To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will have a Report laid upon the Table as to the present condition of the Crinan Canal, the necessity for further expenditure in maintaining it, and the probable cost of a ship canal to take its place.(Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Government have decided to appoint a Royal Commission upon the canals in the United Kingdom, and, subject to the consent of the Treasury, the points raised in the Question of the hon. Member shall be submitted to the Royal Commissioners for their consideration.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that local and central distress committees formed under The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, find difficulty in providing useful work for those registered by such committees as out of work, owing to lack of funds, he will make a grant of money from the Treasury to meet this emergency pending proposed legislation upon this subject.(Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) I am afraid that no grant can be made pending the legislation promised in the King's Speech.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught upon the present system of making entries in the defaulters sheet,of soldiery; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This matter has been already taken up and has been referred to General Officers Commanding-in-Chief for consideration and report.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the experiment suggested by Colonel Pollock of giving thorough training in six months to a company corresponding to Militia recruits, and to the fact that £3,000 has been privately subscribed for the purpose; and, having regard to the importance of training men to arms in the shortest possible time, the Army Council will complete the sum required by a grant of £500.(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My attention has been drawn to the scheme mentioned in the Question. The Army Council regard this scheme as purely a private experiment. It will not, therefore, be possible to make the direct contribution suggested out of Army funds. In view, however, of the fact that the experiment is regarded as very interesting from the military point of view, it has been decided to lend arms and accoutrements, a limited number of hutments and a drill ground at Hounslow, or camp equipment, if preferred.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the returns of recruiting for the Army in Ireland during the year 1905 show any falling off in number compared with previous years; if so, to what extent; and whether the recruiting officers attribute the decrease to the movement fostered by the Gaelic League, and known as the Sinn Fein policy.(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The returns for recruiting in Ireland during the year 1905 show a falling off in numbers as compared with previous years, but this decrease is general throughout the United Kingdom. I have no reason for believing that the Gaelic League is an organisation which aims at affecting recruiting in one way or the other, nor have I any evidence that this or any other body has had an appreciable effect on recruiting in Ireland.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the force of British troops now stationed in South Africa; what is the annual cost of that force, including a due allowance for the capital cost of barracks, etc.; and whether the whole cost of that force is borne by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom.(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The establishment of British troops in South Africa is about 20,000 of all ranks. The annual cost of the force, including allowance for the capital cost of barracks, etc., is about £2,400,000. Under present arrangements Natal makes a contribution of £4,000 a year.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say what are the terms and conditions upon which the present Judge-Advocate-General holds his appointment, and whether and how it can be determined; and whether the present holder of that office is subordinate to the Secretary of State without direct access; to the Sovereign; and, if so, whether there is any precedent for an appointment; on such terms.(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The terms and conditions of the present I appointment are as follows: (1) A salary of £2,000 a year; (2) The devotion of his whole time to the duties of the post; (3) The retention of the post until the age of seventy, subject to continued efficiency, but without claim to pension or gratuity on retirement. The present holder is subordinate to the I Secretary of State, without direct access, I to the Sovereign, and in this respect the post of Judge-Advocate of the Fleet may be considered as a precedent.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the expediency of appointing early this Session a Committee of this House to inquire into and report upon the grievances of which the postal employees complain.(Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As my hon. friend is probably now aware, I stated on Tuesday in reply to a similar Question from the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland that I propose to move for a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry.

To ask the President of the Board of Education, whether he will grant a Return showing, as far as practicable, the tenure and trusts of the premises of voluntary schools.(Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I shall be happy to do my best to make the Return asked for.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that officers under military rules travelling to India by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the British India Steam Navigation Company, and the Anchor Line are exempted from the penalty attaching to overstaying their leave by reason of delay in the arrival of the steamer provided the steamer's time to arrive is within the period of their leave, he will explain why the same privilege is not extended to officers under the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations, or to the civilians in Goverment employ; and whether he will take steps to place both services on the same footing.(Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am not aware that any inconvenience has resulted from the difference to which the hon. Member draws attention between the leave rules of the Civil and Military Services, nor can I find that any representations on the subject have been made by any Civil Officer to the India Office. But I will consult the Government of India as to the desirability of assimilating the Civil to the Military Regulations in respect of the remission of penalties for overstaying leave when the overstayal is due to delay in the arrival of a steamer.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland have received complaints as to the insufficient number of boats on the Royal Canal; whether any inspection of the condition of the canal has been made for the past twelve years; whether he can state if the defect in the Spencer Dock Gats has yet been repaired; whether the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, have been applied to respecting those complaints; and, if so, whether he can explain why some attempt has not been made to have them remedied.(Answered by Mr. M'Kenna.) 1. I learn from the Board of Works, Ireland, that they have no information as to the number of boats on the Royal Canal, and are not in a position to state whether any complaints have been received by the Midland Great Western Railway Company. 2. Several inspections of the Royal Canal have been made during the past twelve years. Complete examinations of the whole waterway took place in 1899, 1000, 1902, and 1905, and partial examinations in 1901, 1902, 1905, and 1906 (during the present month). 3. Considerable repairs have been done to the Spencer Dock gates during the past four and a half years. In 1901 complaints arose as to excessive leakage at these gates. The Board's engineer reported on this, and towards the end of 1901 works were carried out by the Midland Great Western Railway Company calculated greatly to lessen the leakage. The gates have received attention since 1901. 4. I have not been able to learn whether the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, have been applied to respecting the complaints referred to. 5. The attention of the Midland Great Western Railway Company has been called, when necessary, to such defects as were disclosed by the examinations of the Board's engineer, and efforts have been made, and continue to be made, to remedy such defects.

To ask the Secretary of State for War through what channel the proceedings at the first day's sitting of the district court martial, assembled for the trial of Staff Sergeant Major Hilton, Army Service Corps, was communicated to the Press, as on the first day on which the court assembled the Exchange Telegraph Company published a report of what had taken place, contrary to the provisions of the King's Regulations.(Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. This court, like other courts martial, was open to the public, and therefore the Press was at liberty to publish a report of the proceedings.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the case of two petty officers of His Majesty's Navy, who, on 14th December attempted to return to Portsmouth by the South Western Railway, Waterloo Station, and were ejected from their carriage by order of the station master, who informed them that civilians object to the company of bluejackets; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.

When the case was brought to my notice by the hon. and gallant Member, I made inquiries of the railway company, and I understand that, on the date in question, several hundred sailors were returning to Weymouth to join the Channel Fleet. The company had accordingly provided a special train for them, due to leave shortly after the ordinary morning express; and had the two petty officers concerned been permitted to enter the ordinary train, it would have been impossible to prevent the other sailors from following their example, with the result that the train would have become so overcrowded that its punctual despatch would have been impossible. It is not a fact that the station master informed these men that the civilians objected to the company of bluejackets. Sailors travel at reduced rates, and where the number travelling justifies the provision of special accommodation, the railway company claim the right of restricting the men to these trains.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Lord Cawdor's memorandum of 30th November, 1905, is considered by the present Board of Admiralty to be binding in its decisions in regard to the future careers of the Osborne cadets and the future duties of the engine-room artificers; whether the Board has made an application for sanction by Order in Council of the changes affecting the officers and the engine-room artificers which were embodied in Lord Cawdor's memorandum; and, if so, will a copy of such Order in Council be laid upon the Table; whether any protests against Lord Cawdor's memorandum have been received from officers commanding our principal fleets, and also from other admirals in high positions who have commanded fleets; and, as the decisions in Lord Cawdor's memorandum were only made public during the recess, will the Admiralty defer action on it until the financial year 1906–7?

Lord Cawdor's memorandum of 30th November, 1905, contains a record of decisions arrived at by the Board of Admiralty under his and Lord Selborne's presidency which have come, or are coming, into operation. It is not proposed to defer further action with regard to them, but to watch closely their working and effect. An Order in Council affecting the stoker and mechanician ratings received the King's approval on 6th January, 1906. Representations disapproving of portions of the policy laid down in Lord Cawdor's memorandum have been received from certain officers of His Majesty's Navy; but, while the Board of Admiralty are always ready to consider representations made by officers serving under them, it must be clearly understood that the Board are alone responsible to Parliament for the government and discipline of His Majesty's Navy.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the officers censured in the Admiralty Memorandum on the "Assistance" court martial were in receipt of the memorandum before its publication in the Press; whether any Press writers were in receipt of the memorandum more than twenty-four hours before its publication; whether any Report was made to the Admiralty by the Captain of the "Assistance" as to the ground tackle of that ship being ineffective; and whether he is aware that the "Assistance" dragged her anchors on several occasions owing to the ground tackle being too light.

No copies of the Admiralty Minute were issued to the Press until the Commander in Chief of the Atlantic Fleet had acknowledged the receipt of the letter forwarding it to him and directing him to communicate it to the Officers concerned. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the question, no report was made by the Captain of the "Assistance" as to the ground tackle being ineffective, and nothing is known as to the ship having dragged her anchors at any time.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the heads of departments in the Admiralty have been notified that the words "Goods to be of British manufacture and material" are not to appear in any specifications issued to contractors.

No, sir.

Do I understand that those British manufacturers who have hitherto enjoyed this measure of protection against foreign competition will continue to do so in the future?

