now led by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who, with all his distinguished abilities, did not supply that special want—the Party that used to be called the advanced Radical section, which now represented a somewhat indistinct fossil of a past Parliamentary age, would want to know why it was shouldered out of place and its living taken away from it by these new groups, and why the particular issues which it used to put forward were not preferred to new inventions it never thought of. In particular, that Party would want to see that the Boers, whose cause it espoused when they were fighting with Englishmen, were more successful when the question of the constitutional organisation of the Empire came up for consideration. They would want to see that the pro-Boer cause was secured before any theoretic advantages of the great Radical principle of one vote one value were considered; and that the Boers were given a permanent electoral predominance in the Transvaal before responsible self-government was finally passed for that Colony. The Liberal Imperialists would watch the Under-Secretary for the Colonies—who sat like a rare and showy exotic on a front Bench so crowded with more natural flowers—to see that he did not, in his way, or in any other, give the Little Englanders an unfair advantage. The Little Englanders would watch the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to make sure that he took the narrowest view of our alliance with Japan, and did not enter into any other equally courageous and beneficent treaty. The Labour Members at large would look askance at the Radical capitalists to see how far they carried out their promises to organised labour which had gained many of them their big majorities; and Radical capitalists would ask why their large subscriptions to the Party fund should be utilised for inroads on the stability of capital. But all these varied groups and parties and section, each indignant at its own claim being postponed to the rest, would, it was said, unite on the one common ground held by the Nonconformist conscience. Each and all of them had contributed at the recent election to further in flate a balloon which for four years had had carefully pumped into it the poisonous gas of sectarian animosity; and they would all with one accord consent to give priority to the President of the Board of Education when he brought forward his Bill to banish definite religious instruction from the childhood of a Christian country. ["Oh!" and "Will he?"] He would answer that question as far as was possible. By definite religious instruction he meant of course denominational religious instruction, which many of them believed to be the only method of making religious instruction effective in the grownup life of the individual. The intrinsic or immediate value of denominational or doctrinal instruction to a child might not be very great; but as giving him a faith in which he would believe, a religious community to which he would belong in after-life, a definite and authoritative form of religion in which he could trust and from which he could derive the benefits that religion supplied, denominational religious instruction was the only safeguard. If they were to continue this, not as an "extra," out of school hours, which would make children hate it, but as an essential element in that phase of the child's early life which impressed him most—his education—in what respect were they going to alter the existing Act? He understood it was not proposed to continue it. Nor, as far as he could gather, was it proposed to make elementary education purely secular. Only one other way remained open: to invent a new form of religion, Call it what they would; whether it differed from the present forms or included them all—which was an impossibleassumption—it would still be a new form of religion. There would be plenty of opportunities for discussing the question, and he would not stop to do so now. He only wanted to outline broadly the position of the great Liberal Party, which, dissatisfied apparently with the existing Christian faiths, was to become like those mushroom communities of the Western world—the Mormons, or Harrisians, or Shakers—and in the year 1906 was to set out in quest of a new religion to teach the childhood of England. Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, Church people—of course all so-called Nonconformists, for they gladly accepted the idea—were all to become Birrellians. ["Oh"!] And like Joseph Smith, who discovered the Mormon Bible under a stone, the President of the Board of Education was to find a new religion under his Treasury box, and call it "The simple truths of Christianity." Did ever Pope of Rome have ambitions quite so large? But why not? They had Nicholas Breakspear at St. Peter's, and now they had St. Augustine at St. Stephen's,—to be supported, he presumed, in his inventive efforts, by all the followers of the Government who owed spiritual allegiance to Pius X. In the various elements of this great majority there was one that interested him more than all the rest, not only for the cause it represented, but by reason of the new attitude it had assumed. He meant that of the Labour Members. They had thrown off the bonds by which they had hitherto been enslaved to one political Party; they had formed themselves into a separate Party, with a separate programme, and separate whips, thereby enormously gaining in the respect of their own supporters, of the country at large, of the Party to which he had the honour to belong, and of every section of opinion except—if the real truth were known—of the Party opposite. He would be the last to question—no one who had any regard for the true principles of representative Government would question—the right of labour to be directly represented in Parliament. It gained that right not only by virtue of being one of the great component parts of this nation, but by the stronger title of being a fundamental part of every civilised society, and one of the two bases on which the structure of every industrial country was organised; and it had a perfect right not only to be represented in the councils of the nation, but to be represented in what way it liked, and by whom it chose. But hitherto the representatives of labour had presented themselves to Parliament as mere agents of the Radical Central Office. He congratulated them on their emancipation from that equivocal, if not contemptible, position which, justly or unjustly, they had, with rare exceptions, hitherto occupied in the political world. The House of Commons would watch with interest the bonâ fides of their new attitude; and just in proportion as their proceedings were freed from those influences, he ventured to say that although they might not gain the adhesion—might indeed meet with the determined opposition—of those who saw in their demands injustice to other classes or far-reaching dangers to the commercial stability of this country, they would earn the respect that was never denied to purity of motive and independence of action. One thing more, remained to be said about this great majority. It was called a solid English majority. No; it was a Chinese majority. It was a majority gained by the grossest misrepresentations of the subject of Chinese labour in South Africa. These were spread broadcast over the land amongst the working classes, and were aided by the disgraceful pictorial weapons that were now so well known. And it was not only the misrepresentations by word and picture. It was the implied promise that was made, the promise that caused such a wild scene of enthusiasm at the Albert Hall, the promise that hardly a working man who supported them took in any other sense than that a Radical Government the moment they got into power would do away with this horrible thing. The thing which had been denounced for nearly two years, which in the election was held up on every platform, as a hideous, cruel and dishonouring thing to exist under the British flag, as a gift to the mining magnates, as taking the bread out of the mouths of white men in South Africa—yes, and as a thing likely to be introduced into this country—this surely would go like a shot, the moment the Radical Party was put into power. Did the right hon. Gentleman think his lame announcement of last night would satisfy this anticipation? The House really did not know yet what the Government was going to do about it. Was it really to be left to a responsible representative government in the Transvaal? That would secure its continuance, unless the Government wore going to rig the constitution they granted, in order to justify their electoral method. That would place the Transvaal permanently in the hands of the Boers. Did they think England, or the Empire would stand that? What was the real question involved in this matter? It was not white labour. It was not Chinese slavery. The question was whether in a country where the native population outnumbered the white by five to one, the mining industry and all other industries were to be at the mercy of the native population. All other industries which employed white men were dependent on the mining industry. Nine-tenths of the revenue of the country was derived directly from that industry. Even agriculture was dependent upon it for a market for its products. What was the position before Chinese labour was introduced? The mining industry could not get enough Kaffirs to work the mines.

Why did they not pay them better wages?

was sure hon. Members would see that after detaining the House so long he could not go into the whole of this question. He could not go into its financial aspects. ["Oh!"]. Very well, he would say briefly that the cost of mining, even with the low wages paid to Kaffir and Chinese unskilled labour, did not even now provide a fair dividend. It did not give a "living wage," so to speak, to the investor. The mining industry tried everywhere. They sent to Central Africa; they sent to the West Coast; but they could not get Kaffirs to carry on that industry. What did this state of things mean? The country depended on the mining industry. The natives knew that the mining industry, and therefore the country, was in their power. But how little hon. Members opposite considered what it mean for this vast black population to feel that they had the upper hand in one of those countries. "What do they know of England who only England know?" How little did we here, living under law and order, know of the life in those far-off countries which our race had added to the glory of the Crown, but where justice and liberty could only slowly be built up, by first recognising the primitive truth, that "Might is right." How little did we know—whose daily life had the strong arm of the law behind it, and whose rights and property were protected by an ordered executive and a pure judiciary—of the difficulties and anxieties our countrymen had to face with those; great native populations, the awful catastrophe that would ensue if once the supremacy of the white man was in danger. That danger was averted by Chinese labour, because it taught the natives that they no longer held the mining industry in the hollow of their hand. On this question of Chinese labour, the Government had placed itself in a cleft stick, and it would remain there, a monument of the folly of any great political Party winning its way to power in this country, not by the promise of sober statesmanship, but by exaggerated appeals to the passions and ignorance of men.

hoped the hon. Member who last spoke would understand that the cries of dissent which greeted some of his observations were not intended in any discourteous spirit to himself, but were due to the fact that this subject always aroused angry feelings. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would permit him to say that the doctrines he advanced towards the end of his speech were more suitable to a Parliament of 500 years ago than of the present day. The hon. Member had explained that the real reason of the introduction of Chinese labour was to show the Kaffir that he had not the right to sell his labour at what price he pleased—that the whole force of the British Empire was to be used to import blackleg labour to stop a strike. ["No."] He had no wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman.

I think you have done so.

I certainly understood him to say and mean that Chinese labour was introduced in order to prevent the Kaffir from successfully striking for higher wages.

I never said that. I said that Chinese labour was introduced, because Kaffir labour could not be got. At the same time, I explained that I could not go into the financial question, but I did say it was financially impossible for the mining interest to pay higher wages.

said that the lion. Member added that it would be unfortunate if the Kaffir felt, and indeed it was essential he should not believe, that he held the mining industry in the hollow of his hand. The Kaffir had an opportunity of striking for higher wages, and the introduction of Chinese labour deprived him of the opportunity. But the whole question had been dealt with as if it were confined to South Africa. It was all part of the great question of labour and of the restrictions to be placed on employers buying labour in the cheapest market. He would like to be allowed a few moments in order to state the really definite and prominent grounds of their objection to this abominable system, and in doing so perhaps he might be allowed to reply to a question asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham on the preceding night. The right hon. Gentleman complained of a cartoon depicting Chinamen in a servile attitude, and he asked if it did not show that the Chinaman was not as free as he was.

said he was sorry that the hon. Gentleman should base his argument upon a mistake. What he himself stated to the House was that the cartoon represented the Chinese, with their hands behind their backs, and that he thought it represented them as in a servile position, and was intended to imply that their hands were tied behind their backs. He asked whether the House really thought the Chinaman was intended to be represented as free as he was. His whole point was that, inasmuch as the cartoon led to the belief on the part of a great many people that the Chinaman was in a state of slavery, it was about time to clear it up.

agreed that it was about time to clear it up, and he trusted that they would now be able to do so. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the Chinese were approximately, broadly speaking, as free as he was. That was the point of his argument—that it was unfair to produce a placard showing the Chinaman not as free as the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Showing them as slaves.

No, showing them as in a servile position. At last they had an opportunity in that House of stating the case freely, and, as he hoped, with justice and moderation. These men were not free in any single particular, and he thought he would be able to show that from every legal point of view, as apart from a moral point of view, they were in the position of slaves with a time limit. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that slavery consisted of ill-treatment. That was not in the least the ease. The first speech that Mr. Gladstone—the greatest upholder of liberty this country had known—delivered was confined to showing that the slaves on the estate of a relative were not ill-treated. Nor were they; but would anybody say the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of slavery. No, the question of ill-treatment had nothing to do with it. Neither did the question whether the condition was voluntary or involuntary necessarily decide the point as to whether it constituted slavery or not. There were certain specific things laid down in British law which all citizens must have as a right; otherwise they were not free men. First, a man could not contract himself out of his right to hold property. That had been the first sign of a free man from the time of ancient Greece until now, and if the right hon. Gentleman would study the innumerable books on constitutional law, he would find the doctrine plainly laid down that to renounce the right to hold property was a badge of slavery. The Chinaman renounced that right by contract. Secondly, a man could not renounce his right to liberty of movement in his spare hours. The Chinaman renounced that right. Thirdly, and perhaps the most important, a man could not renounce his right to raise himself in the social scale by his skill and his industry. That was what the Chinaman did under this contract. Fourthly, a man could not renounce his right to reside where he pleased, and how he pleased at the expiration of his contract. That was the root of the whole evil. It was the desire to exploit the labour of people whom they could not and would not admit as potential citizens, that had caused the trouble, and would cause endless trouble until the whole thing was swept away He begged the right hon. Gentleman to recollect that, he was not quoting the opinions of persons who issued leaflets in his constituency, but the opinions of all the great legal authorities, from Lord Mansfield down to the present day. It was indeed strange that a great imperial statesman should have consented to a scheme of labour so degrading that it excluded our own Indian fellow subjects. It had been said that they were not excluded, but he would like to draw attention to a telegram sent in January by Mr. Lyttelton in which he said that the provisions of the Ordinance if applied to Indian subjects would probably be objected to. He was glad to know that, as a fact, they were objected to, for he held that what was not good enough for British Indian subjects ought not to be treated as good enough for any other-man, black or yellow. We were not alone in the endeavour to raise the standard of civilisation by revising the treatment of servile labour. In his Message to Congress President Roosevelt, dealing with Hawaii, said—

"That territory has serious commercial and industrial problems to reckon with, but no-measure of relief can be considered which looks to legislation admitting the Chinese and restricting them by statutes to field labour and domestic service. The status of servility can never again be tolerated on American soil."

The answer they would make to the right hon. gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham was that it would not be tolerated on British soil either, and when he said that there had been misrepresentation in the matter they would reply that it was true that there had been, but that it had been used by those who had endeavoured to deceive the people into believing that this was a tolerable system, whereas it was a system which the whole American people emphatically condemned. When he asked that the criminals should be punished they must retort that the criminals sat on the Front Bench opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: Did so.] Well, some of them were no longer Members of the House, but the most important of all sat there now. He supported His Majesty's Government in the action which they had taken, and he was grateful for the reforms announced by the Prime Minister; but one thing more he would ask, and that was that they should not in the same breath say that this thing was intolerable and wrong, and that they would leave it to the responsible Government of the colony to decide whether the wrong should be continued. He was glad that the Prime Minister said yesterday that when he declared that the question of Chinese labour or no Chinese labour was to be referred to the Transvaal, he by no means inferred that the question of the conditions under which that labour was to be allowed was a matter of indifference to the people of this country and to the Empire at large. He only asked that it should be stated clearly and emphatically, and, if possible, before the close of the debate, that the principle on which the British Empire rested was that those who came under the flag, if they were to come under it at all, must be free. It might be said that they could not dictate to a self-governing Colony, but they had done it again and again in far less important matters, and they could easily lay down the principle that 'Free or not at all" was the motto of the British Empire. This must be done at once, because delay would only do great harm and continue the uncertainty which now existed. It might be said that free countries did not impose servile conditions, and that in granting a free constitution to the Transvaal it would not be necessary to impose conditions in regard to this. But there was a peculiar danger in the Transvaal which was not wholly free. It was said that there were seven wealthy men in this House who had it in their power to cause great hardships to hundreds of thousands of labouring men. Well, there were five very wealthy men in South Africa who had it in their power to cause infinite suffering to almost every labouring man and woman on the Rand. The Press was not free, the whole country was under a blight, and, therefore, the Government should at once frankly state its ideals of British liberty. It must show it was no longer under the thumb of the mining groups of the Band. Duty, honour, and wisdom pointed alike to the courageous course, and he earnestly begged the Government to follow it.

I do not desire to speak at any great length on this question of Chinese labour because I have no doubt there will be discussion on the question at a later stage. But I think that the speech of the hon. and gallant Member raises one of those issues which might with advantage be taken at once. It was pointed out last night that it is not and could not be within the power of a small minority in the House greatly to influence the acts of a powerful Government such as we now see opposed to us. I think, therefore, it is well we should confine ourselves as far as may be to those great issues to which we attach special importance, and should remember that there is entrusted to us as much as to hon. Members opposite the honour of this country to which we all belong. The Prime Minister was a little misinformed when last evening he said that what happened in the recent election was paralleled by what took place at the last general election with regard to the disproportion between the number of votes cast for each Party and the number of Members returned for the same Party. The Prime Minister was not correct in saying that the disproportion was less at the general election just concluded than at any former election. I think the present election forms an unrivalled case and I believe that, strictly speaking, the proportional representation of the Government would be a majority of twenty-five over this side of the House. But, be that as it may, we must be content with the arrangement to which we are accustomed and which is not peculiar to this or that election. The Unionists returned to the present Parliament represent not an inconsiderable minority, but a large and powerful section of opinion which will look to us to voice as continuously as we can what we believe to be their feeling. One of those occasions seems to have arisen now. We are face to face with the discussion of a principle which has been the dividing line betweeen the two Parties since the election began. In the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, I hardly recognise the description which he gave when he said that for the first time we were discussing this question with justice and moderation. I hope some of the speeches previously delivered have been characterised by both justice and moderation. But I want to draw the attention of the House to the very strange doctrine of which we have heard a great deal during the last two days. I speak on behalf of the very small minority in this House, but I speak also on behalf of a great many people in the country who have keenly felt the attacks which have been made upon their countrymen who are not able to defend themselves. The charge brought against the Unionist Party on the question of Chinese labour is that they have deliberately countenanced the commission of a felony for base purposes, for slavery is a felony under the law of England. The hon. and gallant Member has declared that those who made arrangements by which slavery was carried out came within the penalty of the law. It has been said that slavery exists in British Africa. But is it true that this felony has been committed? We know that the instructions given to commanders of British ships are to capture any ship carrying on the slave trade. Has this been done? The charge I say is a very grave one. Still there is a strange divergence of doctrine on this question of Chinese labour. The Prime Minister did not say that it was slavery; he used a very carefully-guarded phrase and called it a "servile condition." I suppose we may chop logic as to what is a servile condition, but I will undertake to say that the definition may be applied to a great many conditions of labour which all of us accept. In what respect does it differ from the conditions under which natives of our Indian Empire have been employed in other parts of the world? There are differences no doubt. The right hon. Gentleman said the objection was that these people had not the power of return. Is it part of his policy that they should be allowed to remain when their contract is completed? I will go a little further. Another member of the Government, Lord Crewe, speaking last night in the House of Lords, said—

"I never used the word slavery because I do not regard it as an accurate term, and I do not suppose it was regarded as an accurate term even by those who used it. It is regarded generally as a descriptive term."