No alterations have been made or are in contemplation. That is all I can say.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Report for 1904 of Sir Frederick Lugard, High Commissioner for Northern Nigeria, in which the statement is made that the natives had been selling their children as slaves, and that the prices at which they were sold represented normally 1s. 9d. worth of corn and 10s. in salt; whether the duty on salt was increased a few years ago; and whether he can see his way to recommend its abolition or reduction.

In reply to the hon. Member I have to say that the Secretary of State's attention has been called to the passage referred to in Sir F. Lugard's report. The children in question were sold owing to famine, and were liberated and taken charge of by the Government of Northern Nigeria. There is no indication in this passage that the price of salt is excessive; on the other hand, elsewhere in this same Report (p. 97) Sir F. Lugard writes, "The import duty on salt arriving in Northern Nigeria, which European traders at first protested against, has proved in no way injurious to their trade." The duty was increased in 1903 to the rate (40s. a ton) at which it was formerly levied by the Niger Company. The effects of the duty have been carefully considered and the Secretary of State cannot see his way to recommend its abolition or reduction.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the changes contemplated in the Transvaal Labour Ordinance and the indentures attaching thereto, he will consider the advisability of cancelling the existing provision for the re-enlistinent of any Chinese coolie at the close of his present term of engagement.

A clause in the Ordinance for the enlistment and importation of Chinese labourers permits the labourer to re-engage at the expiry of his original indenture for a further period or periods not exceeding in all three years. The earliest contracts will not expire before May, 1907, by which date the Transvaal will have become a self-governing colony. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government, while reserving to themselves entire freedom of action upon the general question of the conditions under which Chinese labour is carried on, do not propose to cancel the provision of the Ordinance referred to.

I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies when the next shipload of Chinese coolies is expected in South Africa. I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the last shipload of Chinese coolies reached South Africa and where those men are now working.

The Transvaal Chamber of Mines reported on the 9th inst. that shire January 31st the "Indravelli" had arrived with 1,943 coolies, and that 1,590 were on sea in the "Cranley," which appears to have arrived yesterday. I am not aware in which mines the men from the last ship-load are working.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table forthwith the revised regulations under which the recently arrived coolies are now living and working.

I am not yet in a position to lay upon the Table the exact terms of the modifications of the existing system referred to in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury on Monday last.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that corporal punishment of the Chinese labourers was last year widely resorted to by the mining authorities of the Witwatersrand district, and that it was administered in a manner borrowed from the practice of the Chinese courts of justice, he will say whether this was done with the knowledge and approval of Lord Milner; and, if so, whether Lord Milner has been called upon for any explanation of his conduct in sanctioning such punishments.

I have to refer the hon. Member to the telegram of 24th, October printed at page 44 of Cd. 2796, in which Mr. Lyttelton stated that Mr. Evans informed Lord Milner of his action in not interfering if slight corporal punishment was administered on the mines in the circumstances' described, and that Lord Milner took no objection. Lord Milner appears to have been communicated with, but no explanation by him is on record, though it is on record that Lord Milner agreed to the statement which appears in the Blue-book. The Secretary of State has, of course, had no opportunity of access to any explanations which Lord Milner may have made privately to his predecessor.

Will the Secretary of State call upon Lord Milner for an explanation now?

I will consult the Secretary of State on that point.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that, during last year, it was the practice of the Transvaal mining authorities of the Witwatersrand district illegally to punish Chinese labourers by head collars fastened round their necks, and by placing them in the stocks; and if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table.

I have to refer the hon. Member to the statement of Lord Selborne printed at page 22 of Cd. 2819 published on Tuesday last.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended in the case of the repatriated Chinamen to compensate mineowners for the outlays incurred in the terms of the contracts already entered into and for any damage they may claim to sustain by the loss of such labour; and, if so, will the Government consider the advisability of charging such compensation, if admitted, against the £30,000,000 promised by the mine-owners of the Transvaal; and, if not, from what fund will the necessary expenses be drawn.

The right of Chinamen to be repatriated upon payment being tendered of the cost of their passages out and home is within a strict interpretation of Clause 14 of the Labour Ordinance. The payment of the cost of the passage from China is compensation for outlays, but no further claim for compensation on the part of mine-owners affected can arise.

asked out of what funds the passages would be paid.

It has already been stated by the Prime Minister in the debate on the Address that the funds for enabling Chinamen who have not the necessary £17 10s. to return to their homes will be provided out of Imperial fluids.

What date will the supplementary estimate be introduced?

Will it be as soon as the £30,000,000 are paid?

I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have taken, or propose to take, any steps for the payment of the £30,000,000 promised by the South African mine-owners towards the expenses of the South African war.

I have to refer the hon. Member to my reply of yesterday to the hon. Member for the Bosworth Division of Leicester.

I can find in it no reference to the steps it is proposed to take.

I said the Government were considering their policy. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table of the House the amendments proposed by his Department in the British Guiana Indian Labour Ordinance.

The Immigration Ordinance of British Guiana was recently amended by the Ordinance No. 24 of 1905, and no further amendment is at present in contemplation.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the strong desire expressed in Canada in favour of the appointment of official British commercial representatives in the Dominion; and whether, in conjunction with other Departments of State, he will take steps to comply with this desire.

The Secretary of State is aware that this subject has attracted much attention in Canada. The Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence is at this moment considering the question of the despatch of a special commercial mission to Canada; and one object of such a commission would be to report upon the appointment of permanent commercial correspondents in the Dominion.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to carry out in Ceylon the recommendations of the Elementary Education Commission, 1905, with respect to compulsory education in that colony; whether a conscience clause will be included in the new proposals; and if so, what will be its nature. I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Ceylon proposes to include in the new Education Ordinance in that island a clause enabling the authorities to call upon planters to provide schools, or a school, for groups of estates, as recommended by the Elementary Education Commission, 1905, and when legislation to this effect is likely to be introduced; and whether inspectors will be appointed to supervise existing and future schools.

In reply to the hon. Member I have to inform him that the Governor's proposals with regard to elementary education in Ceylon have been under the consideration of the Secretary of State, and it is hoped that he will shortly be in a position to lay papers on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will make representations to the Government of India with the view to the institution of adequate facilities for the education of the children of coolies employed in the agricultural districts of India, in tea gardens, cotton plantations, etc., in Assam, Madras, the Central Provinces, and Bengal.

As was stated by my predecessor, in reply to Questions asked by my hon. friend last session, this question is already engaging the attention of the Government of India, and I do not consider it necessary at present to make any representation to that Government in regard to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information regarding the state of the negotiations between the British and Chinese Governments in the matter of the Thibetan Treaty.

My right hon. friend will be in his place on Monday and will be prepared to answer any Questions addressed to him. On his behalf, in reply to this Question, I have to say that negotiations are at present proceeding with the Chinese Government in regard to the terms of a Convention for the adhesion of China to the Convention concluded with Tibet in 1904, but there is no intention of altering the terms of the latter Convention.

Then do I understand that the arrangement announced by the Prime Minister to-day will be abandoned after Monday, and that the Secretary of State will in future answer his own Questions.

No, Sir. I only said that my right hon. friend would be in his place on Monday and answer Questions as far as he could.

Perhaps I may address myself to the Prime Minister? I quite understood him to say yesterday that when the Secretary of State was in his place it was his intention to answer Questions. Is that to be adhered to?

My right hon. friend cannot alter the circumstances and the arrangements of business that make it difficult for him on many occasions to be present in his place at Question time. On the occasions when he is not able to be present, my hon. friend will answer his Questions; but what I understand is that my right hon. friend will be in his place on Monday and will then perhaps himself make a clearer statement than I have been able to make of the arrangements he finds possible in order to accommodate his duty towards the House with his duty to the office and to these whom he is obliged to see there.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps, if any, he proposes to take to render reports of British consuls of greater value to the mercantile community; whether he will instruct consuls to forward important commercial information whenever they may obtain it, without waiting for their annual reports; and whether he will, as is done in the United States, cause a daily issue of urgent commercial information received from consular officers.

With regard to the hon. Member's first Question, steps have already been taken within recent years with this object, and the new edition of the General Consular Instructions now in preparation contains revised and explicit directions on the subject. With regard to the second Question, regulations to this effect are already in force. With regard to the third Question the weekly Board of Trade Journal includes a large amount of commercial information, based on reports specially supplied by British consuls. Where even more immediate publication is desirable, in the interests of British trade, the Board of Trade make a practice of sending notices to the Press. The question of the best means of diffusing the commercial information is now under consideration of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence.

When will the instructions be issued?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he can state what is the present status of Wei-Hai-Wei; and what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government concerning it.

It is not considered that the transfer of the Russian lease of Port Arthur to Japan has made any change in the present status of Wei-Hai-Wei, which is leased to His Majesty's Government, and no action is at present contemplated with regard to the lease.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that notices have been issued in Scotland for the recovery of income tax, with costs, if not paid within seven days, he will say whether similar notices have been issued in all towns in England, and if in future equality of treatment will be observed in England and Scotland in the recovery of income tax.

The procedure to compel payment of income tax in Scotland differs so materially from the corresponding procedure in England that exact equality of treatment between the two countries in the matter of recovery by distraint cannot be established, but everything possible has been and will be done to produce as close a correspondence as circumstances permit. In Scotland, collectors have no personal power of distraint, while, in England, the collector can himself distrain. Thus, the issue of a final notice in England means something much more drastic than the issue of the similar notice in Scotland; and, consequently, resort to it is commonly delayed to a slightly later date in England than in Scotland. Final notices are now due in England, but to what extent it has been or may be found necessary to use them it is impossible to say.

But is it not the case that the statute is the same for both countries?

I believe so.

Is it not the fact that Scotch income taxpayers are subject to collection at a much earlier period than in England?

I do not think that is so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the comments on the evils arising from child insurance which were made by the magistrate at the Clerken-well Police Court in a recent case; and whether he contemplates taking any action in the matter.

I have seen the comments of the magistrate upon the case to which the hon. Member refers. The criminal law on the subject could hardly be made more severe than it now is. A parent who insures her child and then is guilty of cruelty or culpable neglect is liable to penal servitude for five years under Section 1, Sub-section 4, of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904. The imposition of further restrictions on the insurance of children involves questions of much difficulty, and various proposals for legislation have not met with success; but I will bring the question to the notice of the Treasury, who are, I understand, considering other aspects of this matter.

I be to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to introduce legislation dealing with the inspection of laundries carried on by religious institutions.

The matter has and will have my attention, but I am not yet in a position to say whether legislation will be possible this session.

Is the righthon. Gentleman aware that, according to the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, no fewer than 14,000 woman and girls—

Notice should be given of that Question.

Is it not the fact that the information in the Department shows the present system to be unsatisfactory?

We have a great deal of information in the Department. I can only say that the matter will receive my attention as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the inquiry held at Cardiff into the loss of the Cardiff steamer "Ordovician"; whether he can state how many able seamen were em- ployed and their respective nationalities; whether he can say how many of the alien seamen were able to speak and understand English; whether his attention has been directed to the remarks addressed to the court of inquiry by the learned stipendiary of Cardiff; and whether, seeing the dangers attached to the employment of alien seamen who cannot understand English, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce, at an early date, a Bill to prohibit the employment of such seamen, as recommended by the Mercantile Marine Committee.

Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to the case referred to in the question. I am informed that four able seamen were engaged at Swansea. One of these was a Greek and three were natives of a Greek island belonging to Turkey. I understand from the superintendent before whom the men were engaged that five of the alien seamen spoke and understood English fairly; and that three did not. My attention has been called to the remarks of the Cardiff stipendiary in the case. The matter generally is one with which it is proposed to deal in the Merchant Shipping Bill to be shortly introduced into Parliament.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chief officer whose certificate was suspended for three months has held a master's certificate from the year 1887, that he has been presented by the Board of Trade with several medals for gallantry at sea, and will he under these circumstances, seeing that the loss of this ship was due to the want of proper seamen, consider the advisability of returning this officer his Board of Trade certificate, so as to allow him to earn his bread?

I will promise to look into the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Committee appointed at the beginning of last year to inquire into the working of the Joint Stock Companies Acts has completed its deliberations; and whether he can say when the Report may be expected.

The Committee, I understand, has concluded its sittings and the Report is being drafted, but I am not at presentable to give a date when the Report may be expected.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the estuary of the River Thames is being polluted by the discharge of crude sewage from the towns of Sheerness, Southend, and Whitstable; and whether he will communicate with the authorities of those towns urging upon them the importance, in the interest of public health, of adopting some system of sewage purification without further delay.

I am aware of the discharge of crude sewage into tidal waters in the cases mentioned in the Question. As regards Whitstable the Local Government Board wrote to the district council on the subject last year, who contended that in the circumstances of their district they would not be justified in incurring the expenditure necessary for carrying out works for the treatment of the sewage. I will communicate with the town councils of Sheerness and Southend, but as respects Southend, it is fair to say that the alleged pollution has recently been the subject of judicial decision, and I understand that it is possible that the case may be carried to a higher court.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to take further steps until the matter has been finally adjudicated on in the Law Courts?

I will give that question sympathetic consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the confusion caused by the payment of the annual grant to the local education authorities at the end of each school year instead of by quarterly instalments; and whether he will revert to the old method of quarterly payments.

My attention has been called to this matter. It is not correct to say that the annual grant has ever been paid on a regular system of quarterly instalments. Ever since the first establishment of the annual grant, forty years ago, it has been paid after the close of the year, and I am not aware that any confusion has thereby been occasioned. But in each of the last three financial years a partial and essentially temporary expedient has been resorted to, by which certain limited sums have in certain cases been paid in advance. The subject is extremely technical and complicated, and the Board of Education are at present making a special investigation into what changes (if any) could properly be made in the method of payments to local authorities in respect of elementary education.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that when hon. Members on two recent occasions visited this House at midnight for the purpose of securing their seats, the Chamber and approaches thereto were in darkness, and that the request of Members to have them lighted was refused by the officers in charge; whether he can say who is responsible for this state of things; and will he see that in future Members are afforded light when they, in the exercise of their rights, desire to visit the House at night.

On the two occasions referred to by the hon. Member, the usual practice was followed as regards the lighting of the main approaches, lobbies, etc., to the Chamber; in fact, there were more lamps in lighting than usual. The Department responsible had no knowledge of any request for further lighting by Members. The Debating Chamber has not hitherto been lit upon occasions of a similar character. I much regret any inconvenience caused to Members. I have given instructions that in future any reasonable request for temporary light in the Chamber of the House itself shall be immediately complied with.

Are Members entitled to come down here at midnight and secure a seat unless they are prepared to stay within the precincts of the House until the House meets? Ought not the rules on the card to be observed.

said the rule was printed upon the card, and was printed there not for the purpose of being broken, but for the purpose of being complied with. The rule was very clearly stated upon the card, and if hon. Members would look at it they would see the conditions under which they were entitled to place a card upon a seat and to take that seat at prayers.

I came down here for the first time at five o'clock in the morning and found no Members within the precincts of the House, although every single seat on both sides had been taken.

Seeing it was not possible for Members coming down at midnight to remain, would it not be advisable to prohibit the taking of seats before a reasonable hour?

said that the occasions upon which seats were taken at midnight occurred very rarely, once or twice in the course of the session, and he thought there had generally been a tacit understanding that the rule should not be enforced upon those occasions. Of course it would be quite improper that, if the House were to rise at midnight, Members should then proceed to secure their places and go home, and come back again here at two o'clock and expect to find their seats allotted to them.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the inconvenience to Members of this House due to the Sale Office for Bills being situated in a remote part of Westminster Hall; and whether he will consider, as a means to remedy this inconvenience, the transfer of the Sale Department to the Vote Office in the lobby.

The Vote Office is already too small for the business carried on in it. But I will consult the authorities of the House as to whether any more convenient arrangement can be made for the Sale Department.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to appoint a Committee to consider the whole subject of the arrangements of the House.

The arrangements, rest with the authorities, whom I will consult in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the county council of Roscommon has passed a resolution in favour of changing the date of the termination of the financial year for the purpose of local government in Ireland from 31st March to 31st December, that this resolution has been adopted by several other Irish county councils, and that the Local Government Board has declared this change can be effected only by an Act of Parliament; and, if so, whether he is prepared to introduce the legislation necessary to give effect to the views of the public bodies entrusted with the duties of local administration.

The facts are as stated in the Question, The financial half-years of county and district councils are fixed as terminating on 30th September and 31st March by the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, and the Privy Council orders made there-under, and an alteration of these dates could only be effected by legislation. The Local Government Board are not aware that any useful purpose would be served by a change of date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Cork County Council calling for inquiry into the qualifications as an expert o Lord Ikerrin, recently appointed by the Department of Agriculture as a Commissioner for the protection of Irish butter against fraudulent imitation and adulteration; how soon the inquiry may be expected to take place; and whether having regard to the importance of the butter-producing industry in the south the representatives of the people on the county councils will have any share in the proposed inquiry.

The hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension as to the nature of the inquiry. It is to be one made by myself with some assistance, but it will not be in the nature of a body on which any representative authority could be appointed. I hope very soon to be able to announce the date at which it will begin—possibly in the course of next week.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that much inconvenience is caused to officials and the public in Ireland through the difficulty of finding a quorum to attend the meetings of county infirmary committees, and that a large number of meetings that had been summoned have fallen through owing to the failure of a quorum to attend; and whether, in view of these facts, he will, either by change of rule or by legislation, if this be necessary, secure a reduction in the number of members making a quorum at meetings of those committees.

The Local Government Board have no information to the effect mentioned in the first part of the Question. The quorum of Infirmary Committees is fixed at five, which in no case is more than a third of the members, while the average number of the com- mittees is about twenty-two. A change in the number of the quorum could only be effected by legislation, and the Board have not evidence to show that a necessity has arisen for altering the present number, which cannot be regarded as excessive. The objections to having a very small quorum are obvious.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a decision given in the King's Bench Division at Dublin on the 13th instant declaring that it was a violation of the law to inscribe the name of the owner upon a vehicle in the Irish language, although Roman characters were used; and what course the police authorities will pursue to ensure due compliance with the law.

I am advised that the effect of the decision of the King's Bench Division is correctly stated in the Question. The police authorities will endeavour to secure that the main object of the law, viz., the ascertainment of the ownership of a vehicle by which any damage is done, is duly secured; and it will be a question in each particular case what steps may best be taken for that purpose.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the names shall appear in the language spoken in the country.

I think it desirable that the names should be printed legibly and intelligibly. The object is to secure that the owner shall be recognisable.