That is a very convenient phrase, and if I wanted to find a convenient phrase to indicate something absolutely false, I should now use the expression "a descriptive term." I am not competent to judge between these high authorities. But while the Prime Minister says he does not regard this as slavery, hon. Members opposite say they do so regard it; I want to know by which doctrine we are to stand. I quite agree that the hon. and gallant Member is perfectly logical, and if he is right the Government should not wait another day before this felony is put an end to. If, on the other hand, this "servile condition" is something compatible with the law of England, some apology is due to those who have been compelled day after day to listen to the traducing of their fellow countrymen for an offence which they have not committed. If the diagnosis of the hon. and gallant Member is correct this is a tremendous disease. What are the remedies considered appropriate to it? It is proposed for one thing that there should be a modification of the Ordinance of 1905. I have referred to that Ordinance and I do not say that the mitigation may not make some difference in the facility with which crimes are punished, or that it may not give opportunities to those accused of crime to bring their case before a superior tribunal That may be a very good and valuable change. The other change proposed is that the coolies should be allowed to go back to their own country and that their expenses should be paid. Is there anything new in that? This very provision was put in by the late Colonial Secretary, and the idea from the first was that these men should be sent back if they desired to go.

At their own expense.

That is the whole difference. And remember these men are being paid every day of their lives. Now a very pertinent question was asked when this discussion was going on. Someone asked how many will go back.

Thirty per cent.

The hon. Member prophesies 30 per cent. That may be correct or incorrect. There have been a great many inaccurate prophecies, but I do not think even if 30 per cent. go back, that very much touches the moral and the legal side of this question. But what I want to call the attention of the House to is this, that we are dealing with great moral accusations made against a people, and the moral obliquity is not wiped out by making two changes of method. Nor do I believe you are going to satisfy those who have supported you and opposed us by the mere promise of a Commission. I am very curious to see what will be the upshot of placing responsibility upon those who have hitherto been such adepts at denunciation. I remember reading in "The Pilgrim's Progress" how Christian had to bear a burden of sin upon his back, and how he was permitted by Divine grace to drop his burden at a certain place and hasten on towards his goal. But I do not remember, in my version at any rate, that when Christian arrived at that happy spot on his toilsome way that he met a traveller and got rid of his burden by saying "Here, mate, take this," and forthwith strapping it firmly on the other's shoulders, and then gaily skipping on his way towards the Celestial Mountains. With all this commission of crime upon us, are we to discharge this burden upon the Transvaal Legislature? The hon. Member who has just sat down was perfectly consistent, and said do not hesitate, and urged that we should use our plenary power now and here. But that is not what the Prime Minister proposes. I understand him to propose one preliminary measure—I do not know that he has accepted it yet—and that was a Commission of Inquiry to go to the Transvaal and ascertain the facts. What facts? Can it be that during the last six weeks this country has been ringing with denunciations, the air has been clouded with charges against our own people, without any knowledge whether these charges are true or not? What are you going to discover? There have been these cartoons distributed. The Prime Minister said with conscious rectitude that in his constituency they used neither colours nor cartoons. I believe there was no opposition in his constituency. But he said with pardonable pride that in his part of the kingdom people voted for Members on account of their opinions, and not because of their cartoons. But I say the sole object of circulating the cartoons is to promulgate your own opinions, and if it be true that those who promulgated this kind of literature did not believe the lesson that was taught by it, it might be well that in Scotland, and out of Scotland, they should be prohibited from using this kind of persuasion at all.

Birmingham.

I do not think it carried Birmingham at all. It was the deliberate appeal to argument and reason. In the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, for the sake of rounding a period, which in all other respects was finished, he spoke of Birmingham as the Tammany of England. I do not think that remark was as well judged or in as good taste as some other parts of his speech. From my knowledge of Birmingham I think perhaps there is not a place in the United Kingdom which is more singularly unlike Tammany. I have read a report of President Roosevelt's Commission on the question in New York, and I find that the methods of Tammany differ as widely from the methods of Birmingham as black from white, and that the inhabitants of Tammany do not come from Birmingham but from quite another part of the United Kingoom. I do not wish to impart unnecessary heat or matter into my arguments, but I do want in the interests of our Party and of our people both at home and abroad, this question to be cleared up. Does this accusation stand or does it not? It is a most important, matter, because if it does stand it is perfectly clear that we cannot hand over the Administration of the Transvaal to a responsible representative Government. There is of course the tendency which has been manifested in this House this evening to get over this difficulty in a way which I believe will least commend itself of all possible methods of extrication. There has been a tendency to wash our hands of this matter by transferring it, not to a constitutional Government in the Transvaal on the lines on which we should desire to see it established, but to gerrymander the Transvaal Legislature so that we may be sure of a verdict consonant with the view which hon. Members took at the election. I cannot but believe that this country would repudiate any conduct of this kind. There is a point beyond which goodwill, affection, and the love of our species ought not to go. We have heard cited in this House an illustration of the extraordinary generosity of our proceedings in dealing with the South African Republic. There was the example of the United States, which for ten years withheld from the rebellious South the privilege of the franchise. Then there is another case, in which the German Empire, engaged in a war with an enemy who crossed its frontier, at the close of a victorious war gave no legislature to their conquered provinces or any equal franchise, but said that by a certain date every man must elect whether he would be a German subject or clear out of the country, and that every man who remained should serve compulsorily in the German Army, and every child above six should be educated, whether the parents wished it or not, at a German school. I do not cite these examples to suggest that they should be imitated or followed, but I do suggest that the common prudence of all nations does point in this direction, that you should bear in mind whether what you are doing will lead to the final prosperity of our Empire, of those for whom you are legislating; and, if it be in the minds of hon. Members opposite that it is the right way to solve this problem, to get rid of this difficulty by making sacrifices of that kind, then I do entreat them to pause and think what may be the price of what they are paying, even for the security and happiness of their conscience. I do want to know which of these courses we are really to be asked to pursue. Are we really asked to believe that all these charges which have been made are true, or are we to be asked to believe that they have been grossly exaggerated? Hon. Members opposite have been far too careless in aspersing the good fame of their country. These accusations have gone the length and breadth of the earth. They have been quoted in foreign newspapers and have been cited against us as the deliberate act of our people.

No, the late Government.

In the first place it does not make the slightest difference. When you are making an attack upon the nation, and you cite the case of their Government before foreign countries, you create, and intend to create, the feeling that that nation is doing another injustice.

No.

Even allowing that not to be the case, who are the men who have been held up to reprobation?

You.

No, the accusation made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, with regard to the Leader of the Opposition, entirely falls to the ground. He was not responsible.

Surely he was responsible. He might have protested and did not.

The phrase used by the hon. and gallant Member was that the principal criminal was my right hon. friend. I do not think the phrase was felicitous, and I am sure the accusation falls to the ground. We are too ready—hon. Members on the other side are too ready—for a Party advantage, to asperse generally the character of this country. Would it not have been better before this cry had gone out the length and breadth of the world that we had had this Commission of Inquiry? We all recognised that the right hon. Gentleman spoke with great caution, prudence, and circumspection last night. He said this was a very difficult and complicated question. He said that, above all, they felt they were brought into this question without knowledge, and that they must ascertain whether the charges are true. [Cries of "No."] Then I may assume that the right hon. Gentleman does support them because he knows they are true? I am sure if I misrepresent the Prime Minister I greatly regret it, but I do not think I do substantially misrepresent him, because it is perfectly clear that the whole question of the new administration in South Africa is undoubtedly bound up with these matters, and if we are to have utterances, one on behalf of the Government, and one on behalf of independent Members, showing there is a clear divergence of opinion on this question, it would have been better to wait, and not to make these charges until they were proved.

said he understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was the champion of Chinese labour in South Africa, because he apparently justified all the- late Government had done there, and was proud of their achievements. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham until he was elected—and opinions changed after elections, sometimes—was not so keen a supporter of Chinese labour, and took a more tentative view of it, but after the election he became an ardent supporter of it.

Can the hon. Gentleman quote any distinction between my opinions upon Chinese labour at any time?

Upon Chinese labour of course; the other general question is too big a one to be answered off-hand. It is early in the afternoon, and the House does not sit after midnight. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not responsible for Chinese labour in South Africa.

That is true.

That surprises me, because, if it were a thing of which the right hon. Gentleman was proud, why should he not accept, not the responsibility of a Minister, but the responsibility of a member of the rank and file of the Conservative Party—I beg his pardon, the Protectionist Party. [At this stage Mr. CHAMBERLAIN left the House.] The right hon. Gentleman had often changed his mind, but he had now moved his body from the House, a matter not altogether to be deplored. It would hare been more courteous of the right hon. Gentleman—not that he was any standard of courtesy—if, having asked a question, he had waited for the reply. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not responsible for Chinese labour, and he did not defend it. That completely justified what he had said. During the time the contest was waging in Birmingham, and when the right hon. Gentleman was not sure what was going to happen, he took a more tentative view of Chinese labour than he had subsequently taken in this House. There was one very valuable gem in the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster. He said that might was right. They had might now on the Ministerial side of the House, and he supposed the hon. Member would agree that they were right on every subject.

Yes, and I would point out that I applied that phrase to untutored and ignorant people—in South Africa perhaps.

said he applied it to the other side of the House. He did not, however, rise to take part in the general debate upon Chinese labour in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was returned for that constituency owing to circumstances entirely beyond his control; his return was due less to himself than to the fact that there were two candidates against him. No doubt he would continue to champion Chinese labour, just as they would continue to resist it on the Ministerial side of the House. As a Welsh Member he desired to say that he was exceedingly pleased with the programme of reforms in the King's Speech. There was one great attribute about the new House of Commons, and it was that they were in earnest about work being done; and although it was true that ten years ago Home Rule stood first, and Welsh Disestablishment second—and he would not quarrel with his hon. friends for Ireland as to the position in which Home Rule stood now—he wished to state that the absence of Welsh Disestablishment from the King's Speech did not trouble him at this stage, because the late Government had created such arrears of legislation that it was necessary for the present Government to deal with them at once. There was the Education Act, the Taff Vale decision, and the Unemployed Act. For his own part he did not complain that these matters had taken precedence even of Welsh Disestablishment. Both Mr. Balfour and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had referred to Welsh Disestablishment as being an issue before the country, and therefore they were now estopped from denying that the verdict of the country had been in favour of Welsh Disestablishment. He had always been a moderate man. He did not ask that Welsh Disestablishment should be dealt with first or second, but as long as it was understood that the Government had a mandate to deal with it when the opportunity arose, he was willing to leave the matter to the Government to determine. With regard to education he submitted that Wales presented an opportunity for exceptional treatment, and an opportunity would arise when there might be created a Board of Education for Wales to deal with elementary, secondary and university education. This would not be the first time that Wales had received distinctive treatment. The Leader of the Irish Party had referred to the great majority of four out of every five of the Irish Members being Nationalists, but in Wales the proportion was five out of five, and for the first time in the history of this country, the Principality had returned a solid phalanx of thirty-four supporters of His Majesty's Government. He assured the House that not one of those thirty-four Members could have been elected had he not been a supporter of Disestablishment and Disendowment in Wales. Under those circumstances no doubt the Government would take this question into account. He hoped they would sit late into August, and even into September, to pass the measures contained in the King's Speech. He was interested in this question because he did not expect Disestablishment until the arrears of legislation had been cleared off. In spite of this omission, he was glad to support His Majesty's Government in the programme of reforms foreshadowed and embodied in the King's Speech.