If the name is in Irish characters will the police be able to recognise it?

I have stated what their instructions are.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a tenant purchaser on the Hickman Estate in county Clare has been sent to gaol at Carrigaholt Petty Sessions on February 8th for shooting on his farm, as he thought he had a right to do; and when fined 10s. with the alternative of a week in gaol, he asked to have the fine increased to enable him to appeal, the resident magistrate refused; and whether he will cause an inquiry into the matter.

I am informed that in this case Patrick Cahill was convicted, not for shooting on his own farm, but for killing rabbits on a farm which is specially used by the landlord for the breeding of rabbits. I have no information that the defendant asked to have the fine increased in order that he might appeal, but in any event that question was one for the magistrates to decide. I have no power to order an inquiry into the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the resident magistrates to discontinue the objectionable practice of preventing appeals?

I have no power to give such instructions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, what are the educational grounds on which it has been decided to restore the extra grant for teaching Irish in the national schools of Ireland; and further, whether the great majority of children attending national schools in Ireland leave school at a very early age; and whether he will state what practical benefit these children will derive from a study of the Irish language during hours which might be used for more profitable instruction.

It is not the fact that the great majority of children attending national schools in Ireland leave at a very early age. The average age of leaving does not substantially differ from that in England, though the attendance is much more irregular. The proposals for aiding the teaching of the Irish language, which are at present the subject of communications between my- self and the National Board and the Treasury, do not contemplate the restoration of the same extra grant which it was decided last year to withdraw. They are intended to provide more effective methods of aiding the study of Irish, which will, it is hoped, give better results. That study ought not, however, to be allowed to interfere with the necessary subjects of elementary instruction. It is impossible, within the limits of an Answer to a Question to state the grounds which lead me to believe that the teaching of Irish has a real educational value, but I shall be prepared to explain them on a proper occasion.

When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to be in a position to explain his scheme?

In the course of the next few weeks.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a barn belonging to Mr. Robert Bailey, of View Forth, Cross, county Derry, was fired, and valuable property destroyed, immediately after the election for North Derry; and if any clue to the perpetrators of this outrage is in the hands of the police.

Is there any ground for suggesting that the fire was caused otherwise than by accident. Is not Londonderry one of the most peaceful counties in Ireland?

On the night of the 31st January, a barn with its contents, and a rick of hay, Mr. Bailey's property, were destroyed by fire; and a heifer, also his property, was found dead with its throat cut. The police have made every effort to discover the perpetrators of these outrages, but so far without success. They are still pursuing their investigation of the matter. It is quite true that Londonderry is usually a peaceful county, but I am sorry to say there is some reason to believe that this outrage had a political object.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the rate of infantile mortality within the North Dublin Union Workhouse as disclosed by the recent Local Government Board inquiry into the subject.

During the three years ending June 30th, 1904, there were, approximately, 333 deaths of children under two years of age in the two nurseries of this workhouse, and of the children transferred to extern hospitals 69 died, so that the total number of deaths was about 402 out of probably less than 1,000 children. As a result of the Local Government Board medical inspector's inquiry in the matter, considerable improvements have been made In the structure and administration of the infant department.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a memorial has been received by the Estates Commissioners sent on behalf of small holders residing at Aughabol. Queen's County, requesting the purchase for the purpose of redistribution; of the estate of the late Jeremiah Dunne, at present for sale in the Land Judges' Court; and whether, as this estate is all untenanted land, he can say what steps are being taken in the matter.

The Estates Commissioners have received the memorial referred to, and have made an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of the unsold lots of the estate in question. I am informed that the Commissioners' offer, with other offers which have been received will shortly come before the Land Judge for consideration.

The sale takes place next Monday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of the police force which assisted at the eviction of Joseph Brock and his family at Clonkeen, Queen's County, on the 14th instant; what was the cost in connection therewith; and whether any part of the expense will fall upon local rates.

The police force assembled for the preservation of the peace consisted of three officers and fifty men, drawn from the established force of the county. The only cost incurred was £6 14s. 3d., the travelling and subsistence expenses of the men. No part of the expense will fall on local rates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the work of the various public bodies created by the Local Government Act of 1898 is often needlessly hampered by the rulings of the Local Government Board, the Government will consider the advisability of widening the constitution of that body and introducing into it some element of popular representation.

It cannot be admitted that the work of public bodies is needlessly hampered by the Local Government Board. The hon. Member is probably thinking of cases in which the Board, in virtue of their statutory obligations, have necessarily to interfere with the action of local bodies. I am not at present prepared to make any statement on the point mentioned in the latter part of the Question.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the office of inspector of postmen at Limerick has been vacant since last July; and whether, seeing that there is a senior man of thirty years' service without an offence against him capable of filling the post, he will have the appointment made.

The office of inspector of postmen at Limerick has been vacant since July last. A senior postman is being tried on the duties, and the question of his appointment depends upon the manner in which he performs them. A report on the subject is to be made to me shortly.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he can say when the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Disorders will issue its Report.

My hon. friend of course is aware that the Government have no control over the proceedings of Royal Commissions; but I understand from the Chairman of the Commission, Lord St. Aldwyn, that the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline have made great progress with the consideration of their Report, and although he cannot yet name any definite date at which it will be presented he hopes that it will be completed by Whitsuntide.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he will consider the desirability of appointing a Committee to inquire into the practicability of adopting some improved method of taking divisions so as to obviate the delay and inconvenience arising from the crowded state of the lobbies.

I agree with my hon. friend that the present mode of taking divisions is cumbrous, tedious and inconvenient; but no one has yet devised a better. It is a subject which may well be considered and it will be kept in view in any general review of the procedure of the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view to future electoral legislation, he will consider the advisability of inquiring, by Select or Departmental Committee or Commission, into the expenses and machinery of Parliamentary Elections, and especially into recent evidence as to the working of the second ballot in other countries and the possibility of introducing some form of the second ballot in Parliamentary Elections in the United Kingdom.

:. The Government will consider my hon. friend's suggestion.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government intend to accept and act upon the Resolution passed by this House on May 5th, 1893, with regard to the appointments to the county magistracy.

The Resolution of 1893 referred to in the Question, which was concurred in by the Government then in power, expresses the view of His Majesty's present Government, and that view will of course be acted upon when the occasion requires it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider whether the time has now come when the brass trellis in front of the Ladies' Gallery might safely be removed; and if he will give the House an opportunity of expressing its view of this matter.

I am not aware that the question of safety has ever entered into the consideration of this matter. It is a question of comfort and convenience, and upon this point varying opinions have again and again been expressed with great confidence. I am not sure that a new House, with a very large proportion of Members who have no practical knowledge of the facts, would be an authoritative judge in the ancient controversy.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the fact that on two previous occasions the opinion of the occupants of the Ladies' Gallery was taken, and whether that opinion was not on both occasions in favour of retaining the grating?

I am not as well acquainted with the opinions of the Ladies' Gallery as my hon. friend appears to be. As far as my slight acquaintance with these thing goes, I have heard opinions strongly expressed on either side of the question and my own opinion, if I might put forward, is that there is much more in convenience caused by the heavy mullion, which interpose themselves between the occupants of the Ladies' Gallery and the Members of the House than by the grating itself. But I do not think we can de termine a matter like this by the opinions of the occupants of the Ladies' Gallery gathered casually on some particular occasion.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of admitting ladies to the galleries of the House on the same term as men?

That has been often suggested and discussed in the House; and I think the general experience and opinion have been against it.

Is there any occasion for the four notices in the Ladies' Gallery commanding silence, when there is none in any other part of the House?

I am not aware of it, but there must be some mysterious reason.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the opinion of the nation on the fiscal controversy so clearly expressed at the recent General Election, he will refuse to give any of the Government time for the discussion of any Motion thereon unless asked for by the responsible Leaders of the Opposition.

I understand that my hon. friend the Member for the Colne Valley Division proposes to moe a Resolution affirming the decision expressed in the recent election on the fiscal question; and I have already stated that as we consider it desirable that the House should have this opportunity, a day will be given for the purpose.

asked why the Member for Colne Valley could not take his chance in the ballot with other private Members, and whether it was fair to waste two days on a matter concerning which the opinions of the House were very well known.

asked whether the Prime Minister anticipated a rapid end to the debate on the Address, so that the House could get to work; and what would the course of business be next week.

Looking at the Order Paper, there seems no doubt that the Address may be voted on Monday night at the latest, and the Government will endeavour to bring the discussion to an end then. On the morning sittings of Tuesday and Wednesday Supplementary Estimates will be taken and some minor Bills will be introduced. Thursday we propose to devote to the Free Trade Resolution, which I think it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing. On Monday, 5th March, we intend to move the Speaker out of the Chair on Navy Estimates. We shall see how we proceed with regard to the progress of financial business, a great deal of which must be got through before 25th March; but in order, if possible, to avoid encroachment upon the privileges of private Members, we may have once or twice to move the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule. We intend, however, to abstain from such action as much as possible.

I take no exception whatever to the statement of the Prime Minister that he regarded the fiscal question as of so much importance as to justify a special debate, but I think that when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the matter on Monday he spoke of giving two days.