said that before this irregular discussion came to an end, he wished to make some observations in reference to Ireland. Apart from anything in the King's Speech, or in the speech of the Prime Minister last night, there was one thing which would give very considerable satisfaction in Ireland, and that was the great amount of sympathy with Ireland exhibited during the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford by the great and practically all-powerful majority now established in this House to undertake great social and political reforms both in this country and Ireland. The Irish question, he wished to point out, had been completely transformed within the last ten years in a direction just the opposite to that contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham by the passing of the Act for the abolition of landlordism. This was a matter which was not fully grasped in this country, because the process was a silent one; but the change was there, and it would be a lasting one. They would no longer be occupied as the late Mr. Parnell was occupied, rightly and triumphantly, for many years in this House, when he was forced to depend upon merely fighting one English Party against another, and to fight under the terrible disadvantage that a fourth of his own countrymen were divided from his Party not merely by political sentiments but by their material interests, by their regard for their pockets in the monopoly they enjoyed of all place and all power in Ireland. All this was now changed, and changed in a way that there could be no going back upon. He was aware that some people consoled themselves by thinking that it was the Nationalists, or at least he himself, who had changed. He was not greatly alarmed at the imputation. If there was any necessity for it nothing would be easier than to show that it was not they but both the great English Parties who had changed from the old days when the Nationalists had their hand against every man and every man's hand against them. It might perhaps be permissible for him at all events to remind hon. Gentlemen above the gangway who were still of opinion that their remaining demands were very dreadful, that every Irish Act of Parliament passed during the last twenty years had been a sort of act of contrition of this House of Commons, that there had been as many Tory Acts of contrition as Liberal, that every Act of Parliament that had been passed had been a confession in the main that the representatives of Ireland were right and that the demands of Ireland were just and reasonable, and that all the terrors and bogeys which they heard conjured up here long ago when they asked for expropriation of the landlords and for the management of their own affairs, at all events, had not had the effects predicted of shaking the foundations of the Empire. He thought it would be found, even by the most reactionary gentlemen above the gangway, that as soon as they had conceded, as they would have to concede within a few years, the full extent of their demands, the results would be satisfactory. Whether British or Irish Members had changed he did not care a brass farthing, so long as the change was in the right direction and so long as the happy result was that they were no longer obliged to discuss Irish questions on a war footing, either in this House or in Ireland. A good element of hope for the future was that both the great English parties had co-operated in those great legislative changes and in the revolution that had taken place in regard to Ireland. No matter what might be the fate of Parties for the moment, he trusted that in the end they would co-operate in the development of that legislation. It might be all very well for the highly respectable, but rather decaying, section of Irish gentlemen who would not have Home Rule, and who thought that Devolution was even worse than Home Rule, to look, as the Dublin correspondent of The Times said they were looking, to that eminent Irish patriot the right hon. Member for South Dublin to lead a forlorn hope for them in this House. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having found refuge in South Dublin, which might fairly be described, so far as he was concerned, as Dublin Castle by the Sea. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having been more successful with the Castle officials and their fellow residents in South Dublin than with his more inappreciative fellow countrymen. He did not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's ability or pluck, but with all his ability and pluck he would not be able to expunge from the statute book the Acts of Parliament which his own Government had passed. He would point out that whereas some years ago a minority in Ireland possessed the whole of the government of the country and had thousands of places at their disposal, and were consequently bound to fight tooth and nail against popular government, popular government had now come to stay in Ireland. Although no doubt the gentlemen who elected the right hon. Member for South Dublin might be too elderly to accept the new order of ideas, he doubted whether the right hon. and gallant Member for Armagh would deny the likelihood that their sons in the next generation who had to live in Ireland would learn that lesson gladly enough. A few years ago the landlords in Ireland depended absolutely upon England for the means of carrying out their cruel and oppressive rights as landlords. It was scarcely too much to say that they depended literally for their daily bread on Dublin Castle. That also was changed now. In four or five years there would no longer be Irish landlords. Those who had been Irish landlords would have as substantial an interest as any in such matters as reducing the police establishment, and in dealing with Dublin Castle. There would, he ventured to say, be union on these subjects. Let him point out further that, up to the present the time of this House had been largely occupied by members of one English Party criticising and reproaching the opposite Party, for treating with the Irish Party. But the Tories were now as much implicated as the Liberals, and he only wished that they had been allowed to implicate themselves a little more deeply. He was confident that there were men amongst them, he did not know in the House of Commons, but at all events in another place, whom every impulse of decency as well as of broad-minded statesmanship would impel for the future to co-operate with the Government in their Irish policy. He did not think there would be any anything in the attitude of the people of Ireland, or of the Irish Party, to raise any jarring note, or to increase the difficulties that no doubt stood in the way. They had never attempted to mislead the English people or Government as to the true nature of the Irish demand, which was for representative, and responsible government in purely Irish affairs—nothing more and nothing less. Upon that point there was no shadow of difference of opinion amongst the Nationalist representatives of Ireland. They might have differed up to the present on matters of laches, but as to the main principle there was not, and could not be, any divergence amongst Irish Nationalists, They were united as one man in the view that responsible self-government, which was, or was about to be, enjoyed by every other community of European origin in the King's realms, should be conceded to Ireland. It was no longer necessary to go on protesting the full measure of their rights. Tory as well as Liberal had now entered upon a policy of concession to Ireland in which they could not stop. On the other hand he, for one, recognised that they had incurred responsibilities which would compel them to make allowance for the difficulties of the Government and not to adopt an aggressive attitude so long as they felt that they were being treated with good feeling and good faith, and according to the measure of the possibilities of situation. He had no fear that the moderation of Ireland would be mistaken for any recantation or want of backbone. They were far from saying that the millennium had come or was in the least likely to come. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford on the previous night, in language that was most truthful and most eloquent, pictured the condition of acute suffering and depression under which the country was suffering. It was at this time the worst governed and most overburdened and the most decaying country in Europe, but he for one felt that in view of the work of the next few years—the work of completing the abolition of landlordism, and of transforming the government into national self-government—it was their interest, just as much as that of English Members, to make straight their paths by gradually allaying any suspicions and old prejudices that might still remain in England and in Ulster, and to proceed to a certain extent in the experimental way towards larger measures of self-government, which must be the ultimate aim of wise legislation. For his part it was just because he felt confident as to the successful results of trusting Ireland that he was willing to proceed by degrees so long as the Government, with the gigantic power that was behind them, did not ask them to go by too slow degrees, so that the urgent questions of taxation and emigration would not have to stand over for an unreasonable period. It would be a waste of energy at that stage to dis- cuss what might be the plans announced in the King's Speech or to enter into any controversies as between Home Rule and Devolution. These were mere quarrels about words, mere castles in the air. If Englishmen and Irishmen meant to arrive at an agreement in the interests of England as well as of Ireland, some great scheme for adjusting the legislative arrangements between the countries ought to be arrived at. Practical statesmanship had not fallen so low on either side of the House that any insurmountable difficulties could arise in arriving at a sensible settlement and one which he made bold to prophesy would cause less wrench to old Tory prejudices than was required by a Tory Government when they abolished the Grand Jury rule and signed the death warrant of landlordism in Ireland. As an opinion of his own, which he held very strongly, he might be allowed to say that in his judgment they had already the germ of the eventual settlement of Irish affairs between Irishmen in the Land Conference to which, and to the Land Purchase Act, the almost unanimous sanction of both English Parties had been given. By some such machinery as that, the two or three most urgent questions could be dealt with. First of all the Labourers Act, and he congratulated the Government on its expressed intention to deal with, that question. Then there was the1 settlement of the great Univerity question, upon the broadest and most democratic basis. There was also the question that the Estates Commissioners should be freed from the shackles which the late Chief Secretary and his law officers had placed upon them. As to the necessity for an amending Purchase Bill all were agreed, and no one who had studied the question would doubt that on two of those vital questions an agreement among all parties and sections of Irishmen could be arrived at, as in the case of the Land Bill. There were difficulties, but whatever difficulty some of his friends might have had in the beginning in accepting a principle, which he agreed was more or less a rough and ready way of dealing with matters, he was satisfied that it would prove the way of arriving at a solution with the least possible amount of friction. He submitted that this would be the best possible way of getting valuable urgent Irish, legislation through the House of Commons with the least possible delay, and it also afforded an unanswerable argument of the capacity of Irishmen to manage their own affairs with justice and generosity to one another. All he could say was, that if the Chief Secretary would only recommend such conferences upon these questions as they arose and recommend them as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover recommended them, by promising to the best of his power to give effect to them, as he could easily do, he would go a long way towards a solution, and he would obtain actual experience as to how they would work. Every successful agreement come to by Irishmen among themselves would make it easy to transform those informal conferences into constitutional assemblies for the transaction of important business. He would be delighted to address a few words of respectful warning to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover if he were present, and they would be that he should not allow himself to become the victim of what was a very despicable party manœuvre to try and retrieve the fortunes of the Tory Party by turning upon Ireland. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's best friends would advise him that instead of repudiating the course of action he had taken on a previous occasion, he should avow, and glory in the avowal, the full force of the Irish policy he had adopted. Whatever might be said of the misunderstandings of the moment, it would be the most enduring monument of his career and the highest feather in his cap that a new Government filled with friendship to Ireland could find no better lines to go upon than those on which he had pursued. He (Mr. O'Brien) had never concealed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman was not solely or even principally at fault for the breakdown in the administration of the Land Act or as to the failure of the Labourers Bill and the settlement of the University question. He need not go into this, but one thing he felt perfectly certain of was that his policy and that of Lord Dudley was, with the exception of Lord Lansdowne's foreign policy, the only achievement of permanent policy and success of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman would be doing great service if he made up his mind manfully to co-operate with the new Chief Secretary in completing the work to which he and Lord Dudley made a contribution that never would be forgotten. The Chief Secretary might rely upon it the more he inquired the more he would find that there were permanent elements of conciliation in the Irish Unionist body, among many landlords and Orange men and Presbyterian farmers of the north. The Chief Secretary would find this a permanent and growing element full of promise and promoting a better and broader spirit among the people. Whatever might be the difficulties of the Chief Secretary when he came over to govern Ireland as a stranger—and he did not say a stranger in any invidious sense, because the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to regard himself as at home in Ireland—still he came as the representative of an unworkable and indefensible system of Government—he would have the good will of all Parties. He would have at his back a gigantic majority in this House animated with good will towards Ireland. He would also find a state of good feeling in Ireland in which there was an almost unanimous determination to give him fair play and every reasonable cooperation in the way of a tranquil country, which was the most peaceable in the world, anxious for conciliation, ready unquestionably to have the ties between all classes and creeds drawn more closely together, and willing to labour in getting rid of whatever reasonable objection might still remain in the minds of Englishmen or Irishmen. That was a very great advantage, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn it to good account, and that with liberal and courageous efforts, he would give Ireland promptly those great measures to which he had referred. The right hon. Gentleman could make them, practically speaking, non-contentious measures and could clear the way to complete self-government. If the right hon. Gentleman did that he would render to England the best of all services. English statesmen on both sides of the House had learned the lesson that the time of peacefulness, friendliness and conciliation in Ireland was the time to prove that the hopes of the Irish people would not be disappointed and that their friendliness would not be misunderstood.

said that the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in regard to Chinese labour appeared to be that Ministerialists were a set of unctuous hypocrites, who with their tongues in their cheeks used the question for all it was worth at the general election, and were now prepared to leave the coolie in the state of labour which they had described as slavery. The speech of the Prime Minister the previous evening knocked the bottom out of the whole suggestion and was a crushing reply to the accusation. He heard that speech with the greatest sense of relief and satisfaction. What was it that the Premier suggested should be done, pending the creation of the final fabric of self-government in the Transvaal? The Government had altered one or more of the punitive clauses of the Ordinance, but he hoped that the alteration of it would proceed much further than that, and that it would be overhauled from beginning to end, so that if there was anything it in which pressed upon the coolie as a human being it would be removed. In the second place the Government were prepared to pay the expense of the repatriation of the coolie who did not wish to stay in South Africa. These suggestions carried them very far along the line of reform, especially as the Government had announced that there should be no further importation of coolies. He would suggest, however, that the Administration should go one step further and say that the clause which related to re-enlistment of coolies after three years' service for another three years should be struck out. It was in the interest of this great nation and the honour of the great Liberal Party that the indentured Chinese coolies should stay in South Africa as short a time as possible. In his judgment, the Leader of the Opposition presented a diverting spectacle when he stood at the Table and lifted his hands in pious horror at certain cartoons issued during the general election. The right hon. Gentleman must have an uncommonly short memory. He thought they on their side could produce some highly coloured cartoons which were issued by the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham belonged at the 1900 election, at the time of the Khaki fever, which depicted every Liberal as an enemy to his country and a traitor to the soldier in the field. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a classic instance of the pot calling the kettle black, and there he left it. It was curious how everybody got very angry when the word "slavery" was used; but he had said that this system of indentured Chinese labour was slavery. He had called it slavery both inside and outside the House, and he still called it slavery. The Government had been called upon to clear up one of the greatest messes in English history. He would quote one or two things which had led him to call it slavery. He would read a description of the landing of the first batch of Chinese coolies at Durban in June 1904, by the S.S. "Tweedale"—

"The landing place was guarded with a strong body of police; a floating cordon of water police remained permanently round the ship; police with loaded rifles paraded her decks and the wharves. The coolies were photographed, their thumb impressions taken, and they were registered under armed supervision. It further appeared that the coolies were sent up to Johannesburg in locked carriages under armed escort."

He called that slavery. But he would take official documents, from which it appeared that the late Government promised the Chinese Government that there should be no corporal punishment except under the ordinary law. What happened? Until Questions were asked in this House and indignation arose, they were flogged wholesale. The late-manager of a compound in July last made the statement—

"He had in many cases flogged Chinese coolies. He knew it was against the law, but he had done it."

He would also quote the statement of Mr. H. Boland as to the flogging of coolies, published in the Morning Leader last September which had never been seriously challenged; Mr. Boland was a most reliable witness.

Did Mr. Boland publish those figures?

said he did not know what the figures were. He was like the Prime Minister; he had not seen everything. But Mr. Boland's statements had not been seriously challenged. If, however, it was not agreeable to refer to the Morning Leader perhaps he might be permitted to refer to the organ of the Transvaal Licensed Victuallers' Association in regard to what they published on the 29th April, 1905. He should not himself put up the organ as an altogether reliable source of information, but perhaps it would not be challenged on the other side. It said—

"Twenty coolies are lined up outside the compound manager's office. They are marched in, one by one, by Chinese policemen, and charged. The charge may be anything—from malingering to opium-smoking, or failing to report after a shift. The sentence usually varies from five to fifty strokes. These are administered variously. In one compound that I visited the punishment is carried out most expeditiously. 'Ten,' says the compound manager, speaking in Chinese, and the unhappy coolie walks to another part of the same room, between two or three Chinese policemen, to take his gruel."

He called that slavery. Moreover, the sequel to Blue-book 2,563 showed that between July, 1904, and April, 1905—ten months—the total number of convictions was 1,356, including desertions, 103; refusing to work, 100; travelling without permit, 139; refusing to work and inciting to riot, fifty-three. If the convictions were taken month by month, the proportion of them was 5,000 a year, and out of 50,000 coolies. That was not a state of things they could view with equanimity. The Party opposite had got the country into this mess. They had brought the country to the very verge of ruin and squandered money and blood, and now they really asked too much of the Government, and blamed them because they could not get rid of the result of this action in five minutes. He thought the Prime Minister had shown great circumspection and care, but considered that it would have been fair if some of the money for sending these people back to their homes had come out of the pockets of the Rand millionaires. If they had the £30,000,000 promised by the Member for West Birmingham, they could have dealt with the whole matter no doubt to the right hon. Gentleman's satisfaction.

said it was not in any spirit of carping criticism or factious opposition that he rose to call attention to the nature of the Address which had been moved. He was quite sure that every Member of his Party recognised with exceeding satisfaction the extremely useful list of measures contained in the Speech from the Throne, which they hoped would in due time reach legislative enactment. The question of Chinese labour was after all not a question of the coolie alone, but one of the highest moral significance. It was a question of the degradation of labour, and they could not conceive that the action suggested by the Government was one that sufficiently met the requirements of the case. In it they found no mention of the fact that re-enlistment should cease, nor did they find any mention of any definite action which was to-be taken with regard to the licences issued in November last. That was a matter of extreme gravity, because they believed that those 13,199 licences issued in the first and second week of November last year were issued largely in contravention of the will of the late Government and largely in defiance of what might be taken to be the express command of the Government. On October 27th the late Colonial Secretary sent a telegram to Lord Selborne, suggesting that, for six months at least, they might voluntarily stop the importation of Chinese labour, and he thought when a right hon. Gentleman occupying the high and responsible position of Secretary of State for the Colonies suggested that voluntary action should be taken to stop the importation of Chinese labour and that no re-enlistment should go on for a period of six months, such a suggestion was entitled to the highest and most respectful consideration. Yet within a fortnight of the sending of that telegram to Lord Selborne, they found 13,199 licences were issued. In reply to the Colonial Secretary's request for information as to the reason why such an unprecedented issue had taken place, the right hon. Gentleman was told it was due to the steady and continuous expansion of the industry. He, however, contended that the figures of the previous months entirely displaced or overrode the statement furnished by Lord Selborne. The figures of the licences issued in the previous eight months were January 4225, February 5,374, March nil, April 1,931, May 3,477, June 2,285, July 1,529, August 2,221, September nil, October 2,351. Those figures gave an average of 2,924 per month for the previous eight months. The Whigs were dished in 1867, but then they were dished by a great historic Party, but on this occasion the Liberals had been dished by persons who were largely foreigners, whose names were unpronounceable by English tongues, and with whom the people of this country had no sympathy. He protested with all his heart against this outrage which had been committed in South Africa. The Government had been informed by the Attorney-General that it would not now be possible to revoke the licences already granted, although they had been granted under the conditions he had described, and the reason given by the Government itself was that such an act would be arbitrary and would, in Lord Selborne's opinion, leave a feeling of injustice. How could they in these circumstances describe the action of the Chamber of Mines itself, which met on February 12th, and decided in the face of the suggestion of the Colonial Secretary that the necessities of the mines required 13,000 coolies? Such an act did not demand lenient treatment at the hands of this House. Such an action on the contrary called for very strong action on the part of the House. They might on this point say with Shakespeare—

"That indeed to do a great right we should do a little wrong."

on this occasion and curb these cruel devils of their will. They certainly ought to ask the Government, to whom he and those who sat with him were willing to give loyal support so long as they took the overwhelming claims of labour into fair and sympathetic consideration, for an inquiry into the whole of this question, and that the Government should say that under the present circumstances these licences should not come into operation. They regretted that the Government had departed so much from the attitude of great moral courage adopted by Lord Elgin in his request that the question of the importation of Chinese labour should be reserved pending the decision as to granting responsible Government to the colonies—an attitude which he emphasised when he stated further that His Majesty's Government was not prepared under all circumstances to be responsible for further importation. They believed the justice of the case could only be met by preventing re-enlistment and by abrogating the conditions which allowed re-enlistment after the coolie had done his term of three years, and they most earnestly hoped the Government would agree to a free and unfettered inquiry into all the conditions which at present existed, and that pending such inquiry no more of these licences should come into active operation. Lord Selborne had stated that 3,000 more licences were issued in December and that they ought to come into operation in the same way as the 13,000. He was glad to see that the Government had prevented those coming into operation. But he noticed that Lord Selborne had said that there would be a strong feeling that injustice had been done if they were not allowed to come in. What was the mind and the feeling of the British labourers who were now walking about the Transvaal depending on soup kitchens, charity, and relief works for an existence? He submitted that the Liberal Party ought to rise to the height of this great question. Those who had not previously been acquainted with the customs of this House were quite aware that they would meet with many curious things, but they never thought to hear from the lips of so competent an authority as the hon. Member for Westminster such a fine description of the principle and policy of eighteenth century brigandage in this House. The hon. Member preached the doctrine that might is right.

"The good old rule, the simple plan that they should take who had the power and they should keep who can."