No; a day.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say two days. Having regard, however, to the importance which he himself attaches to the subject. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is rather sanguine if he anticipates that a proper discussion can possibly be concluded in a single day. I merely put in that caveat. As to the duration of the Address debate, in recent years the discussion has usually occupied two weeks or more. I would personally be glad if a precedent could be made for closing such debates within a shorter period in any circumstances, but I should think it rather unfair if a precedent were made harshly and suddenly against the minority whom I represent. I hope therefore that, if matters of importance still remain, the right hon. Gentleman will not hold too strictly to the intention he has now declared.

The House necessarily met later this session than in recent years owing to the General Election. I think, therefore, that when the right hon. Gentleman remembers that the financial business must be closed before a certain day, he will see that it was not unreasonable to quicken, if possible, the progress of the Address debate.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Education Bill will be brought in?

No, Sir.

moved the following Amendment—

"But we humbly regret that your Majesty's Ministers should have brought the reputation of this country into contempt by describing the employment of Chinese indentured labour as slavery, whilst it is manifest from the tenor of your Majesty's gracious Speech that they are contemplating no effectual method for bringing it to an end."

He said he thought it very desirable to focus attention on this question which had been prominently before the public during the last two years and especially during the last two months. It had been said over and over again by members of the present Ministry and their supporters, that the late Government had been guilty of a great wrong, and had been instrumental in casting a slur upon the honour of this country, in sanctioning the introduction of Chinese labour into South Africa. That was a serious charge to make. It was a charge that ought not to have been made unless the people who made it believed in it, and it ought not to have been made unless it was capable of proof. One of the most astounding things in the whole of this agitation was that there had been no proof to back up the assertion. On the contrary, the whole body of opinion entertained by people who really knew the conditions and had seen the coolies at work went to prove that hon. Gentlemen opposite were wrong in asserting with so much confidence that the conditions were tantamount to slavery. Business men, working men engaged in the mines, trade union officials, ministers of religion, the members of the British. Association visiting South Africa last autumn, and even some supporters of the present Government themselves who had been out there, all said there was no element of slavery in the conditions under which the Chinamen worked, and that the arrangements were healthy, humane, and admirable in every way. Yet, in spite of this great body of evidence from those who had been on the spot, various Ministers still persisted in their allegations that the conditions amounted to slavery. The present Minister for Education, for instance, speaking at Bristol last September, said Liberals had a grave responsibility in this matter; they must wash their hands of it entirely, for it was part of the creed of Liberals that under the British flag slavery in whatever for, and under whatever guise should no exist. This right hon. Gentleman had been closely associated with, even not primarily responsible for, the literature which had been designed to educate the electors during the past two of three years; and if he proposed to apply to the education of the children of the country the methods which he had applied to the education of their parents, they would be hard put to it to tell right from wrong, justice from injustice, fact from fiction. Then there was another right hon. Gentleman who, in spite of everything that had been published to the contrary, still adhered, so far as he knew, to his opinion that the conditions under which the Chinese worked amounted to slavery. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his election address expressed his opinion that Chinese labour was unnecessary for South Africa, especially in the enslaved, underhand abominably created form in which it did now exist. He added—

"I am against slavery, coolie, indentured, contract, or coloured labour for British South Africa,"

At the time that address was issued, colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman were making it clear that they did not regard the conditions under which the Chinese laboured as tantamount to slavery, and it certainly appeared that as their hopes of office came nearer realisation they were modifying their language, and probably their opinions. But the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to stick to the opinion which he had expressed from the first, and to which no doubt he would adhere to his dying day: viz., that the Chinese in South Africa are slaves.

Is not the hon. Gentleman referring to myself, rather than to the President of the Board of Trade?

said he was addressing his remarks to the President of the Local Government Board. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite would forgive him if he had wrongfully addressed him. He would now quote what was said by the President of the Board of Trade. He regretted having to quote the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were not in their places. He wished to remind the House of the opinions they expressed in their speeches because he thought it was desirable that the country should not forget the kind of speeches they made. In view of the contents of the Blue Book which had been published within the last two days, the country would be able to realise the real and proper worth of the opinions which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had expressed. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board, of Trade, speaking at Pwllheli in reference to the treatment of Chinese coolies, said—

"They were kept like dogs in a kennel; they were treated as very few men treated their beasts, and if you treated a man as a beast, he became a beast."

In the same speech the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that—

"Those people who were trying to use the unemployed statistics of this country in support of a new fiscal system were the very people who introduced 65,000 Chinamen on cheap terms to South Africa, which was as integral a part of this Empire as Carnarvonshire, under conditions tantamount to slavery."

That was one of the exuberant exaggerations of the right hon. Gentleman, because at the time he was speaking he overstated the case by something like 20,000. The right hon. Gentleman would probably say that that did not affect the argument. He himself did not think it did. The argument would remain the same if it was applied to only one Chinaman. He only mentioned it to show the kind of exaggeration in which the right hon. Gentleman had so often indulged.

What was the exaggeration?

What was the number of Chinese in South Africa on 17th January, 1906?

There were 47,000, and others were under contract to come.

said he would not argue that matter. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "introduced," and the argument remained the same. The President of the Board of Trade in the same speech asked—

"What would they say to introducing Chinamen at one shilling a day to the Welsh quarries? Why, Chinese labour could make the gold mines of Merioneth do what Mr. Pritchard Morgan once said they would do—extinguish the National Debt. Slavery on the hills of Wales Heaven forgive him for the suggestion."

That was a prayer in which all would agree, for nothing could be more misleading than for a man in the right hon. Gentleman's position to suggest to his constituents that there was the slightest risk of the importation of cheap Chinese labour into this country to displace our own workmen. [Cries of "Why not?" and "We have Poles in Scotland."] Was the hon. Member who said "Why not?" so blind to the force of public opinion? [Cries of "No."] Then he would know why there was no danger of Chinese labour coming into this country. If the President of the Board of Trade had adopted the same line as the hon. Gentleman below the gangway, and, instead of suggesting to his constituents that there was grave risk of Chinamen coming into this country, had pointed out that public opinion would never tolerate them in this country—.

Why in South Africa?

I must ask the hon. Member for East St. Pancras not to keep interrupting. It is one of the great boasts of this House that we listen to the speeches and then reply to them.

said he made no complaint of the way in which the hon. Gentleman had treated him. He knew that this question excited strong feeling, but he was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would bear with him although he might say things with which they did not agree. At the very moment when these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were making these speeches to their constituents they must have known that the conditions which they were describing in such hard terms were in reality of a milder, far fairer, and far juster character. What was the system which they had so fiercely attacked and denounced? It was a system under which the labourer enlisted in his own country and at his own will for a limited period of service. It was a system under which all the conditions of this employment had to be clearly and adequately explained to him before his service was accepted. It was a system under which he was able to terminate his engagement at any moment. It was a system under which he was able to earn far higher wages than he could earn at the same class of labour in his own country. There was not an element of slavery in any one of the conditions. But he would be told that the coolies had to live in a compound. It was, he thought, the Postmaster-General who, in describing the conditions of the Chinese coolie, referred to them as living under lock and key. He referred to that as showing the exaggeration which could be employed in describing a Chinese compound. He asked the House to take the testimony of people who had been in these compounds and who had seen the Chinamen there. So far from it being fair to say that the Chinese were kept in these compounds under lock and key, with all the restrictions described, it would be found that life in the compounds was far more tolerable and contained a far greater element of freedom than many of our own soldiers enjoyed. [Cries of "No."] The country had rung with denunciations of the compound system which the late Government had tolerated for four or five years. Did hon. Members forget that Kaffirs lived in compounds? If the compound system was so monstrous and iniquitous at the present moment why did they not denounce it years before? Why was it that they were content to allow the compound system to grow up and develop when the compounds were occupied by Kaffirs, and only became so tender in their consciences when they were inhabited by Chinese? Some hon. Members opposite said that although it might be true that the actual conditions of employment and life in compounds were not tantamount to slavery, yet the ill-treatment to which the Chinese had been subjected was so barbarous and so horrible as to amount to one of the conditions of slavery. He maintained that the Blue Book just published contained an absolute refutation of that charge. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] He was expressing his own opinion. The Colonial Secretary on 16th January telegraphed for information with regard to the treatment of the Chinese coolies because he felt that the time had come when Parliament would demand further information. Lord Selborne replied that—

"The inspectors are carrying out the instructions which have been given to them to the best of their ability, and no complaint by any coolie ever remains uninvestigated."

He thought one of the things which had animated the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite was the feeling that these coolies might be ill-treated by their employers, and that the facts would not be brought to light. Very well, the object which Lord Selborne had in view, and which the late Government had in view, as to appoint inspectors to take every step that could be taken to ensure that no coolie should ran the risk of harsh or unjust treatment without having his case investigated and the offender brought to justice. Lord Selborue was able to say that—

"No complaint by any coolie remains uninvestigated. The chief difficulty with which the inspectors have to contend is that in many cases where grievances ate believed to exist the aggrieved person himself prefers to maintain silence. It is obviously impossible to expect the inspectors fully to elucidate the facts with regard to such cases."

And then his Lordship went on to say that—

"Proclamations in Chinese setting forth the machinery provided by law for the settlement of disputes are posted in every compound, mid the Superintendent of Foreign Labour has good grounds for believing that they are carefully studied. Petitions duly lodged by the coolies in the petition boxes provided under Government regulations on every mine or sent in to the Superintendent in town are closely investigated."