They could not agree to that doctrine. Might was not right. Might had brought ail the evil from which humanity suffered. They appealed to the Prime Minister, the honoured, revered, and distinguished Leader of the House, and through him to the great Party who were proud to serve under his command, not to heed the prospects which were held out by interested spectators in South Africa. He hoped they would arrest further importation, and give a full, open, and unfettered inquiry, and see to it that re-enlistments under the Ordinance were abrogated, and that when the men's term of service expired they were drafted home whence they came, at the expense of the mine-owners, and not of the National Exchequer.

said he challenged the statement of the hon. manufacturer who moved the Address that the result of the recent election showed that the people of this country were against fiscal reform. He challenged it for a variety of reasons which had already been brought to the knowledge of the House, but he had in his own case a very special instance of it. If there was a constituency in the whole of the country in which the battle of fiscal reform was the main issue at the election it was certainly Central Sheffield. He never issued a document or said a word which was not upon the subject of fiscal reform. His opponent described himself as the Secretary of the Free Trade Union, but what was remarkable in all his speeches and addresses was the extremely wide berth he gave to the subject of fiscal reform. When the hon. Member for St. Pancras was making his Motion he (Sir Howard) said Chinese labour was the issue which had largely affected great masses of people in many constituencies. He held a document which was issued by the Secretary of the Free Trade Union, not upon fiscal matters, but entirely upon this question of Chinese labour. What had that to do with fiscal reform which the hon. Gentleman said had been definitely decided by the people of this country? They on the Opposition side of the House knew there was a great majority against them, but they did not find by any means that in the country there was the large number of votes against them which the state of the majority would lead one to suppose. In English constituencies 2,163,030 votes were cast for Liberal and Radical candidates against 2,086,222 for Conservative and Unionist candidates, giving a majority of only 76,808 votes. It was utterly absurd in face of this and in face of the results in many Midland cities to say that the fiscal question had been finally decided by the country. In the Speech from the Throne there was this extraordinary paragraph:—

"I note with satisfaction that the imports and exports of the country continue to show a steady and accelerating increase, and, together with the growing activity of trade at home, indicate that the industries of my people are, in general, in a sound and progressive condition."

This paragraph was followed by a reference to the vast amount of unemployment which existed in the country. Could anyone have heard the Speech of the Leader of the Nationalist Party without recognising the enormous harm which had been done to the industries of Ireland alone by our absurd free imports system during the past sixty years? Yet His Majesty's Government lumped together the imports and exports, the sales and the purchases, and by taking the gross total said that represented a satisfactory condition of things, and in the next paragraph they talked of the great amount of unemployment. Was any account whatever taken, in the Speech or in the paragraph, of the enormous increase which had come upon this country in recent years in the importation of foreign manufactured goods? There could be no question whatever that the importation of these competing goods had a very great tendency to throw our own people out of employment. A return issued a short time ago by the Board of Trade showed that the value of foreign articles wholly or mainly manufactured, imported, and consumed in the United Kingdom, was roughly, in 1860, £50,000,000; in 1870, £40,000,000; in 1880, £54,000,000; in 1890, £63,000,000; in 1900, £95,000,000; in 1902, £101,000,000; and in 1905, £140,000,000 sterling, and this was the condition of affairs which His Majesty's Government viewed with intense satisfaction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that he could not find money for old age pensions. No wonder hon. Gentlemen below the gangway denounced the Answer as highly unsatisfactory. Put a tax upon these goods and there was the money for old age pensions. The importation of these competing goods threw our own people out of employment. On the 1st March a new German tariff would come into force against us. What was His Majesty's Government doing as regarded this German tariff?

Nothing.

That observation comes from the late Secretary of the Cobden Club.

No; it came from a manufacturer who imports foreign iron to employ labour in England.

That is exceedingly interesting. Here is a manufacturer of iron, I presume, for the British market.

And for the foreign.

said that was better still. The hon. Gentleman appeared to delight in the statement that a new German tariff was to come against this country next week. He understood the hon. Member approved of the tariff. Well, he held in his hand a statement as regarded the German tariff as it would affect the industries of his constituents. In the case of files, the tariff was to increase from 7s. 6d. to 20s. per cwt., and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider how this increase would affect the Sheffield manufacturer of files. The people he sympathised with were his unfortunate constituents. He did not wonder that hon. Members opposite thought his constituents were unfortunate, but at all events they had a Member who knew his own mind and spoke it, and one who voiced the interest of his constituents whenever he found an opportunity of doing so. This was a case in point. Here was an article which was one of the staple trades of Sheffield, and what steps were the Government taking in the interests of the file cutters of Sheffield who were aggrieved by this new German tariff? Then there was a new Russian tariff? Recently the President of the Local Government Board had addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Free Trade Union in which he spoke of the "made-in-Germany" folly, and so on. He wished to know what steps were being taken in the interests of the workers to secure that free access to the Russian and German markets which was given to Russian and German products in the markets of this country. The remark made by the hon. Member opposite, who was a manufacturer himself, would surely lead to a considerable increase in those tariffs. Foreign tariffs prevented them having that free access to foreign markets which they gave to foreign products in this country, and consequently it diminished the demand for English goods whilst at the same time it increased the wealth and productiveness of foreign countries. Why was there this great outcry against the competition of Germany if the protective system had not led to the enormous wealth and productive power of Germany? He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would confer with the hon. manufacturer opposite and then tell the House definitely and clearly what steps were being taken against the new German and Russian tariffs to prevent foreign nations from creating this unfair competition and saying—"Now there is a Government in power in England which does not care what we do; we can do anything we like and impose any burdens we desire, because the British Government is delighted with the present state of the import and export trade."

said he was sure they could all see why the hon. Member for Sheffield had won a victory in spite of a determined opposition. It was due to the enthusiasm which he had thrown into this question and which extended back almost into the dark ages of political reminiscence, long before the present Opposition Bench were converted to his views There was a youthful vivacity about the hon. Member opposite which he was sure they were all delighted to see; and if someone had to be returned from Sheffield in the interest of those views they rejoiced that it was the hon. Member opposite. Of course, this debate touched only slightly the various phases of the fiscal question, but he wished to point out how lightly the hon. Member skimmed over some of the difficulties which perhaps in his enthusiasm he did not see. He found fault with the Government because there was a reference to exports and imports in the King's Speech. His great Leader, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, said categorically that the exports formed the criterion of a country's prosperity. Would the hon. Member opposite say that the imports ought not to increase as well? He had forgotten to tell them of the increase in the exports of manufactured goods from this country. He also appeared to forget that whatever they got from a foreign country they had got to pay for it by sending something out, and therefore his argument was not fully sustained. The hon. Member for Sheffield was opposed to the importation of these manufactured goods which he said ought to be taxed, and he desired to tax them in order to keep them out of the country, because he said they were taking the bread out of the mouths of British workpeople. It was rather remarkable that the hon. Member then turned to the Labour Members and said—"This is where I am going to give you money, by taxing these foreigners." If they were going to keep out those foreign goods, how would they be able to raise money by taxing them? And if they came into this country in spite of the tax, then the object of the hon. Member opposite would not be achieved, because he desired to keep those goods out of this country. The hon. Member was mistaken in his statement that the King's Speech referred to a terrible increase in the number of unemployed. There was a statement that something would be done to amend the Unemployed Bill. The hon. Member had thrown out, incidentally, words as to the enormous number of the unemployed in this country, but he would challenge him to look at the pauperism returns as well as the returns of unemployment, and then say that they had not been going on better of late years than they did before. Take the imports of foreign manufactured goods into this country and lay beside them the percentages of unemployed, and if the hon. Member could find any relation whatever between them he would pay him the greatest possible compliment.

I will accept that challenge.

said he did not wish anyone to suppose that because he said that there was a decrease in pauperism and want of employment that they should not do something to improve the present condition of things. He hoped to see great remunerative public works commenced which would be a great advantage to the nation, before this question was laid aside altogether. Such works would help to feed the poor and give employment to the poorest labourers in the country, to whom their sympathy was justly more extended recently than to any other class of the community. It was not known to many hon. Members of this House how Bill after Bill had passed both Houses for reclaiming large portions of the Wash by means of which thousands of acres had been reclaimed, and there was at present a Bill which had not been carried into effect, for reclaiming another 100,000 acres. This was promoted by a private company for profit, which showed that it must be an advantage to the community to carry out such projects. There were many opportunities for carrying on works of this character, and he trusted some further inquiry would be made by the Members of this House, before they left the consideration of the question. He believed that those who had to deal with these matters were sympathetic towards making such inquiry as he had described. With regard to the equalisation of rates, he thought that as he was the author of a Bill which was passed with that special object he might point out that there were several concurrent methods for equalising rates in London. One or another of these methods, would be proposed by the Government. He urged that the equalisation of the rates of London should be accompanied by an arrangement which would give to a central authority greater control in future over the expenditure of the rates. Coming hack to this House, as he had done, after five or six years' absence, he could not but observe the great spirit of reality there was in this House, and the great desire now to do something for the benefit of the people of England and Ireland and our Colonies, and more especially for the poorer portion of the people. He congratulated the Prime Minister on the King's Speech and on his own statements supplementing what the Speech contained. The right hon. Gentleman was making an earnest and honest attempt to meet the situation. He trusted the measures which would be brought before the House would be pushed along so that they would not waste their energies. He hoped that the House would use its energies in getting good legislation, and that the measures mentioned in the King's Speech would be dealt with in an efficient manner, even if they had a long session. There were many things he was interested in which were not referred to in the King's Speech. There were, for instance, the questions of the taxation of ground values and the provision of old age pensions. He hoped that when six and three-quarter years were over they would see accomplished a great deal for the improvement of the condition of the people.

said he desired to make a few observations on behalf of those hon. Members with whom he was associated. He expressed his sincere gratification that the Speech from the Throne foreshadowed legislation which, if carried into effect, would be very helpful to those whom the Labour Members in a special sense represented. He was extremely pleased that a Bill with respect to workmen's compensation was to be brought forward. They were given to understand that the Government were going to amend the law in a manner which would make it efficacious in dealing with all cases of accident. In connection with this subject he desired to call attention to two matters: the question of out-workers, and the question of insurance. As to outworkers he represented in a special sense a body who were to a large extent outside the present law, and he wanted to put the case of those men before the House so that they might not by any possibility be overlooked in the framing of the Bill. There were many men engaged as outworkers in constructing machinery and on similar work. They had to perform their work under conditions which were infinitely more dangerous than those in the workshop, because they had to work with tools to which they were unaccustomed. They had to work often on unfinished floors, and in unfinished buildings. Under the present Act those men were debarred from compensation. Cases had been taken up to the highest Court at great expense to ascertain that fact. He hoped therefore, those men would be included in the new Bill. The question of insurance was even more important, because of more general application. He submitted that they needed insurance guaranteed by the Government for two reasons. As a Member of the Departmental Committee which dealt with this matter a year or two ago it was borne in upon him in a very forcible way that the insurance companies' agents were not altogether fair—as fair as they ought to be—and that in some cases they took an unfair advantage of the position they found themselves in in relation to the injured men. He and his hon. friends wanted to avoid that. He urged further that there should be a great extension of the Act to cover those who were employed in small workshops. He submitted that, in these cases the law would be inoperative unless at the same time some guarantee was given by the Government that the money was really there when wanted. There were many small employers with small capital, especially in the building trades, and when accidents occurred many of those men would plead that they had no money to pay compensation. Therefore in amending the present Act the law should be extended to cover the people in the employment of small employers. The principle of compulsory insurance should be applied to those small employers, The principle which was to be applied in connection with the repatriation of Chinese workers to their own country might very well be applied to our own kith and kin at home. The Government should take some liability as they had, he understood, now done towards Chinese coolies. He rose, however, chiefly for the purpose of speaking on the subject of old age pensions. He submitted that the question was ripe and more than ripe for treatment. No question stirred the imagination of an audience in any part of the country more than this. From what he had heard to-day and yesterday he ventured to say that no other question excited so much interest in the minds of politicians on both sides of the House. It had been mentioned incidentally by more than half the speakers who had addressed the House. The question was ripe for treatment, because promises with regard to it had been made by politicians so long as he could remember, and hopes had been excited in the minds of the poor and aged from one end of the country to the other. It had been said that they were not promises but proposals. However that might be, he knew that hopes had been raised in hundreds of thousands of their poorer fellow citizens that a scheme of old age pensions would be established. This question was getting more important as years rolled on. Twenty years ago it was a matter of pride on the part of an employer, or, at all events, a reputable employer, that he would not discharge his old workmen. He did not know whether it was the result of competition or otherwise, but it was a fact that they did not now find the same degree of latitude allowed to old men as in former times. They did not find the same humane feeling between employer and employed as there was twenty or thirty years ago, On the contrary, when a workman's natural vigour was abated, his hair turned grey, and his back a little bent, he found it exceedingly difficult to get employment, and he was thrown out at an earlier age than before. They had heard a great deal here and elsewhere of the growth of imports and exports and of the increasing wealth of the country, but to the minds of himself and his hon. friends these matters were of little avail. They had heard a great deal also of their educational advantages. He agreed that education was better than it was formerly, but what was that to them so long as those educational advantages meant the sharpening of the wits and the intensification of the workshop-life of their fellow citizens? There were two courses open to the industrial veteran. He must either throw himself on the bounty of his friends and relatives or on Bumbledom. He submitted that the aged workman should not be thrown upon either. Having done his duty in his day and generation, maintained himself and his wife and family, and added to the wealth of the community, that community owed a duty to that man and ought at least to hold out a helping hand to him in old age. From a Return moved for by the hon. Member for Morpeth he found that in the year before last there were no less than 490,513 paupers over the age of sixty years. That was in England and Wales alone. On going back to the Commission of ten years ago, which, although somewhat out of date, covered the ground in a more complete form, he found that there were 1,980,000 people over the age of sixty-five. Probably they might take it that there were now about 2,000,000 in round figures over the age of sixty-five. That Commission reported that no less than 20 per cent. or that vast number were paupers at any one time, and 30 per cent. paupers at some time in the course of the year. They found that something like 400,000 of our fellow citizens over the age of sixty-five were paupers, and that 600,000 of them were paupers at one time or another in the course of the year. That was a symptom. It did not by any means plumb the depths of poverty, because there were many thousands of men and women in the country who would rather suffer want, who would rather starve or die than appeal to the workhouse official in any shape or form. It was therefore safe to say that these 600,000 were merely symptoms of poverty and that there were to-day something like a million men and women who had done their part in the daily struggle of life, but who were without the actual necessaries of life. Pensions were wanted for these people as a civic right. It was said by some that these people were themselves to blame; that they should have saved in their time of vigour. That was not so. A good deal might be said for the fact that they never had the chance of saving. But even if otherwise, he should still appeal to the House to act on the principle given by Hamlet who told Polonius to serve the players according to his own honour. He asked the House to remember that, and, even if it were true that some of these people had had the opportunity of saving and had not availed themselves of it, the House should not treat them in a narrow sense "but according to its own honour." But he would go further and say that these people had not had the chance of saving. The wages of many of the working people were only sufficient to cover the cost of the bare necessities of existence and not sufficient to cover the decencies and comforts of civilised life. He had read a correspondence in the newspapers initiated by a gentlemen who was now a Member of this House in which it was stated that the wages of the workpeople in a particular part of the country came out on the average at 14s. per week, while other writers who followed in the discussion put the wages of agricultural labourers at only 10s. or 11s. per week. Then they were told by Mr. Charles Booth that as the result of careful inquiry he found that one-third of the population in this country were living on wages of not more than £1 a week. He submitted that, in view of these facts, these people had no opportunity of saving for old age. Then, it was said that voluntary associations ought to have done something to solve this question. They had done something. They had dealt with this matter in a brotherly spirit. Speaking of trade unions, he could say that there were 12,000 or 14,000 members on their books receiving assistance, and even a larger number were on the books of the friendly societies of this country. But that was an insignificant proportion of the number of the people for whom he pleaded. Those who were members of trade unions and friendly societies after all had been in receipt of a wage which left a little margin for saving, whereas the people to whom he had referred, and for whom he pleaded, had wages so miserably inadequate that they had no margin for saving. A great deal had been said about the cost of old-age pensions. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield ventured to suggest that the cost might be met by a tax on imported manufactured goods. There was no need for anything of the sort; moreover, it would not meet the object the hon. Gentleman had in view. There were other sources of revenue which it would be far more statesman-like to tap, and which he hoped would be tapped. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham suggested that in order to meet the cost of old-age pensions the basis of taxation should be widened. He agreed, and with modesty he would suggest a means of getting the cost of these old-age pensions. Ten years ago the assessable income of this country amounted to £673,711,988, and the year before last it had arisen to the enormous total of £879,338,546, or an increase of about 30 per cent. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and those with whom the right hon. Gentleman associated, that they might help the Government to meet the cost of old age pensions by tapping that enormous source of revenue; and that might be done by a graduated income-tax which would reach those people in receipt of enormous incomes—the greater part of which incomes were derived from social wealth, and therefore ought to be diverted to social purposes. But apart altogether from the source from which the cost of old age pensions should be drawn, this rich country ought to provide the means to make the old age of the workers more tolerable. He refused to believe that this, the richest country on the face of the earth, which had spent £250,000,000 in suppressing two small republics, was not in a position to wipe out this stain on its escutcheon. He appealed to the supporters of the Government to give a strong lead in this matter as soon as that could possibly be done. The difficulty that the Government were in was recognised. The Labour Members recognised the mess that the Government had fallen heirs to; but they thought that one of the first things which ought to be attended to was this question of pensions to the aged poor. Knowing the feeling of the country on this matter, and having seen for himself that no question had more fired the imagination of the audiences he had addressed, he felt sure that the House would be acting in the best interests of those in the seat of authority if they dealt with this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

said that he had listened with the utmost delight and with feelings of gratitude to the programme which His Majesty's Ministers had set forth in the gracious Speech from the Throne. He believed that that Speech would be received with gratitude by thousands of the poor people in the country districts. He was not at all astonished at the number of hon. Members who had spoken on the Chinese question. They on that side of the House were desperately in earnest on this question, and they meant what they said thoroughly. He made a study of the Ordinance on Chinese labour when it came out, and he did not know anything more disgraceful than some of its provisions, such as that which make it a criminal offence to give food or drink to a Chinaman who had left a compound, or to give him work. He had addressed many a meeting, and said that these Chinamen had been brought to South Africa for the purpose of excluding 20,000 white men from work. The evil had been done; the Chinamen were there, and the question was what was the best way of dealing with them. He had always spoken of the Chinese nation with the utmost possible respect. He believed the Chinese people to be second to no other nation in the world, and they ought not f to be treated as slaves. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they were not slaves, but their ideas of freedom must be different from those of the Party to which he belonged. The Chinese in the Transvaal were in a condition of slavery. They could not strike for higher wages, or erect houses, or cultivate gardens, or take part in any enterprise which would make living cheaper. If the Chinese were set free they would strike for higher wages and then we should have 20,000 Englishmen working in the mines. Then Government inspection would be demanded, and it would be seen that the mines were put in a sanitary condition.

said that he wished to say a few words in support of what had already been said in condemnation of the Speech from the Throne not dealing more decidedly with the question of imports and exports. It had been very properly pointed out by some speakers on the Opposition side of the House that many of them were not protectionists, but were really free traders inasmuch as they desired freedom of trade. He would desire to associate himself with those who considered that they were the apostles of free trade, because they desired greater freedom of imports and exports. It was not really freedom of trade that they had now in freedom of imports. They had also to get freedom of exports. Were they to admit that it was impossible to do anything for the greater freedom of trade in the world of commerce? He was one of those who had been brought up in the belief that freedom of trade was a desirable thing, not only for trade itself, but as promoting more friendly intercourse between the great nations of the world, which of itself would be an advantage. He thought that many of those who held that view did not desire to build up tariff walls, nor to put themselves in the position of those exclusive nations who put 70 to 130 per cent. on imports, and thus closed the gates of commerce to mankind. They had a different ideal before them. They desired greater freedom of trade, and an increase in international intercourse. If they succeeded in doing something actively to promote greater freedom of trade, it was not right that they should be accused by the Ministerialists of being protectionists.

said the Hon. Member for Central Sheffield had contended that the election at which he was successful had, so far as he was concerned, been fought entirely upon the lines of fiscal protection, and had declared that that election was typical of the real opinion of the people of the country. In his (the hon. Member's) constituency the issue was also confined to that point, and the majority instead of being, as before the last election, 1,200 was at that contest 5,000. So far as that election was concerned it was an answer by the inhabitants of a great industrial centre to the proposal that foreign goods should be excluded from this country. They understood that in the words of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield the exclusion of foreign goods from this country by taxation must be reciprocal, and that if we were to take measures of fiscal reform to exclude from our industrial centres competition by goods manufactured in foreign centres they would take similar measures to exclude our goods. Of course they did that at present, and we did it by excess of manufacturing, and even to a certain extent by tariffs. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of the new tariff in Germany, but he could not have picked out a more unfortunate example, because the President of the Board of Trade only a week or two ago issued a circular in which he pointed out that every advantage which foreign countries were going to obtain by that new arrangment would also be obtained by us. That meant that, while foreign countries obtained an advantage by crippling their own industries and putting up prices to their own citizens of the necessary articles of consumption, we got all the advantage without any restrictions on our trade or our people. A memorable statement was made by the Emperor of Germany not long ago to the effect that Germany had grown great by hunger. That might be so, but one thing was certain that while the Hohenzollern family had shared the greatness it was by no means certain that they had shared the hunger. We did not want our Empire to be involved in the by-paths of famine in order to satisfy the ambition of certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Laughter.] It might be a matter of laughter to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it was the poorest of the poor who would first feel the pinch of any tax upon food. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and another right hon. Gentleman had been engaged upon a missionary enterprise, and had undertaken to convert 40,000,000 of people to the doctrine of sacrifice. He thought they had failed. Let them transfer their energies to the Colonies, and try to get the 12,000,000 of people there to adhere to the same doctrine. They should welcome them if they came back with a Zollverein, but not if they returned with a tariff for the restriction of trade. It had been suggested that the discussion on the King's Speech should not take a long time and he had compressed, his remarks. He might remark, however, that the stifling of discussion in that House had in times past led to disasters to the Government and destroyed Parties. The free and uncurtailed expression of opinion in this House would, in his opinion, add to the strength and unity, not only of the Government but of the Party, and would enable them to give an unswerving devotion to the Leader of the House and the Government acting under his direction. They would be most untrue to their election pledges if they did not give every assistance in their power to the Government, and he believed they could do that best by using the plainest and the shortest language possible in this House.

said he would only detain the House a few moments for the purpose of thanking the Prime Minister for admitting the need for a proper Amendment of the Crofters Act. The crofters of the highland and islands of Scotland suffered very greatly. He had seen a great deal of the British Empire, and there was no part of it where the people suffered so much and whose misery was so great as that of the crofters of the highlands and islands of Scotland. For ten years he had asked a Tory Government to do something for these people and no one now in the House who was a Member of the last Parliament knew that better than the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham eighteen years ago visited the most congested part of the highlands of Scotland, and he had been appealed to time after time to put in a word for them, but in vain, though the right hon. Gentleman was not above sending down to the constituency which he (the speaker) had represented for the last fourteen years and appealing to the crofters to support the tariff reform candidate. The right hon. Gentleman, beaten in the cities and the great manufacturing centres, went whining to the crofters to support his protectionist policy. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister realised the importance of doing something for the highlands. There was no special promise of any Bill being introduced, but he sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not allow the session to go by without taking some action, and he appealed to him to lose no time in dealing with this question of such urgent and vital importance. He noticed that the other day the crofters took forcible possession of the Island of Vatersay, near Barra. He was not surprised. He, of course, deplored the breaking of the law, but what were men to do when they could get no satisfaction from highland landlords and when every day they saw the deer forests increasing. There were no people in His Majesty's dominions who were so badly off as the cottar and crofter population in the highlands and islands of Scotland, and while he sincerely thanked the right hon. Gentleman on their behalf for referring to this subject he again expressed the hope that no time would be lost, but that every effort would be made to push matters forward and deal with this urgent and vital question.

said he had listened to many speeches in this House but never to one which had given so much satisfaction to the Liberal side of the House and which had elicited so little hostile criticism from hon. Gentlemen opposite as that made yesterday by his right hon. friend the Prime Minister. He rejoiced in the tone of the speech and would only make reference to one thing that was not expected, but which, for that reason, was the more pleasing. He referred to the suggestion for abolishing plural voting in the constituencies. He hoped they would also abolish plural constituencies, that was to say, university constituencies. The last general election was fought on two great questions—free trade was one, and the other the condemnation of the South African policy of the late Government during the last ten years. He was convinced it was as much that feeling of condemnation as anything else which gave the Liberal Party the enormous majority they had. He rejoiced to see that the Government were going to take steps to stop the importation of Chinese labour. That was essential. Of course it was said that they ought to allow colonial feeling to decide this matter, but when this country had spent £250,000,000 and sacrificed 22,000 British lives in South-Africa in giving British control over the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony he thought they had some right to say not only what the Government was to be, but in what way it was to be conducted. We had interfered and had claimed the right to interfere in the matter of servile labour when the Transvaal was a South African Republic, and if we interfered in the internal government of an independent State in which we had no right to interfere then we also had a right to interfere in the government of a colony of Great Britain over which the King had a constitutional right of veto. Further than that, he contended that if we conceded the right to the colony to decide freely and absolutely on the question of Chinese labour we ought to put the colony into the position in which it should be to decide such a question. It ought not to be fettered by the presence of 50,000 Chinese labourers in its midst. Their decision should be an unfettered decision, it could not be that under the present conditions. We should repatriate the Chinese and then give the colony the right to say what it would do. With regard to the new constitution to be granted to the Transvaal he thought it should be on the basis of population and not on the basis of a gerrymandering mining representation. The idea of representation on the basis of voters was altogether artificial. At most the voters were trustees for the population. Votes were not given to a limited number of the population for their own benefit; they were given to them as trustees for the entire population, and it was absurd to say we could accept the representation of a number of trustees and not the population for which they were trustees. Whenever the question of redistribution in this country had been discussed it had been discussed on the basis of population, and that should be the basis fixed for the Transvaal. It was said the conditions of the Transvaal were exceptional, because many of the voters were young men with no families, that these were the producers of the wealth of the country and would finally return to this country. That was a fallacious argument. The wealth of the Transvaal had been there since the creation of the world and was not produced by these men at all. They no doubt took it from the ground, but that was a privilege accorded to them and not a right to give them any special ground to dominate the legislation of that country. The fact that they intended to return to this country should itself be a bar to trusting them with the permanent government of the Transvaal. Let them do as the Boers had done before them. Let them marry, settle down, and have families, and then the basis of population would be as favourable to them as to the Dutch inhabitants. He trusted that the Government would make a firm stand against the mine-owners of South Africa, and show that the threats which were trotted out did not affect this country in the least. He was one who considered that the connection between any colony and the Imperial Government was one that was far more beneficial to the colony than it was to Great Britain. The South African mineowner had regarded himself very much in the same way as some youth with a fond mother, who, if he wanted more money, would threaten to cut the painter, or enlist in the army, and then the fond mother gave him what he wanted. That was exactly the position of the South African mineowners. They thought this country would be so afraid of their threat to cut the painter that we should climb down. It was for the Government, however, to show that the painter was more important to them than to us, and that we could cut it, but they could not, and that if they intended to put their policies upon us the danger of cutting the painter would arise from this side and not South Africa. It was a piece of idle bluff which had had its effect on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, but would have no effect upon the enormous majority which this country had sent to the House of Commons, and which majority was not going to be dictated to in the manner he has stated.

believed the whole House would agree with the speech made by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow with reference to the question of old age pensions so far as he expressed the feeling that something should be done in this direction. At the same time, having had some knowledge of the question from the point of view of the amount of money required, he would like to put before the House in a few words the matter as it appeared to him. He understood the Labour Party required that every man and woman at the age of sixty should receive 10s. per week, which would mean £26 a year. He did not know the exact number of people in this country who were over sixty years of age, but he supposed there would be about 5,000,000, and that would mean an expenditure of £130,000,000 sterling a year. That amount capitalised would be £2,000,000,000 or more. He sincerely trusted that some means might be found, but he did not think that it could be found in the way in which the hon. Gentleman suggested. In reference to the speech from the hon. Member for East Bristol, who dealt with the question of protection as it affected the city he represented, he would like to point out that the two industries at Bristol which were most important and most prosperous were those which were protected to some extent. He referred to tobacco and cocoa. The hon. Member for Northampton in his brilliant speech the previous night laid great stress upon the question of the taxation of food. Perhaps the House would be surprised to know that the amount of revenue derived in the last twenty years from taxes on food and drink, Excise and Customs, was over £800,000,000. The amount of taxation on food for thirty-two years ending 1886 was: from tea, £131,000,000; coffee, £110,000,000; sugar, £112,000,000; dried figs, £7,000,000; and from tobacco, £222,000,000. It would be only fair at election times, when talking about the taxation of food, to state that the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had not been to increase the tax on food, but to transfer the tax from one thing to another. The chief opponent of Mr. Chamberlain was Lord Goschen, who had said that the great scheme put forward in this country might increase the cost of living by one penny per family per week. That was to say that probably there would be no increase at all. At any rate it would be easy to alter the present system without increasing the cost of living, and he sincerely trusted the day would come to pass when an alteration would be made. With regard to the question of Chinese labour, he might mention that he had received a letter from a gentleman who had been a Member of this House and had been out in the compounds and understood the question. His correspondent told him that he considered the Chinese in South Africa were too well done by, and that the compounds were conducted in the same way as those of the Kaffirs. In these compounds there were electric light, hot and cold water supply, reading and recreation rooms. Was it fair to term that slavery? He had received many congratulations in regard to his election for a North of England constituency, and he assured the House that he won upon Chinese labour. Fortunately for him a man came forward who said he had been to South Africa, and who was willing to state that these men were living in a state of slavery. He was able to show a letter that the same man had offered his services to the Party opposite as well. There were many men on the Liberal side who did not take advantage of this cry, and refrained from putting forward those Chinese labour placards, and he honoured them for it; but in other constituencies they were used and no doubt they contributed to the great majority which they saw in the House of Commons at the present time. He trusted that in the near future some decision would be come to in regard to this matter, so that they might only have to deal with solid and not unfair arguments.

said that none of them would begrudge the hon. Member opposite the pride which he felt in winning a seat in the North of England because there were so few of them now represented by Conservatives. With regard to the hon. Member's remarks about the taxation of food, he wished to point out to the House that in the last complete financial year the amount of taxation upon food was £15,000,000, and £10,000,000 of that was due entirely to the added taxation of the late Government. Therefore two-thirds of the taxation was due to the extravagance and incompetence of the late Government, and he had every confidence that the present Government would reduce taxation without putting a tax upon corn. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham appeared anxious because there was no reference to temperance legislation in the King's Speech, and The Times newspaper had expressed views very much in the same direction. He did not for one moment doubt the anxiety and the interest of the right hon. Gentleman in temperance legislation, but his concern for it at this particular moment was rather suspicious, and his own opinion was that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to create a little rift in the ranks of the Ministerialists. They were not, however, quite so simple as to be caught with chaff of that kind, for they recognised that the Government could not do everything at once. He remembered a distinguished representative for Birmingham, Mr. Bright, once warned the Radicals that they could not drive six omnibuses abreast through Temple Bar. Those sitting with the Ministerialists were not unreasonable, for they had every confidence in the Government and were prepared to give them time. They recognised that this question was a difficult one, but hon. Members appeared to want everything dealt with at once. If they did that, it would leave them nothing to do next session. They were all fully convinced of the vital importance of the temperance question and the necessity for dealing with it. Their opposition to the Bill of 1904 was genuine, and he considered that the result of the working of the Licensing Act had confirmed that opposition. It was a bad Bill, and they expected this Government to deal with the whole question in the near future in a very substantial manner. Many of them were still of the opinion that temperance reform lay at the root of all social reforms and that it was long overdue. Consequently they looked to the Government in the next session of Parliament to give them a comprehensive measure of temperance reform. They had every confidence in the Government, and they were not going to be lead away or induced to create differences and trouble, because they honestly believed that the pledges which had been given by the Government would be redeemed.