These petition boxes, he might remind the House, were introduced in order to meet the danger which coolies might feel in making complaints. The coolies might put their petitions in those boxes, and they ran no risk of any evil consequence following by so doing. It would be interesting to know to what extent they had availed themselves of this privilege. The Colonial Secretary wanted to know something about the Chinese native police employed in the compounds, what their functions were, and what kind of men they were. Lord Selborne had given that information—

"The Chinese compound police are men recruited by the mining companies as indentured labourers. For the most part they have served either in the British Army at Wei-hai-Wei or in the Chinese Army."

It might be presumed that they understood and were able to deal with their own fellow-countrymen whom they got to know on board ship before their arrival in South Africa, and Lord Selborne justified their use as satisfactory. His words were—

"It speaks very highly indeed for the police and for the coolies that order has been maintained as well as it has been."

And his Lordship pointed out that although these—

"Chinese police were no more perfect than any other human beings … all things considered, I am not of opinion that they have on the whole acted in an oppressive manner towards the coolies, nor do I believe that it is the opinion of the coolies that they have done so."

And he pointed out that if two Chinamen had a quarrel they settled it amongst themselves, and if one of them got beaten, the beaten party declined to give any information to the inspector in regard to the matter. Lord Selborne called attention to this matter because he thought that some allegations which had been made in the Press in this country and had been repeated in speeches by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, had been founded on the treatment by the Chinese themselves and not on any treatment which the Chinese coolies had received at the hands of their employers or their representatives. Lord Selborne said—and in this he shared his Lordship's view to the full—

"I feel bound to add that although I fully recognise your anxiety to receive specific assurances that the arrangements for the protection of the Chinese coolies and for ensuring their proper treatment are as perfect as it is possible to make them, the Superintendent of Foreign Labour deeply resents the insinuations made by irresponsible persons that the coolies are ill-treated, which insinuations imply that he fails in his duty of seeing that their treatment is good."

He was not surprised that anyone holding a position of responsibility and authority in South Africa should feel and deeply resent the insinuations made against him in the speeches delivered by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. He himself felt deeply the line which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken up on this question in the past few years. He, however, was able to exchange views with them personally face to face; but the officials who were engaged 6,000 miles away in carrying out the Ordinance, and whose business it was to see justice done to the coolies in South Africa, had no means of stating their side of the case to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was accordingly not surprised that these officials keenly and strongly resented the imputations freely cast upon them during the last few years. Now, they all knew, and he thought that the country would very soon find out, why it was that this great outcry about Chinese labour had been raised, and why it had commended itself so strongly to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had never heard before about other Ordinances regarding coolie labour in other Colonies. They had never heard any outcry against the people of Australia when they dealt with Kanaka labour. [MINISTERIAL cries of dissent.] Was the British Government then charged with sanctioning slavery in a British colony? No, not for one moment did hon. Gentlemen opposite attach the same importance to the Kanaka question as they did to the Chinese question because, they did not realise what a strong and potent weapon it would be in their hands for party purposes at a general election. It had been interesting to see the course of events operating on the minds of hon. and more especially right hon. Gentlemen during the past few years. They had seen that the violence of their opinions and of their speeches had gradually moderated until hon. Gentlemen, who had started by asserting frankly and plainly that they regarded Chinese labour as slavery, had now come to the conclusion that in all the circumstances of the case they would leave the settlement of the question to the Transvaal itself. If they really believed that the condition of the Chinese labourers amounted to slavery it was their business to deal with it—[MINISTERIAL cheers]—yes, and to deal with it in a way which would be commensurate with the gravity of the charge made. The right hon. the Prime Minister, speaking in this House only two or three days ago, said that His Majesty's Government felt it their duty as long as any responsibility rested with them for the administration of the Ordinance to secure, as far as possible, that no Chinese coolie who honestly and genuinely desired to return to his home should be retained in the Transvaal against his will and at work in the mines. That was a statement of policy with which, he should think, the whole House would agree. No one wanted to keep the Chinese coolies in South Africa against their will; and a special clause was put in the Ordinance which gave the coolies the right to terminate their engagement at any time on condition only of finding the money for their return to China. [MINISTERIAL ironical laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite quarrelled with the means, but they did not quarrel with the intention of the Ordinance. He thought that all of them could agree with the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view. And there was a passage in the despatch of Lord Selborne which showed that those who were responsible in South Africa fully agreed with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. But while Lord Selborne agreed with that policy, he pointed out the dangers that would undoubtedly be connected with it when an effort was made to put that policy in force; and he most wisely proposed to limit it to those cases in which the Government and the Lieutenant Governor were fully satisfied that the coolie who was going to be sent home, to a certain extent at the public cost, should not return to South Africa under any new engagement. On page 106, paragraph 4, Lord Selborne said that—

"There may be exceptional oases in which it would be reasonable for the Government to incur this expenditure, but they ought to be cases recommended by the Superintendent and approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council."

He entirely agreed with the reservation that Lord Selborne made, and he gathered that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister approved of it also. Lord Selborne pointed out also the feeling which undoubtedly would be aroused in the minds of the people who, from the Blue book, it appeared, were apparently to pay the cost. The right hon. Gentleman said that the charge was to be met out of public funds, but he did not tell them what those public funds were, and whether the charge was to come upon the Transvaal or this country. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary would tell them what was intended, as it would have a very distinct bearing upon the point, and his explanation might go a considerable way to alleviate the danger which Lord Selborne felt might arise by the refusal of the Transvaal Government to vote the necessary money. Again, as Lord Selborne pointed out, if they once recognised the principle that any man who had gone to South Africa under a contract of any sort was to be able to come to the Government and say, "I am tired of it; I am tired of working in South Africa; I hate the country; I want to go back to my own country, and I have not got the means to do it,"—if they once admitted the principle that these men were to be assisted out of public money, where would the practice stop? He hoped the Under-secretary, therefore, would tell them whether he proposed to adopt the recommendations of Lord Selborne that this power should only be exercised in cases which were recommended by the Superintendent and approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. They now knew the policy which the Colonial Secretary had adopted after all the cry which had been ringing through the land during the past two years. Ministerialists had denounced the late Government in every possible way for having sanctioned what they declared to be an immoral thing and a great wrong, but they now knew that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to cure that great wrong was to pay the passage home of a certain number of coolies who wished to go home, and to make some very small alterations in the judicial and punitive measures contained in the amending Ordinance of last year. He though that a perusal of the Blue-book would show that the administration in force at the present moment was working justly and fairly. He considered that the Blue-book proved beyond doubt that, so far from there being any idea of injustice, oppression or slavery, the coolies had ample, fair and easy opportunities of reporting any injustice under which they suffered, and of securing redress for any wrong which might be inflicted upon them. These two things were the only items in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister proposed to alter the policy which he had denounced with such vigour and with such invective. Was it worth while to go to all the trouble and expense, to incur all the moral damage, for the sake of such a little result as this? They were aware that hon. Gentleman opposite knew—although perhaps they could hardly expect them to admit it—that the fact that they found themselves on the Ministerial side of the House instead of on the Opposition side was responsible for the change that had come over their attitude. No effort was spared to induce the people of the country to believe that the conditions which the late Government had sanctioned were so degraded and immoral that they cast an almost ineradicable stain upon the honour of our country. Leaflets, placards, and posters were seen everywhere. Hon. Members poisoned the minds of the people, who either had not the time or had not the opportunity to learn the true state of affairs for themselves. Slavery in the literal sense of the word it was not. ["It was."] He heard, at any rate, that there were two hon. Gentlemen there ["200"] who were really so honest as to believe what they said. Was it slavery to engage a man of his own free will in his own country, to take him free of expense to the country in which he had undertaken to serve? Was it slavery to give him the opportunity of returning to his own country at any moment when he so chose? Was it slavery to enter into an obligation to restore him to his own country at the end of his period of service? Slavery meant the taking of a man from his own home against his will. ["No."] Did anybody ever find a slave in the old days freely and voluntarily going into slavery? He believed that there were very few people who really and honestly believed that under the conditions which had been laid down in the Ordinance there was any real element of slavery. Hon. Gentlemen opposite at the election might have used the words metaphorically; but why should they publish pictures of Chinamen in chains, driven under the lash to work which they loathed; why should there be representations of Chinamen in chains parading the streets? There was one fact in the agitation which had to a certain extent been left out of account. It was that, in trying to persuade the country that they took a right and their opponents a wrong view of the matter, their opponents had succeeded not only in persuading their fellow-countrymen of the truth of the charges, but they had succeeded in persuading people who lived in foreign countries that the British Government had made itself responsible for a system which any right-minded man must inevitably condemn. They had succeeded in inducing foreigners to believe that the late Government had cast a dark stain upon the honour of our Empire, and now the Government were showing that, although they had led them to believe that if they came into power they would forever put a stop to this system, they really intended to do nothing. That, he had no doubt, would cause hon. Members opposite small concern. They had never been careful to maintain the high honour of our own country. [Cries of "Withdraw," "Oh," and "Shame."] He had nothing to withdraw, but he would say that he doubted if the course which the right hon. Gentleman had seen fit to pursue would strengthen the hands of the Foreign Secretary in conducting negotiations with foreign countries. Ministerialists had brought charges against the Opposition which had been refuted by the newly published Blue-book; they had been refuted by the evidence of people who knew from their own experience on the spot the real conditions under which the Chinamen laboured. If the Ministerialists were still not satisfied that they had made a mistake, he thought the least the Government could do was to appoint a Royal Commission, which should ascertain and publish beyond any doubt the real facts of the case, so that the people of the country might be able to come to a right judgment upon everything that hon. Gentlemen opposite had said. Such a Royal Commission would be welcomed by Lord Selborne and by the mining managers, upon whose integrity so strong an imputation had being cast, and he hoped that such a tribunal might be appointed to inquire into the whole question upon the spot. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would now admit that he and his friends were mistaken in the views they expressed. That, he thought, was only due to the late Government, whom they had maligned, but above all they owed it to the people of this country whom they had misled.