said the Liberal Party might congratulate themselves on being now in power, but the whole country also might be congratulated on having a Government that, unlike the late Government, did represent the people. He entirely agreed with the strictures which had been passed upon Chinese slavery in South Africa. Nothing, to his mind, could be worse than for any Government to allow slavery of this kind to be introduced in any part of the British Empire, and we thought it had been got rid of many years ago. He protested against the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in which he contended that a colony had a right to adopt this sort of slavery if they chose. No colony had a right to introduce slavery of any sort whatever, and he trusted that hon. Members of this House as well as the Government would in due course make that quite clear. There was no doubt from what occurred at the general election that the people were in earnest when they said they would have no more slavery and that what John Wesley called "the sum of all villainies" should not be introduced again into any part of this country. There could be no question at all that the Chinese labour in South Africa was slavery of the very worst sort. Chinese slavery was introduced into the Transvaal for the purpose of making money and nothing else. He was glad that the Government intended to deal with the question of education. He had heard an hon. Gentleman accuse the Government of desiring to introduce a new religion into this country. He could not agree with him. He understood that the Government intended to introduce the Bible into the schools and not dogma made up to suit the Tory Party at elections. He was obliged to the Prime Minister for mentioning the question of the crofters in the King's Speech. What they would want to know presently was how soon was he going to do anything for those people. The Lord Advocate, in a speech made a week ago, stated that Scotland must wait, and he had added that that was because they had not suffered so much as other people. He hoped the Lord Advocate was not speaking for the Government, because it was not a wise thing to tell the people of Scotland they must wait, although they were the most orderly in any part of the United Kingdom. (Laughter.) Hon. Members might laugh at that, but he supposed it was because they did not know the country. It might surprise some Members to know that in Sutherland there were only eighteen policemen, including the chief constable. On the day of the late election the chief constable was away in Skye voting, he thought, for the Tory candidate. There were sixteen constables employed at the election in Sutherland, leaving only one policeman to look after the whole county, and it was looked after very well. Those who knew the county thought they could do with even fewer policemen than they had now. The great question in the crofting counties was the land question. In Sutherland they had been waiting nearly 100 years to have this settled. In 1886 the Liberal Party did a great deal for them in passing the Crofters Act, but that was not all that was wanted, because it did not give them possession of the land they required. There was no question of confiscation, for the crofters were willing to pay a fair price or rent for the land. In 1892–3 a Royal Commission was appointed to ascertain whether in the six crofting counties there was land that could be made available for the extension of crofts, etc. After a careful survey it was found that in these counties there were 1,783,785 acres which might be used for the extension of present crofts, new crofts or small holdings. The Commission did not overdo it. Some people said that they had left out a million acres which might have been included. In Sutherland there were 395,898 acres that might be so used. The result of the Commission ought to be carried out, so that the crofters and others might have a chance of living. He found that in the six counties 409,472 acres had been taken away from the people and converted into deer forests, and in Sutherland alone 36,628 acres had been taken for sporting purposes between the years 1898–1904. He, therefore, appealed to the Prime Minister to put a stop as speedily as possible to the system of turning the land from agricultural purposes into deer forests. Last autumn a case came under his notice in Sutherlandshire where 1,000 acres of farming land were about to be formed into a deer forest for the sport of somebody, perhaps in the West-end of London or of some manufacturer in Birmingham. About 300 acres were arable land, and there were three small farms. They were actually about to pull down the three houses and turn this fanning land into a deer forest. The land was taken away from the people, and although they wanted it back again they were willing to pay a fair price or fair rent for it. Some effort should be made to keep the people in their own country, and allow them to bring up their families in decency and comfort. These people in the Highlands were perfectly orderly and law-abiding, and he trusted that that would not be used against them. He hoped that the right hon. the Prime Minister would carry out his own statement, viz., that we should colonise our own country. That was exactly what he wanted to do in regard to the crofting counties in the north. These counties could produce cattle, sheep, and many other agricultural products. It was a curious thing that some of those gentlemen who belonged to the Tariff Reform Association refused to allow our own people to have the land on which they could raise cattle and sheep, and so drove us to foreign countries for a supply of meat. We spent £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 a year abroad for food which might easily be produced in this country were the people allowed access to the land. Again, what was wanted in Sutherland was proper postal service. When the people of that county asked the late Government for such a service they were told that it would not pay; but the very idea of a penny postal system was that the more densely populated districts of the country should pay for the scattered ones, and therefore it was no answer to say to those who wanted a better postal service that it would not pay. Further, they wanted a better telegraph service. There were some places in Sutherlandshire which were twenty or thirty miles distant from the nearest telegraph office, and in case of sickness the people had to walk or drive that long way before they could summon a doctor. He trusted that the present Government would do something to alleviate these difficulties There was no reason why they should not assist in establishing a proper steamboat service all round the North and West coasts of Sutherland. If millions of money could be spent on useless railways in Africa, surely a few hundred thousand pounds might be spent in colonising and developing our own country. There was the fishing industry, for instance, which was sadly injured by trawlers. He hoped that the Government would do everything in their power to enable the fishermen in the North to get their harvest of the sea to market. He spoke not in the interests of a class, but of the masses of the people; and he hoped that the present Government and Parliament would be able to do more in the next few years for the benefit of the people of our own country than had ever been done before.

said that he could not follow the hon. Gentleman opposite on the question of the crofters, but he could speak from personal knowledge on the subject of Chinese labour in South Africa. It had been stated that the condition of the Chinese labourers in South Africa was that of slavery; and when an hon. Member had suggested that these Chinese labourers enjoyed their swimming bath and other provisions for their comfort, there was laughter. He himself had been in the Chinese compounds, and had seen these slaves swimming in their baths, playing fan-tan, and games of ball; and he had also seen them cared for in the hospitals. So far as he could understand, the conditions under which the Chinese labourers lived in the compounds were much the same as would be applied to soldiers, sailors, undergraduates of universities—[MINISTERIAL ironical laughter]—and all other bodies of men whom it was necessary to keep under proper discipline. The Chinese labourers were not allowed to remain in the country and become landowners, but that was no exceptional regulation, for in most countries there were restrictions upon aliens buying land. He believed that every country in the world reserved its right to say whether it would allow aliens to purchase land or not. Although in England we did allow them to do so, there were many other countries where they could not hold land under any conditions. As to the economic question, it had been argued that the Chinese ought to be sent back, but looking at the matter from a business point of view, it was for the Transvaal to decide finally on that point. Suppose the new Government should decide upon the point that this labour was permissible, then they would have to be sent back again to South Africa. This would not be business or economy and would involve a large expenditure of money. What would happen would be that 4,000 white men, chiefly Englishmen, would be at once thrown out of employment, and the large amount which they were paid for salaries would be lost. Some 200,000 or 300,000 share-holders who resided in England held shares in these mines. Their holdings were small, but surely they were deserving of some consideration. These shareholders would be hit if any precipitate action was taken or any radical alteration made.

expressed his sympathy with the views put forward by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow on the subject of old age pensions. He was sure it was quite beyond the reach of the workers themselves to provide sufficient for their old age. He was equally certain that the question could not be dealt with by individual employers. With regard to the education of the children, the State had recognised the duty of doing something for those members of the community who were not in a position to do it for themselves. The provision of free education for the children was provision for citizens at the beginning of life. Pro- vision of old age pensions was provision for citizens at the end of their lives. He submitted that the principle in each case was identical, and that just as those scholars who in their youth received free education had to pay it back to the State while they were in the prime of life in the form of contributions to the taxation of the country, so those who received old age pensions would during the active period of their lives contribute to the State in taxation the funds from which the pension was drawn. With regard to the means of providing the money, he suggested that in addition to a graduated income tax, of which he cordially approved, they would probably be able to make some economies in existing expenditure. It might be useful to resolve that before any remission of taxation took place, before the present income-tax was reduced, they should consider who had the best claim on the funds at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they considered that question they would, he was sure, be all agreed that those who for a great number of years had had the promise of old age pensions dangled before them by both parties had a first claim upon whatever surplus the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have. The question of old age pensions might be approached in the same spirit as Parliament approached the question of free education. Thirty-five years ago when the first instalment of free education was given they did not think it necessary to wait until they could provide for the entire freeing of education. They could approach old age pensions in the same spirit. If they had not the money available to provide pensions at the age of sixty-five, which in his opinion was the proper age, let them commence the pensions at seventy and if not at seventy then at seventy-five [Oh!"] But let them resolve that these were to be only stepping stones to the full and complete scheme of old age pensions for each man and woman on attaining the age of sixty-five.

said the tenor of the speeches on the Opposition side of the House, both on the previous evening and this afternoon, went to prove that the election which had recently taken place had been decided on nothing less than false pretences. The great majority of Members on the Ministerial side of the House had been accused of endeavouring to catch votes by grossly misrepresenting the state of affairs in relation to Chinese labour in the Transvaal, either by means of posters or by other means described as unfair. Those Members who had the honour of being in the last Parliament must know that at the time this Ordinance was first proposed by the late Colonial Secretary, Members on the Ministerial side of the House gave it their undying hostility in every possible why the constitution of this House would allow. They pointed out to the then Government what necessarily would take place if this abominable system of labour was introduced into the Transvaal; they showed that these poor Chinese were, in many thousands of cases, the victims of secret societies in China, and that they would be sent to the Transvaal like so many sheep or cattle, not knowing, in the slightest degree, under what conditions they were to serve. He did not blame the agents or the mining companies for that, because the state of affairs in China was such that it would be absolutely impossible for any accredited agent of the Government or mining company to explain the terms of their employment to these people, owing to the difficulties of dialect, which made it more difficult for a Chinaman of the north of China to understand one from the south, than it was for us to understand a Frenchman or a German. He did not doubt that the disaster from which they had suffered was largely due to the uncompromising and unprecedented way in which the Conservative Party had forced that unjust and unrighteous measure through the House. He did not think there had been any speech delivered during the recent election which was not entirely in consonance with the speeches that had been delivered in the House by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, and other hon. Members during the course of this debate. He thought they would be doing scant justice to their cause if they had not presented these matters as fully as they could to their constituents. Much had been said about posters. The one leaflet which he had prepared himself, which was simply a hand bill, came from a Conservative newspaper of enormous circulation in London and elsewhere, and it pointed out the terrible state of affairs on the Rand owing to the introduction of Chinese labour, or whatever they chose to call it. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham might have employed the time at his disposal rather better than he had done in trying to show that the Liberal Government and the Leader of the House that they had got into a difficult position through having denounced this iniquitous and unrighteous system of slavery and by not having, directly they came into office, annulled the Ordinance allowing these people to enter the Transvaal. He thought the Government had acted exceedingly wisely in prohibiting the issue of licences for the importation of more Chinese. The Leader of the House had only been a few days in office when he was met by the fact that the late Administration had signed permits for 16,000 Chinamen to come into the colony. No explanation had been given by right hon. Gentlemen opposite of that circumstance, which was a most significant thing. And, it being half-past Seven of the, Clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

(continuing his speech), said that hon. Members would recollect that last night the Prime Minister expressed in very felicitous terms the hope that they had enjoyed a very pleasant hour of relaxation. He sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would remember, when the business of the House came under the consideration of his Government, that business was expedited, and the health, not only of the Members but of the numerous staff, was greatly benefited by the short period of relaxation. Returning to this miserable Chinese labour question, he confessed it was a matter of surprise to him that hon. Members opposite had still found it in their hearts to brazen the matter out. The hon. Member for West Birmingham put a number of questions to the Prime Minister, and he should have liked now to put a few to him, if the right hon. Gentleman had been in his place. After his trip to South Africa a meeting of a great gold mining company was held in London, and the chairman then stated that the mining companies had done their part and it now remained for the Government to do theirs, and very shortly after the Government introduced their scandalous proposal for the introduction of Chinese labour. The hon. Member had said he was not responsible. Who was if not himself? Then after the Prime Minister had very wisely forbidden the importation of further batches of Chinese labour, there was an immediate outcry among the mining companies and the journals they control, one of them stating amongst other terms of reproach that the action of the Prime Minister had falsified the pledges of the hon. Member for West Birmingham. Surely that looked as if he was responsible for the whole matter, and his action in leaving his office and leaving his work to Mr. Lyttelton very largely went to show his responsibility and culpability. The right hon. Member throughout by his questions and speech, thought he had placed the Prime Minister in a difficulty, in a cleft stick, just as Mr. Balfour thought he had placed the Liberal Party in a difficulty by suddenly and unexpectedly resigning office at a time when he believed there was a serious difference of opinion among prominent members of the Liberal Party with reference to Irish affairs, and with just as poor a result. The action of Mr. Balfour only precipitated the downfall of the Conservative Party, and the speech of the Prime Minister had amply satisfied his Party, and would satisfy the country. We were to have no more Chinese coolies imported until full self-government was granted to the Colonies, and even then we would not be content to allow them to do just as they pleased in the matter, and the Government would not sanction the introduction of Chinese labour on such terms as had been imposed under the late Government. The right hon. Member for Croydon saw no difference between the proposal of the Government that they would out of Imperial funds defray the passage home of any Chinese coolie who wished to return home for any reason, whether because he had been seduced to the mines under false pretences, or because of ill-treatment, insufficient wage, or any other reason, and the Ordinance of himself and his friends, under which a poor Chinaman, out of his shilling a day, might return at his own expense. At the time the Ordinance was under discussion it was repeatedly shown that this clause must be inoperative, as it would be impossible for the Chinamen ever to save sufficient for such a purpose. After all, we were only imposing on the Colonies and the mine owners the same restrictions that we placed on the Boers—"that no slavery or apprenticeship partaking of the nature of slavery should be allowed within the Transvaal territory," and he thought the matter could very well rest there. He was glad to note such a favourable expression of opinion in favour of old age pensions, but he thought the hon. Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire had not made a good suggestion in saying that the pensions, on account of financial difficulties, might be deferred until those in need attained a stilt greater age; in the words of an election ballad, the fact that "the pension will come when we're all of us dead," did not offer many attractions. Surely it would be far better to commence with such a sum as we could afford. Even a few shillings a week would make an enormous difference to many a one and save many a poor person from the workhouse and the lunatic asylum. The remarks of the hon. Member for Water-ford, the Leader of the Irish Party, describing in touching and feeling terms the state of affairs in Ireland, might have been applied to Scotland, except that the position was much aggravated by the deer forests in Scotland. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire had not in the least overstated the case against the deer forests, rather the contrary; in the last twenty years over a million of acres had been added for this senseless, cruel sport. He could understand sport if it meant the killing of wild animals that might endanger the lives of people, or he could understand sporting for the purpose of food, but to rear and protect unoffending animals for the purpose of killing them was compatible with neither civilisation nor Christianity, and its only purpose was to make a short holiday for a few wealthy persons who came with their motor drivers, for whom they had to find a French name, and flunkies of all sorts. Vast territories had been depopulated. Highlanders, who had done so much to make the Empire what it is, who had colonised the waste places of the earth, who had fought the Empire's battles by land and sea, saw their country a desert. Where once were many happy homes there was now nothing but the abomination of desolation. The policy of the Tory Party was well defined on this point by a distinguished Tariff Reformer—

"Let us be real free traders. Let us get our mutton from New Zealand, our wool from Australia, and leave our Highland glens and straths for sport with the noblest animal on earth—the red deer."

All over England they saw the same thing on perhaps a more aggravated scale, where thousands of acres were given up to the breeding and rearing of harmless pheasants or rabbits for the purpose of being slaughtered. It was a short-sighted policy on the part of the landlords, because it was only population that gave value to land. In the early days of New Zealand settlement land was purchased, if not for an old song, for a bit of tobacco or a blanket; that land, owing to population, had now become of great value. In his own constituency the evil had been still greater within the memory of persons still living; hundreds of cruel evictions had taken place not even for the purpose of sport, but for the more sordid and contemptible purpose of getting a few extra shillings by turning the people's homes into big sheep and cattle farms. His hon. friend the Member for Spen Valley was a notable temperance reformer, and had given the House wise advice. Personally, he put land reform far away before any other reform, but he was content to wait, feeling sure that the Government had the matter thoroughly at heart. He rejoiced that an important Crofters Bill occupied a portion of the King's Speech. It had long been wanted, and the Scottish people were looking forward to it with keen interest and anxiousness. He could not sit down, however, without reminding the Government of another very important and constantly increasing class in Scotland, viz., the cottars and fishermen, who had the greatest difficulty in getting a small piece of land for a home where they could do some work when not engaged at their usual occupations, where their wives and families could live in some degree of comfort. It was a disgrace to the country that such men could not obtain land except on the most extravagant and ruinous conditions. Close to the most important town in his constituency fishermen were forced to live under the most insanitary conditions, while there was any amount of land quite close, but unobtainable. The right hon. Member for East Fife, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, hid given a distinct pledge that for the purpose of obtaining land for such men the Government would introduce legislation for the compulsory purchase of land. The Allotment Act in Scotland had been a dead letter. He trusted that when the Government had this matter under consideration they would not hand such powers over to the country parish authorities, who, for many reasons, were unfitted to deal with it, but endow the Congested Districts Board with ample powers and funds. He especially desired to bring under the attention of the Secretary for Scotland the sympathetic attitude of his predecessor towards the nursing question. Many districts and soma islands with populations running to 400 men were quite without medical or nursing attendants of any sort. He was glad to note that the Member for Waterford made the demand last night for powers of compulsory purchase; he wished he had forced his views on the House when the Irish Land Purchase Bill was going through, there would be no difficulty then in dealing with the evicted tenants. The matter of land reform was of vital importance to the wellfare of the nation and as such should be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.

said he regretted troubling the House so early on the seamen's question, but he desired to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question with regard to the proposals of the Government to introduce two Shipping Bills He did not know the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, but he ventured to suggest to him that it would be desirable if the Government would follow the recommendations of the Committees appointed by their predecessors—the "Manning and Mercantile Marine Committees"—which Committees sat for over two years and received evidence from shipowners, seamen and captains, and after exhaustive inquiry recommended certain alterations in the Merchant Shipping Act with regard to the manner in which vessels should be manned. Seeing that the Manning Committee, on which shipowners sat, unanimously arrived at certain recommendations, he did hope the right hon. Gentleman would embody those recommendations in his Merchant Shipping Bill. With regard to the Mercantile Marine Committee, for over eight and a half years he had the privilege of speaking on behalf of the seamen in this country, and brought before the House many of their grievances, with the result that the Government appointed a Committee, presided over by the late Sir Francis Jeune, which after careful inquiry recommended that the food scale should be altered. Indeed the Committee drafted a food scale, and he endeavoured to persuade them that it should be made compulsory; but the shipowners on the Committee said that if the Committee did not recommend that the scale be made compulsory, they felt sure the shipowners would adopt the scheme. That was over four years ago, and he was very sorry to say there were not more than a hundred shipowners who had adopted the scale recommended by the Committee. That, he thought, went to prove that ship-owners generally would not adopt the recommendations of any Committee unless there was some little compulsion; he therefore hoped the scale recommended by the Committee would be made compulsory by his right hon. friend. On previous occasions he had explained to the House the many hardships inflicted upon our merchant seamen, in consequence of the class of food that had been supplied in years gone by, and he was sorry to say in some instances was supplied to-day. With regard to certificates to cooks, of whose incompetence on merchant ships they had heard so much, the Committee recommended that all such cooks should pass a Board of Trade examination, for which certificates should be granted, and that no shipowner should be allowed to employ a a cook without that certificate. He trusted his right hon. friend would also embody that recommendation in the Bill. Then, with regard to inspection of seamen's food, for which, in 1891, the House passed a Bill. When the Bill left the House it was to apply to all merchant vessels, but he regretted that in another place Amendments were inserted with the result that it only applied to vessels employed in certain trades. The effect was that provisions that had been condemned on vessels bound for voyages through the Suez Canal round Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope were taken on vessels bound for ports in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. That was a very wrong thing. The Mercantile Marine Committee recommended an extension of the Act of 1891, and he hoped his right hon. friend would be able to see his way to embody that recommendation also. Then, with regard to certificates; seamen had very good reason to complain of the present form of continuous certificates of discharge. He did not know why sailors and firemen should be treated differently from any other class of working men. Another workman would consider it very hard to have to produce, before he could get employment, a book giving a record of his previous services. The main objection of seamen to these books was that the captain might at the end of a voyage decline to report, which was tantamount to an inferior discharge. Many instances had been brought to his notice in which men with five or six years good record, because they had some petty grievance with the captain or any of the officers, had had their books marked "decline to report," with the result that the men had difficulty in obtaining employment. Then he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would consider the question of making some alteration in these books. The seamen demanded that the character should be taken out of the book entirely, because it was no guarantee whatever. As a matter of fact he reported one instance to the Board of Trade two and a half years ago, in which three firemen went on shore in a port in Russia and were absent from the vessel for three days drunk, and the captain entered the offence in the official log, fining each man 15s. At the end of the voyage the captain made a bargain with the men, that if they would agree to that item being put into their account as cash received from him, he would give them a very good discharge, and of course the 15s. from each man went into the master's pocket. He only mentioned that case to show that the character generally entered in the men's book was no guarantee that they were good or bad men. Another important question deserved the attention of his right hon. friend. A good deal had been heard in the last three months regarding the employment of foreign seamen on British ships. From the national point of view it was a question of the greatest possible importance. Year by year the number of British seamen had been steadily declining and they had been largely supplanted by Lascars and Chinamen. The foreign grievance certainly was a bad one, but the British seamen had far more to complain of from the competition of the Lascar and the Chinaman than from the employment of the foreigner. Of course they were told that the Lascar was a British subject. He should never for one moment think of condemning any Lascar or even objecting to his employment; but he did say that neither Lascar nor Chinamen should be used for the purpose of displacing British seamen in their own country's vessels. We did not employ Lascars in the Navy, and no man would seriously suggest that Lascars should be employed on our war ships, yet if we went on year after year continually increasing the number of Lascars and Chinamen employed there would be no employment left for the Britisher, and then, if this country embarked in a great naval war it would be found that they had done a very wrong thing in allowing its maritime population to disappear entirely from British vessels. The Mercantile Marine Committee suggested the only true solution of the question. It was nonsense to talk about British ships limiting the number of foreign hands employed to percentages, because it would not work out in practice, but what we could and should do was to embody in a Merchant Shipping Bill a clause that no foreigner should be employed on a British ship unless he could speak and understand the English language. It was a disgrace that at the present time on a vessel of 1,600 tons, carrying twelve or fourteen men as sailors and firemen—probably twelve would be foreigners of eight or nine different nationalities, and not able to speak or understand a word of our language. He could not for the life of him understand why shipowners—

Do you suggest that I employ foreigners on my ships; for I do not.

thought his hon. friend was a little too previous. He said he could not understand for the life of him why shipowners were so neglectful of their duty as to allow crews to be engaged at Continental ports composed of so many different nationalities and the majority of whom were not able to speak a word of the English language.

You were looking at me, and directing your remarks to me.

did not know that the hon. Gentleman was quite so nervous at his looks, but he assured him he did not intend any offence. He was applying his remarks generally to gentlemen interested in ships. He said it was a scandal, and considering that numbers of men had been sacrificed in consequence of the employment of men who were entirely ignorant of our language, he had justification for speaking a little strongly. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not confine the operation of the clause to ports in the United Kingdom, because where we were suffering most from this grievance was at Continental ports. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side had said during the General Election that what was wanted was more work for the British working man. He had generally said less work and more pay. But if they Were so anxious to provide work for the British working-man let him assure them that every year 40,000 men were discharged from British ships at Continental ports between the River Elbe and Brest, and 40,000 foreigners were taken on in their place. He should have thought that those who were interested in shipping and were strong tariff reformers would have looked into that question, because charity should begin at home, and a man should put his own house in order before attacking any one else. Those 40,000 foreigners spent the whole of their earnings on the Continent. At the port of Antwerp there were three men called shipping masters, each of whom made an income of over £6,000 a year in the war of blood-money extorted from the, seamen, because those crimps had a kind of agreement with shipping people on this side that they should have the monopoly of supplying the men, and when a man went to seek employment on a British vessel in Antwerp, he was referred to a certain person and when he applied for a berth, he found he was unable to get it without paying a fee of from 10s. up to £1 for the privilege of having a job on a British ship. This had been going on for twenty years. That was why no British seaman or fireman could get employment, because he refused to pay this extortionate fee, and it largely accounted for the number of foreigners who got employment there on British ships and could not speak English, but were willing to pay this blood-money for the privilege of employment. He believed that could be stopped by applying that clause of the Bill to the Continent, providing that if crews were engaged at Continental ports they would have to comply with the law, and satisfy His Majesty's Consul as to their knowledge of the English language. He would suggest that a clause should be inserted in the Bill that a master, when engaging a crew abroad, should first try to obtain seamen who could speak our language; but if unable to do that, and he satisfied the Consul he had made every effort, then perhaps the master should be allowed to make the best arrangements he could under the circumstances. He believed that if his right hon. friend embodied in the Bill such a clause it would go a long way towards remedying a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. He wished to say a few words regarding the extension of the Workmen's Compensation Act to seamen. He did not know what might be the intentions of the Government, but he hoped there would be no mistake about giving justice to the poor unfortunate sailors and firemen, whom he wished to see included in the Workmen's Compensation Act and not dealt with by any special Act. For over twenty-six years he had pleaded hard for a simple act of justice to the sea-faring community. He did not understand why the seamen were left for so long outside the original Act. It was very remarkable that the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham had not insisted on seamen being included in the Compensation Act, because as far back as 1884 he introduced a Bill proposing to apply the Employers' Liability Act to seamen. He thought, therefore, he could rely on having the support of the right hon. Gentlemen.

He has changed since then.

said some of his hon. friends seemed to be sceptical on the point, but he wished to assure them that he had yet some confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, because he remembered one speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered in 1884, in which he said he would never rest night or day until justice was done to the seamen. He, therefore, felt full of confidence and hope that having a Liberal Government in office and a good friend on the Conservative side of the House in the person of the right lion. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham the tide was running strongly in favour of the seafaring men, and that they would get this act of justice which had been fought for for so long. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out years ago, as a reference to Hansard would show, that one seaman out of every sixty-six met with a violent death on board ship. No other trade or occupation in the country could equal that. There were hundreds of unfortunate seamen crippled and maimed for life. Seamen were a class of men who had no home or habitation, and when misfortune befell them the only place of refuge was the poor-house, and the ratepayers had to pay for their accommodation; whereas, shipowners avoided rates, except on their offices. Let it not be supposed, however, that shipowners were opposed to seamen having the benefits of the Compensation Act. He believed there were in the House nineteen hon. Gentlemen representing shipping, and at least twelve of them were in favour of the seamen having the benefits of the Compensation Act He appealed to his right hon. friend to extend the Act to seamen on the same basis as it was applied to other workmen. One or two little clauses might be necessary to meet the case of ships and seamen, but there was no great difficulty in the way, and he did trust some measure of hope would be held out to seamen that justice would be done to them; and he was sure they and their wives, children, and relatives would bless the Government.

said he had been returned to the House of Commons by a London constituency with the largest majority in the metropolis to give an independent, and he trusted an intelligent, support to the Government. That mandate compelled him at this early stage to inquire how far the Government programme justified the hopes, expectations, and promises, upon the faith of which he, at least, was sent to Parliament. If the Government programme justified those hopes and expec- tations he recognised at once that his sole duty in this House was to be a loyal, dutiful, and orderly soldier in the Prime Minister's great army. If on the other hand it should appear to him that the programme fell short of those expectations, then he was confronted with the choice of two alternatives, one of which would be to tell his constituency that he had been deceived, and that he had innocently deceived them; and the other alternative would be to adopt the course of stepping in where angels feared to tread and endeavour to render a little practical assistance as a man of business and a man of affairs to His Majesty's Ministers, who appeared somewhat baffled at the problem of putting some of their promises into legislative shape. He felt compelled to adopt the latter attitude when he looked at the composition of the Ministry, and he hoped the two great legal luminaries to whom the financial trade interests of this country had been committed would not resent any assistance which the humblest supporter of the Government sitting in the remotest corner of the House was bold enough to offer. He wished to consider for a moment how far the promises made to his constituency wore likely to be fulfilled. Much discussion had taken place as to the exact issues upon which the recent election had been decided. Speaking for himself, and on behalf of a constituency fairly representative of the other metropolitan constituencies, he wished to state that the first and foremost of those issues was that of Chinese labour in the Transvaal. Secondly, there was the question of educational reform, then pensions for the aged poor, the question of the unemployed, fiscal reform, and the future government of Ireland. He happened to be one of those hon. Members guilty of the bad taste of publishing some of the cartoons to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had referred. Little did he know at that time that instead of depicting Chinese serfs in chains with their hands tied behind them he ought to have painted them basking in the glory of the electric light and disporting themselves in the luxury of a Turkish bath, and, that instead of being confined in compounds, every Chinese coolie should have been depicted as possessing three acres and a cow. He had no hesitation in saying that the Chinese labour Ordinance in South Africa had brought about a condition of things there contrary in every respect to the spirit and constitution of the government of this country. They had been told that economically the Ordinance was a failure. They knew that politically it was dangerous, but was it necessary to remind the House that morally it was a pestilence? How many Chinese women were there? With all respect and humility he urged the Government to give some attention to this matter when considering other modifications. The Prime Minister had told them that he would cut a short route to the solution of this question by giving the right to every one of these Chinese coolies to go home if for any reason he was dissatisfied with his lot. If that were a genuine promise it seemed to him that there was little else to argue about, except the moral aspect of the question to which he had referred. As a practical man he wished to ask how was the Chinese serf to have this right communicated to him? It certainly should not be left to the mine managers, but it should be embodied in a notice drawn up in this country, in the Chinese language, with the approval of the Chinese Ambassador, and it should be exhibited in every part of the mine, and in every compound in which the Chinese were confined. That was the only practical way in which they could give effect to the promise of the Prime Minister. He gathered that the Government had decided not only to concede this right to the Chinaman to return to his own country if he desired so to do, and to modify the punitive conditions, but he understood that the Government had also determined to stop all further importation of Chinese workmen into South Africa. In addition to this they were about to send a Commission out to South Africa to inquire into the question of the future electoral basis of self-government for those Colonies. He was quite satisfied with those promises, and the sooner they reached finality in this matter, and ceased to unsettle everything connected with this industry, the better it would be for all concerned. With regard to education, he was horrified to hear an hon. Member reintroduce the sectarian religious element into this controversy. An hon. Member had said, that if the principles of the Liberal Party were to be enforced, it meant a new religion for their primary schools. If the Government did not boldly tackle this subject in the light that the State was the secular parent of the child there would be a great deal of discussion and opposition to whatever measure might be introduced. It was no part of the duty of the State to undertake the religious teaching of the child. Just in proportion as sectarian discussions were introduced so would they be undermining the educational system, and if they insisted upon giving religious teaching it should be out of school hours. There were a good many aspects of the education question, but there was no indication in the King's Speech of the lines upon which the proposed measure would proceed, and therefore they must possess their souls in peace. With reference to old-age pensions it would be sheer hypocrisy for any hon. Member to deny the expectations which had been aroused in the minds of the electors upon this subject. He was bitterly disappointed at the admission of the Government that, whilst their sympathies were with this scheme, they could not find the means of giving it practical effect. He could not help thinking that it would have been better before arousing the expectations to which he had referred if the means of carrying them into legislative form had been considered. The statesman or politician who said that there was not the means at hand to provide a very substantial solution of this problem was unworthy of the title. Reference had been made to a graduated income-tax, and it had been stated that the mere interest on the South African war loan would have gone a long way towards solving this problem. If the Government had not the means to carry such a measure into effect what would they do if war broke out again? Would they say that they could not afford to fight? No, for the first thing they would tell them would be that they had the ships, they had men, and they had the money too. Therefore, he saw no practical difficulty in finding every man of sixty-five years of age and upwards a substantial pension to alleviate his old age. Were there no other sources of taxation open to them? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was right in saying that the basis of taxation should be widened. Could they not obtain the opinion of the learned counsel who now represented the City of London as to whether there were any funds held by the City Guilds which belonged to the poor? Could they not tax the unearned increment for the benefit of the poor? Could they not tax racecourses and racehorses?

And bookmakers.

Yes, every bookmaker, every bachelor, and every motor car in the land and a thousand other things. There was some irony in the fact that they could coolly and deliberately go and spend £250,000,000 for the benefit of the English residents in the Transvaal and a mongrel crew of oriental and cosmopolitan financiers and plutocrats, and yet they were told that they could not find money for an old age pension scheme. When it was said that one of the principal promises on which the Liberal Party came into power was impossible of fulfilment because they had not the money, it naturally tempted men to cast a favourable eye on fiscal reform. If a Bill were introduced or a Resolution proposed by one of the Labour Members he would undertake that they would be able to indicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at least fifty ways in which he could obtain every penny required. The unemployed had also been a very important factor at the recent election. They had no indication of what the Government were going to do to improve the Unemployed Act. He looked in vain in the King's Speech for any reference to the promised appointment of the Royal Commission on canals to which a reference had been made. If a comprehensive system of reclaiming and reviving the waterways of England were undertaken, not only would they give employment to the unemployed for the next seven or ten years, but they would at the same time be assisting to solve the problem of cheap transport. With regard to fiscal reform, he did not hail with as much satisfaction as some hon. Members on that side the reference in the King's Speech to the present condition of exports and imports. The only real test of the prosperity of a country was the condition of its people. The Government would have done better not to trouble themselves about fallacious statistics of imports and exports, but to endeavour to look into the kernel of our social system and try to find a solution of the problem with which we were confronted. Whilst, in one sense, this was the richest country in the world, on the other hand, one-third of our population were living on the verge of starvation. If the right hon. Member for West Birmingham or any one else could hold out the slightest hope of a remedy for that state of things, instead of availing themselves of every opportunity of throwing obloquy upon the right hon. Gentleman, they would best be discharging their duty by examining any proposals which he or anybody else might propose. He trusted, however, that the Government would find some solution for the present social evils less calculated to disturb the industries of the world than the tariff proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. With regard to the Irish question it was hypocrisy to pretend that they had not raised some idea that they had entered upon a new era in regard to this question. They were told that they were going to solve the Irish question by instalments. He came to the House with that conviction, but after listening to the magnetic speech of the Leader of the Irish Party, he almost regretted that he had committed himself to a policy of instalments, because the time had come for removing this blot upon our social system right at our very door. He would suggest that if the Irish Party accepted this compromise and agreed to a settlement by instalments they should insert the usual default clause to the effect that in the event of failure in regard to one instalment the whole should become due. Upon this, matter he for one was prepared to take the plunge. In conclusion, he wished to say that in making these somewhat rambling observations—for if that was not the privilege of a debate on the Address he utterly failed to understand the meaning, of what had been going on for the past, two days—he was only voicing the aspirations of a democratic constituency which was tired of that spurious form of democracy which simply claimed the right to fraternise upon terms of equality with our social superiors; he was actuated by no other desire than to bring whatever ability and experience he possessed to the loyal support of a Ministry which, was pledged to bring about the reforms he had referred to, and if he made the interests of the poor and lowly his first concern it was because he felt that in this way he was not only best serving his country, but was at the same time best proving his loyalty and devotion to His Majesty—his person, his empire, and his throne.

said he had listened with mixed feelings to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Member had told them that he was an independent Member of this House. As a supporter of the Government he hoped they would have his independence rather than his loyalty.