said that this was not the first time he had addressed the House of Commons upon this question, and he understood how difficult it was to speak upon it. He was bound to say that, on the last occasion upon which he addressed the House, those who took an opposite view to himself were, if he could tell their attitude by their speeches, somewhat impressed by the fact that he had lately come back from South Africa, having had some little experience of that country, and having seen the conditions under which the Chinese worked on the Rand. He remembered urging at that time that the word "slavery" was not the proper word to apply to the coolies, work, and he remembered that the hon. Members for Camberwell and the Abercromby Division of Liverpool said "agreed." Therefore, he could only assume that they did not mean to convey the impression they conveyed to the House, but that they agreed that the conditions under which the Chinese lived and worked in the Transvaal were not conditions of slavery. [Major Seely dissented.] At that time he put forward the argument that, in the first place, the Chinese were needed there as the Kaffirs were needed; and that the conditions under which the Chinese worked were not different from those under which the Kaffirs laboured, except that they were to some extent better, inasmuch as their food was better, that their housing was better owing to the fact that new buildings had been put up for their accommodation. The House now required to get back to first principles in this regard, and at the risk of wearying the House he would recall to their recollection, and to the recollection of those who were not present at the last debates on this question, what the conditions in South Africa were which called for this legislation. Everybody who knew South Africa agreed that the basis of all unskilled labour in the Transvaal was black labour. It was not a matter with which any white man had ever had to do; it was not ordained by anyone of mortal birth. A higher Power had ordained in this matter. In Africa below the Zambesi there were six black men to one white. Let them suppose that in Guildford or Reigate, or any town in England, there were six black men to one white, that some citizen wanted a ditch dug, and that the digging of that ditch was open to competition. Would any Labour Member of this House suggest that the white man would enter into competition with the black? White men never had and never would do so. There was no Labour Member in this House nor any Member who knew South Africa who did not know that. There was not a man who went from this country to South Africa, whether he was a skilled or an unskilled worker, who did not refuse to do unskilled work except when driven to desperation, and then they would only do it for as short a time as possible. The whole of the unskilled work had been done in that country by black labour; by the natives of Cape Colony, Natal, the Transvaal, Basutoland, the Orange River Colony, or by imported labour from neighbouring States. Everybody knew that 80 per cent, of the black labour employed in the Transvaal was not native to the Transvaal or even British Africa, but that it came from Portuguese Africa and other sources, and that the interruption of the work at the mines and the interruption of the output was due to the fact that there was insufficient native labour. There was an insufficiency of labour in the time of Kruger, and from time to time appeals were made for permission to import more. At the Bloemfontein Conference it was decided that there was not enough native labour to be had from available sources and that labour must be obtained from others, by which no doubt was meant China or Japan or elsewhere. Then a Royal Commission was appointed, and that Commission published a Majority and a Minority Report. The Majority Report set forth the number of black men who would be required for the mining and other industries and also for agriculture in the country. A curious mistake had occurred with regard to that, which had an indirect bearing upon this particular point. Lord Elgin said in his Despatch to Lord Selborne that a supply of 250,000 labourers would be required for the mines, because the Commission found that 129,000 were required at once and 196,000 would be required five years later. Upon that the Colonial Secretary built up an argument to show how impossible it would be for this Government or any other to admit 250,000 indentured labourers into South Africa. He noticed that the Despatch had not been answered by Lord Selborne, and he wondered whether it was because Lord Selborne conceived that the question was one which did not show that knowledge which a Colonial Secretary ought to have of the needs of the Transvaal. The Under-Secretary perhaps would enlighten the House upon that. What the mine-owners asked for was for 129,000 labourers at the present time, and during a period of five years 196,000, that was, altogether. At the present time there was still a demand for more labourers. Suppose the Liberal Party had been in power when the needs of the Transvaal had been presented with all the information which the late Government had at its disposal from the Transvaal, would they, he wondered, have taken such a large responsibility as they did now. Would the cry of slavery have been raised then, because he noticed that the cry of slavery was not raised strongly until just before the election, except perhaps by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, who had been consistent in this matter throughout. But that hon. Gentleman was as unsound in his ideas as to slavery as he was sound in his definition of citizenship. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Chinaman was an alien and that, therefore, not being a citizen under the British flag, he had a perfect right under the laws of his own country, of which he was still a citizen, to make such bargains as he pleased. There were legal Members of this House who would admit the accuracy of what he said—that the conditions of the contract between the Chinese and the Transvaal Government were such as could properly be made. It would be possible to make such a contract in this country. As for his definition of slavery, according to Wharton's Law Lexicon, slavery was a state in which one man had absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. When they laid sentiment aside and gave anything like close attention to what the word "slavery" meant in the English language, the use of the word in connection with these conditions was absolutely unsound, to say the least. It was absolutely unsound, unfair, unjust, and untrue. The cry had produced its result, and the result was seen in this House. He hoped hon. Members were satisfied. He believed, however, the time would come when they would look back upon the election, and the means by which it was won, with regret. He hoped so. He had too much confidence in the commonsense of his fellow-citizens, and of his fellow-Members of this House, to doubt that. He did not blame the British working-man for having believed the tissue of falsehoods which had been disseminated throughout the country, which had taught him to think as he had thought, to turn the late Government out of office, and to put the present Government in. He did not blame him. Candidates who fought the late election had the same means of information, but some did not use those means of information as they should have used them, and it was upon their heads that the future judgment of this country would fall. As Ms hon. friend who moved the Resolution had said, the Liberal Party had won its position by a general condemnation of the clauses of the Chinese Ordinance, and out of that general condemnation had come one or two little things which amounted to this that the Ordinance might continue until the Transvaal was able to pronounce judgment upon it for itself. But it seemed to him that that was only shifting the responsibility, and that it was only leaving to the Transvaal what the public of this country believed would be a responsibility borne by this Government. They who thought they were right in permitting the Chinese to be imported into the Transvaal would have no fear regarding the judgment which would be passed by the Transvaal. From first to last the people of the Transvaal had been practically united upon its necessity. There was, a few weeks ago, a statement in the public Press that an immense meeting of miners had been held in the Transvaal to protest against Chinese labour. But other resolutions had also been passed by other bodies. The paper from which he had cut the illustration he now showed the House was a paper which he thought all would respect, namely, the Daily Graphic. It was a picture taken of that vast assemblage of miners—between 300 and 400 people. But there were on the Rand 18,000 white skilled workers, and those 18,000 white skilled workers were there by virtue of the fact that there was a sufficient supply of black and yellow labour to give them work to do. He hoped hon. Members would recognise the fact that this country did not always demand that the raw material for the hands of British skilled workmen should come from white labour alone. If they were to establish that principle he wondered where Lancashire would be. He wondered where all the sugar refineries, the rubber manufactories, and a hundred other manufactories in this country would be if this country had to depend solely upon white labour for the raw material of the skilled white workmen in this country. The mines of South Africa have the whites skilled work by virtue of the raw material got by unskilled labour. These views were once held to some extent by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. They owed him no grudge, but he wondered why it was the hon. Gentleman had changed his views so completely during the last few years regarding the Transvaal and the attitude his country ought to take up towards the Chinese question. He did not blame him for changing his mind. They once ad the honour of thinking alike, but the hon. Gentleman had travelled faster than he had, or had retreated, perhaps, faster. At Grosvenor House in July, 1903, Mr. Churchill said—

"We are not living in South Africa; we are not the people of South Africa; we are not entitled to dictate to South Africa what arrangements she is to make in regard to the labour she employs. We don't wish to rule South Africa as we do a Crown colony. I am all for countries minding their own business. It would be very undesirable to interfere with the condition of labour in South Africa, and I think myself it would be equally undesirable if the Colonies were to press us to alter our economic conditions at home. … Of this I am quite sure that supplies of labour will have to be obtained from the natives of the country or from Indian or Chinese sources it ever the mining industry is to be completely rehabilitated, and if ever South Africa is to turn her back on the dark shadows of the past and march steadily and firmly towards the rising day."

Has the hon. Gentleman got the whole of the speech Will he read what follows that?

I have not the whole speech with me, but this has been quoted again and again. I think my right hon. friend the Member for Dover has the whole speech here, and will probably give the House the advantage of it.

It is the fact that the passage has been quoted again and again, but an important omission has always been made in what follows after the words just quoted. I said "Provided the conditions are humane, and provided that South Africa consents."

The hon. Gentleman knows I have no desire to misrepresent him.

Why do it then?

My statement was perfectly accurate, "Provided the conditions were humane and provided South Africa consents." But surely the hon. Member meant the Transvaal?