Why?

Because the hon. Member had, in flippant language, treated the fiscal question as an open one. He had told the House that if certain other things failed he should fall back on fiscal reform. He had treated the question which had agitated the country lately as a light matter and as one of no concern.

I said that failing any of the measures I referred to, men might almost be tempted to turn to tariff reform.

said that nothing had been more significant during the debate on the Address than the failure of the Protectionist Members opposite to avail themselves of the convenient opportunity given to them to show that they had a remedy for the many evils which abounded. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield could only refer to two strongholds of Protection. One was Birmingham. For his own part, he did not grudge the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham any credit he could take from having a commanding influence in that great city. Sheffield had been referred to as the other stronghold. Were hon. Members aware that in Sheffield there was an actual majority of Free Trade votes recorded? Another significant feature was that there were over fifty workmen in the House, and though, without doubt, there would be some subjects on which they would differ as friends, there was not among them a single Protectionist Member. One moral of the elections was that the working classes of this country distrusted entirely the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. No one could be in public life without being deluged by proposals for remedying unemployment; but of all the mad proposals, those with least reason in them were the proposals associated with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman started badly, because there was not a statesman living who was more distrusted by the great mass of organised workmen than he was. That was no doubt very hurtful to his cause. The working classes knew that his proposals were impossible on his own showing without the taxation of food. He was quite aware of the ingenious way in which the right hon. Gentleman adjusted the balance so as to make it appear that the carrying out of his proposals would only cost a farthing per week, but the taxation of food was there, and the instinct was not wrong which impelled the working men to resist the taxation of food. He was not a political economist, but he was sure it was sound economics to keep taxes off the necessaries of life. Such taxes made it harder for the working man to live. Consequently, there would be depression, and that would prevent working men from being such factors in production as they otherwise would be. What had the textile operatives—whose representatives he was delighted to be associated with in this House—seen? Whilst they had stood up for their rights against their employers they had realised that it was possible to increase the cost of production and so restrict the market without benefiting the workman. Taxation of food did that. So long as the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham rested in any degree on the taxation of food, they were doomed to ignominious failure. Protection was parochialism gone mad. Free trade was a great peace-maker. By free trade they meant free imports. Let there be no quibbling about words. In the Address there were references to unemployment. Of all the distressing conditions of our social and economic state, nothing was more deplorable than that men, willing and able to work, should yet be unable to get work. The working classes were not so lost to sense as to suppose that they would improve their position by taxing goods, and so restricting the demand for them. He was glad to see at the head of the Local Government Board a man in whom some of his friends had a pride which it was difficult to express. The right hon. Gentleman's heart throbbed true to the great masses of the people from whom he came and among whom he still remained. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would attempt no flighty experiments. The means specially devised for the relief of unemployment generally did the least good. The unemployed could not be helped except by something which increased the general wealth of the country. To find mere work was not to solve the difficulty; and he hoped the terrible waste of public money for unproductive purposes would cease. In the course of the debate the hon. Member for the Wirral division of Cheshire, a great employer of labour, and the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow, a great trade union leader, had united in very nearly the same terms in asking the Government and the House not to give old-age pensions tomorrow—they were too wise for that—but to regard this as an urgent and not an academic question—a work for practical statesmanship on the path of ordered reform. He deeply regretted that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had towards the end of his speech made a dogmatic statement which he himself believed he should carry Members with him in repudiating. The hon. Member has said that three sides of the House were under the control of men whose pocket interests were diametrically opposed to those of the working classes; and that it was essential that there should be one section of the House who represented the workers, the poor, and those who had hitherto been without friends. He took it that one of those sections was the Party led by the hon. Member for Waterford. He did not believe that that Party was controlled and tenanted by men chiefly dominated by their pocket interests. In the weary days of Opposition the Radicals never had more stalwart friends than the Irish Members when they were attacking powerful vested interests. The other section referred to was that appar- ently led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He would not like to say that even about them, although their policy very often approached that description. The remaining section was the Liberal section. The Member for Merthyr Tydvil must clearly understand that he, and those who sat with him, had no monopoly of interest in the poor—had no special mandate to represent the poor—and no exclusive possession of independent action for the poor. Independence was a word almost as badly misused as liberty. We were at the beginning of a new Parliament. The Government was led by a statesman who in the dreary days of Opposition had remained faithful. He had shown his faith in the only way it could be shown—by his works in the King's Speech—and he asked hon. Members led by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil not to make invidious distinctions, but to judge men by what they did, and by how they voted. Then together they would achieve some little. It was only a little that Parliaments could do. The great forces that made men were largely outside of Parliament altogether, but that little should be done as well as possible.

moved an Amendment to the Address respectfully submitting to His Majesty that the present system of the letting of smaller houses in the burghs of Scotland inflicts great inconvenience and hardship, and calls for reform in the interest of landlords, their factors, and the tenants. He said he would not apologise for bringing forward this grievance in the form of an Amendment to the Address. Scotchmen did not, as a rule, obtrude their grievances on the House, and he hoped, therefore, that the matter to which he now called attention would receive careful consideration. He had during the fourteen years he had been a Member of the House endeavoured to get an opportunity for bringing this topic before the House, but without success. The grievance to which the Amendment referred was one which bore hardly on the operative classes in Scotland, and affected one half, if not three-fourths, of the population in that country. The system of tenure of which they complained was one which involved the holding of houses for long periods of time causing great hardships to thousands who, on account of the exigencies of their occupations, or for other reasons, had to change their places of abode at short notice. It was the practice of landlords to demand that tenants of houses in January or early in February should sign an agreement by which they became tied to the houses for a period of seventeen or eighteen months, without break or release, and compelled to pay the rent whether they occupied the house or not. If the tenant lost his work, or was forced to move to another place, he remained under obligation for the rent of the house for the whole period; that was felt to be a great hardship, very grievous and inequitable, and one which could be reformed without injury to any interest concerned. This grievance was felt by all occupiers of houses rented at under £30 and £40, but he was dealing more particularly with the case of those whose houses were rented at less sums. The necessity for Parliamentary action in legislation arose because the landlords practically acted together. They sent in these demands, termed "missives," all at one time; and the tenants were compelled to return them signed within ten days, under penalty, in event of non-compliance, of having their houses let over their heads. The tenants were really unable, under the circumstances, to help themselves. Besides, the question of the rates and taxes had to be dealt with, so that these could be collected from the landlords, and recovered by them from the tenants along with the rent, as in England. All this was necessary in the interest of everybody, under the conditions of life in the industrial centres in Scotland prevailing at present time. The present system was antiquated and a relic of the time when houses had gardens attached to them. In the old days it was most reasonable that a man who proposed to occupy a house should fix upon his house early in the year, and so got possession of the garden at a time when the operations incidental to cultivation could be carried on. There were no gardens now. The system thus prevailing in Scotland still, had long ago become unknown in England, where, he believed, it would not be permitted for one day. It was a state of affairs which had become intolerable to the minds of the working classes. He submitted that the grievance was very great; that the subject was very important—and suggested as a remedy that the House of Commons should enact that whatever period be fixed for the payment of the rent, the same should become the period of the tenure. It was shorter tenancies that were wanted, and more frequent payments of rental. These would be easier met by people whose wages came in in small sums, and to whom accumulation for quarterly or half-yearly payments was difficult or impossible. The point was to make the tenancy and the period of payment of rent of shorter date, as in England. In almost all the centres of population in Scotland there had been established now many associations for the purpose of finding a remedy to this great evil. The chief corporations in that country had also taken up the subject, and condemned this system. The town council of the great city of Glasgow had convened a conference of Scottish corporations and burghs last week on the subject. Public opinion was demanding in determined voice that a reform should be effected, and at once; very many Members of Parliament wore pledged to support the reform. He thought that he had said enough to show that this question should be dealt with by the Government at the earliest opportunity, and that some reasonable remedy should be provided for a state of affairs which was not consistent with the comfort or welfare of the working classes of Scotland. He did not propose his Amendment in any hostile spirit to the Government; he was only anxious that a Bill, which had been drafted on the subject, should pass its Second Reading, and be remitted to a Committee upstairs for detailed consideration. He begged to move.

said he had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment. He trusted that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment would receive the serious consideration of the Government, so that the law, which at present was a serious burden on the working classes, would be amended at the earliest possible opportunity.

said that this was a subject which had been brought before the House year after year by his hon. friend opposite, with much pertinacity, and he congratulated him on his admirable assiduity. He would not now discuss the merits of the Bill to which the hon. Gentlemen had referred, and he did not question that public opinion in Scotland had been ripened on this subject by the hon. Member's praiseworthy efforts. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the association of the burghs of Scotland, which had taken up this matter. He understood that only two days ago arrangements were made for that association to visit the Secretary for Scotland; and he would ask the hon. Member to accept his assurance, in behalf of the Secretary for Scotland, that the representations of the association would receive sympathetic consideration on the part of His Majesty's Government. It was only fair to state that there were two sides to the question, even from the point of view of the working classes; the possibility of making easy the quick dishousing of larger numbers, say, at the instances of a single capricious owner or employer, would have to be considered; and there were elements for discussion when the topic was brought before the House in the shape of a Bill. In these circumstances he thought that the subject was not one of sufficient magnitude to justify an Amendment to the Address, and he suggested that his hon. friend, having received the assurance he had now given, would be good enough to allow the main business of the House to proceed.

said that, as an employer of labour, he could state that the existing law in regard to the tenancy of houses in the burghs of Scotland often proved a great hardship to the working classes, and he hoped that it would soon be amended.

said that he accepted the assurance which the Lord Advocate had given, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said that an Amendment appeared on the Paper in his name in regard to the abolition of flogging in the Navy. He thought that they ought not to begin the discussion of an Amendment of such magnitude at that time of night. He had not expected that his Amendment would have been reached that night. Therefore, he begged to move the adjournment of the House.

I think my hon. and learned friend does not bear in mind the fact that the reason for an early adjournment on the first night of the session is that hon. Members are anxious to know what has been going on outside the House, and to hear the comments of other people on the contents of the King's Speech. That practice has never been extended to the second right, and I think it would be an evil example to depart from the rigid Parliamentary virtue which always distinguishes my hon. and learned friend. Therefore, I cannot assent to the Motion.

said that if he did not speak now he supposed he would forfeit his chance of bringing forward his Amendment.

Quite strictly the hon. and learned Member has already forfeited his chance; but I am sure that the House will indulge him if he is prepared to make his speech now.

said that he had really come to an arrangement to suit the convenience of the Secretary to the Admiralty that this debate should not be taken to-night. However, seeing that they had been discussing for two days, off and on, the servile condition of the Chinese on the Rand, he felt himself pretty well justified in asking the House to look a little nearer home, and to consider what was going on in our ships of war every day. As he did not expect his Motion to come on to-night, he had neither the Amendment nor the notes of his speech in his hand, but, in those circumstances, he believed he would speak much more from his heart than from his head. Although flogging in the Army had been abolished for twenty-six years the practice still existed in the Navy. At the present moment every British ship-of-war had, as a part of its necessary equipment, a cat-o'-nine-tails. Since 1881 the law gave full permission to the captain of a man-of-war to inflict twenty-five lashes on a man, just as, in the same way, every man in Ireland was subject to illegal trial by coercion magistrates. The possibility of every man who entered the Navy being subjected to the lash carried with it a degrading element. Since he had taken this matter up he had been flooded with correspondence from fathers and mothers of seamen of the Royal Navy. A boy in the Navy for enlisting purposes was only sixteen-and-a-half years of age, but for flogging purposes he was eighteen years of age. According to the King's regulations, Article 759, every boy in the Navy was liable to birching or punishment with the cane, and that punishment could be inflicted either summarily or by sentence of a court-martial. The birching was done on the bare breech, with a birch rod nine ounces in weight, which was twice as heavy as a juvenile birch. But the birch-rod was made more formidable by being steeped in salt water, and then steamed for twenty-four hours before the operation was performed. A boy after sentence was immediately put into confinement, and kept in a bunk below water-mark for twenty-four hours. Then after he was birched he was removed to the sick bay where he was kept a close prisoner. Was there any wonder that some boys had committed suicide as the result of this punishment? The cane used in flogging was half-an-inch thick and three feet long. The underclothing was taken away, so that only thin white pants were left on, and then the cane came into full operation. The reason why the pants were kept on was that the doctors were afraid of blood-poisoning setting in if the cane came in contact with the body. He would now tell the House some of the offences for which these boys in the Navy had been caned and birched. Although the pain caused by flogging was very great the moral degradation was greater, and he pitied young lads upon whom came this awful loss of self-respect. It was demoralising to everybody concerned, and it was demoralising to the honour of this country. He had heard this kind of flogging compared with that inflicted by the headmasters in our public schools, but there was all the difference in the world between the two. No comparison could be made between flogging in the Navy and flogging by headmasters in public schools. The two systems of punishment were entirely different in their moral and bodily effects, as well as in the way in which they were viewed by the boys. Under the King's regulations, all the boys on board ship must be present and must witness the flogging. The effects upon the other boys of seeing the infliction of this punishment were simply terrible. There was one case where a boy was flogged on board a first-class cruiser, and one of the boy's comrades saw the blood slashing about. He happened to be a man of excitable temperament, and he was so enraged at seeing his comrade treated in this way that he went for the commanding officer. But what afterwards became of him? He got twenty-four lashes and three months' imprisonment himself. It had been said that this flogging was done to maintain discipline, but he had ventured upon one occasion to tell the gentleman responsible for inflicting it in one particular case that it was done to produce terrorism. He had in his possession a letter from a seaman describing some of these floggings, and he used very strong language in reference to these cruelties. He declared in his letter that upon one occasion while a boy was being flogged the blood splashed into his face, and he described in detail the horrible effects of birching. After these floggings the deck became a kind of slaughterhouse. The terror and agony was simply awful, for they caused the organs of the body to act involuntarily, and those who have had to witness them declare that they could not possibly see such cruelties again for weeks. Mr. Pretyman told them last session about boys having to be kept in confinement after these floggings had been administered for fear that they should commit suicide. In August last he received a letter from the Mediterranean Fleet which stated that a boy, ordered to be flogged, had committed suicide. He made inquiries, and was informed by Lord Cawdor that the boy had committed suicide, but was not under sentence of flogging. The fact was that the boy knew he was about to be sentenced, and committed suicide in anticipation of it In the "Majestic" two boys had recently tried to kill themselves for the same reason. There was one law in the Navy for the rich and another for the poor. He had been twenty years in Parliament, and if he had been aware of the horrors of this flogging when he first entered the House it would have been abolished fifteen years ago. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil last night, and he saw enormous potentialities of what might occur. He told them of the chasm existing between the rich and the poor which might be widened at any moment. All had to say was that if they wished to enlarge that chasm, and see the people of England take the law into their own hands, all they had to do was to preserve flogging in the Navy. This was the flogging of the children of the poor by the rich. Flogging was not the punishment of the rich, but simply the punishment of the humble boy who went into the Navy in order to economise the household expenses, and who hoped to be able to bring home a few shillings for father, mother, or his sister. He had received a letter from a clergyman in which he said that he hoped the House of Commons would not think for a moment that there was no such thing as flogging in the Navy as a permanent institution. He had seen letters from deserters, from boys and from able-bodied seamen who had been flogged, and they all confirmed his statement, that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor. [Cries of "No, no."] One could never contradict or cross-examine the "No, no," but in this matter he wished the Prime Minister to take heart of grace. He did not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but he would not hesitate about keeping the House for five hours if he thought he could prevent even one case of flogging. He agreed that the condition of things had much improved in the Navy during the last sixty years, but he wished it to be clearly understood that he was not now attacking persons but the system of flogging in the Navy. He only wished to see these boys treated as human beings. They should not give all their sympathy to the Chinese in South Africa; they should also think of the boys at home. In the last speech he made upon this question in the House he stated that he relied upon the great Labour Party who were acquainted with the feelings and sufferings and infirmities of the poor, and hoped they would insist upon the hands of the rich being taken off their children for purposes of this kind. The Irish Members procured the abolition of flogging in the Army—a punishment which for generations it was the privilege of the rich to inflict upon the poor. The Irish had, he believed, procured for the English every single popular liberty they had, and he hoped that when the Prime Minister abolished flogging in the Navy he would thank the Irish Party, just as Wilberforce thanked them when slavery was abolished. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

said he had much pleasure in seconding this Amendment. This was by no means the first time that this subject had been brought before the House of Commons. These punishments were not merely punitive and corrective, but they were cruelly vindictive, and calculated to inflict as much pain and torture as possible. It was stated in the debate last year that one of these poor boys, after having been flogged, had to be watched by the medical officer for many hours, because he was in a dreadful state of nervous excitement, and they had to watch him very closely in order to prevent him from committing suicide.