No, South Africa.

said he supposed then if Natal and Cape Colony and Rhodesia and the Orange River Colony and the whole of South Africa met in a Conference of their representatives, as they did meet, and there said that there was not sufficient native labour to be got, and that they must go to outside sources for it, then the hon. Gentleman would consider that the whole of South Africa consented. If it came to that, the Dutch in South Africa had committed themselves to Chinese labour. They themselves passed while in power, two Resolutions in favour of the importation of Chinese labour, and the reason why they did not carry them out was the expense. He submitted to the hon. Gentleman that he had placed himself in a considerable difficulty, but he only wished to say to him that if the advocates of Chinese labour thought, no differently from what they did when he (the Under-Secretary for the Colonies) thought as they did, why should they be blamed now for consistently holding to their opinions and for having consistently fought for what they believed was the good of South Africa? As for the charges that had been made against the Chinese and against the conditions under which they worked, the whole Blue-book was a refutation of anything like violence or maltreatment of the Chinese. Undoubtedly the Blue-book did show that sanction was given to illegal flogging. He did not think there was any Member on the Opposition side of the House who, had he known flogging was going on in the mines, would not have been in favour of abolishing it. Flogging in itself, however, was not slavery, else what had been pursued in the British Navy and public schools was slavery. There could not be a case of slavery upon that basis. The treatment by individual managers or overseers of individual Chinamen by flogging was a matter which the late British Government and the Transvaal Government did not directly control, because a certain amount of option was given to the Chinese superintendent. It had been done away with. The amended Ordinance issued at the end of last year was an Ordinance the terms of which, as it seemed to him, no Member of the House could object to. If they admitted at all that the Chinamen were to come in, that that was a question by itself, but if they admitted at all that the Chinamen were to come in there must be those natural restrictions with which the natives were surrounded. They should not be allowed to wander abroad and affect the social conditions of the country. The evidence of the Blue-books was sufficient to convince him that the importation of Chinese had had no ill effect upon the social condition of the Transvaal. The conditions under which the Chinese were working at present were as favourable and fair as those under which the Kaffirs worked, and yet the Party opposite had never raised any objection as far as the Kaffirs were concerned. They had heard no protests against the employment of Kaffir labour in the mines of Kimberley. He wished to remind the House that their Convention with China concerning the importation of Chinese into British dominions was made by a Radical Government, with Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell and Mr. Gladstone as some of its members. Chinese had been working in English dependencies ever since without protest from any member of the Liberal Party so far as their public utterances were concerned The Prime Minister admitted that, if Chinese were imported, compounds and conditions of restraint were necessary, and that took away from hon. Gentlemen opposite one of their strongest arguments. To the credit of the Liberal Party be it said, that up to three months before the election they did not use literature which was disgraceful, but there appeared certain articles in a paper in London with photographs representing Chinamen undergoing torture, and although they had been absolutely refuted, those pictures and posters practically won the election. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Those posters were based upon articles written by Mr. Frank Boland and Mr. Pless, who had a Chinaman strung up in his room all night, and the next morning he had a photograph taken which he intended for a book to expose the slavery on the Rand. It was upon Mr. Frank Boland's statements in the Morning Leader that those cartoons and the slavery campaign were built, and they all proved to be untrue. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not all of them. Lord Selborne said that a portion of them were true!"] Lord Selborne said that before June of last year there was flogging; but he did not defend flogging, nor did Lord Selborne. It would have been far better to have had no flogging at all, but it had been removed. He wished to point out, however, that it was not upon flogging that these posters were built, for they depicted Chinese with chains around their necks and manacles on their hands. The Prime Minister had stated in a letter that he would not be a party to slavery in any form under the British flag, but the right hon. Gentleman did not say that the Chinese Ordinance was slavery, although hon. Gentlemen opposite drew that inference from the Prime Minister's statements. A combination of things of this kind had gone far to place the Opposition in the position in which they found themselves to-day. They had much to fight for, and they had much to defend, and plenty of time to defend it, but that would never prevent them from raising their voices against what they believed to be an unfair agitation upon a question important to the welfare, not only of this country, but also of one of our Colonies. The Liberal Party were now in power, and they had long been out of power, and he hoped that power would give to all the members of the Liberal Party a new conception of their duties towards the Colonies. ("Why?") He had never said that the Liberal Party lacked an appreciation of the Colonies, but their position was one which the Colonies themselves could not understand, because when things which were nearest and dearest to them were put forward, they were not received with cordiality, to say the least of it. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was so in South Africa to-day. At a meeting of the Progressive Association in Johannesburg not long ago, Mr. James Leonard said they had been calumniated upon every platformand upon every hoarding, at every by-election and every election during the general election, and now that the battle had been won those calumnies were repudiated by the central organisation of the Liberal Party. He ventured to say that those words represented the views of 99 per cent, of the British citizens in South Africa. [Cries of "No."] They also represented the views of many of our Dutch fellow citizens, who were anxious for the development of their country. He hoped the Government would take good care to see that they did nothing in regard to the present labour conditions of the Transvaal which would bring to bankrupty and ruin not the Transvaal alone, but the whole of that country—Cape Colony, Natal, and the Orange River Colony—which lived by virtue of that one industry. If by any act of this Government Chinese labour were taken away in an attempt to give white unskilled work to the Transvaal, if the Ordinance were seriously altered in a way which would prevent the development of mining in the Transvaal, they would be doing an act which would be treachery to the Empire itself. The present Government could not afford to do that. He did not know whether the Government would listen to an appeal from him for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. Mr. Leonard had pleaded for an inquiry. Lord Selborne also asked for a Royal Commission in the interest of British justice. If the late Government were to be condemned for bringing Chinese labour into the Transvaal he asked that there should be established a court and jury which would try them. They should not be condemned on ex parte statements in the Press and in this House. If the Royal Commission brought back the report that slavery existed and that every man who had visited the mines of the Transvaal was wrong, then the Members of the Opposition would take their punishment. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have got it."] No, they were punished without being tried. They were punished by the misuse or lack of use of evidence He appealed to the Prime Minister and those who sat beside him to do themselves and the Party to which they belonged the justice of granting a Royal Commission to inquire into the circumstances which hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had defended, and then to abide, as the Opposition would loyally abide, by the judgment of that Commission. Amendment proposed—

"At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But we humbly regret that Your Majesty's Ministers should have brought the reputation of this country into contempt by describing the employment of Chinese indentured labour as slavery, whilst it is manifest from the tenour of Your Majesty's gracious Speech that they are contemplating no effectual method for bringing it to an end."—(Mr, H. W. Forster).

There is very little to complain of in the tone of the two speeches to which we have listened, though I think I must make exception in respect of one remark which fell from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. I think it extremely undesirable that comparisons should be drawn between the conditions of Chinese labour in South Africa, and the conditions under which British soldiers serve the Crown, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who not so long ago was associated with one of the great services in this country, should have been led into a comparison of what is, after all, to put it at its best, the lowest form of labour hitherto tolerated in modern times under the Union Jack with the most honourable service a private man can render the Crown. I have one observation to make in regard to the Amendment and the tenor of the speeches. The Party opposite, or rather the Party who sit in that corner of the House opposite, have taken up a clear position on the subject of Chinese labour. They are its authors, its admirers and its champions, they believe with all the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that it is necessary for the welfare of South Africa, and that without it the British Empire would collapse. Yet I think the tendency of their Amendment and speeches, and certainly the tendency of some remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham the other day is to urge His Majesty's Government on to courses more extreme than those upon which they are resolved and to precipitate the very catastrophe which the right hon. Gentleman professes himself so anxious to avoid. Do not let us judge this too harshly. We have been in Opposition ourselves and we know very well that the Opposition is always seeking for opportunities to embarrass the Government, not always successfully seeking, and we know very well that an Opposition is bound in regular custom to oppose and to criticise the Government, and has no real measure of responsibility for anything it may say or do. I will only venture to congratulate the great Imperial Statesmen who sit upon that bench upon the ease and celerity with which they have exchanged the responsibilities of office for the irresponsibilities of Opposition. I must confess that I listened with very great pleasure the other day to the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in which he so strongly condemned anything in the nature of electioneering misrepresentation. I am sure we all agree that every effort should be made to raise the standard of our electioneering contests and to keep out of them any aspersions upon the humanity, the loyalty, or the patriotism of the candidates who may be engaged in them. The Prime Minister will welcome the co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman in anything that may tend to raise the standard of our Party life, and I can assure him that his departure upon so praiseworthy and new a course will be watched with sympathy and respect in all quarters of the House I took occasion during the elections to say, and I repeat it now, that the conditions of the Transvaal Ordinance under which Chinese labour is now being carried on do not, in my opinion, constitute a state of slavery. A labour contract into which men enter voluntarily for a limited and for a brief period, under which they are paid wages which they consider adequate, under which they are not bought or sold and from which they can obtain relief—I shall have to say a word about that later—on payment of £17 10s., the cost of their passage, may not be a desirable contract, may not be a healthy or proper contract, but it cannot in the opinion of His Majesty's Government be classified as slavery in the extreme acceptance of the word without some risk of terminological inexactitude. If Chinese labour be not described as slavery the right hon. Gentleman should not readily assume that it is for that reason a proper contract. I have often heard it said that it is a contract not less proper than that permitted under the British Guiana and Trinidad Ordinance which was introduced by Lord Ripon, the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Lords. I am amazed to find that persons who have had the advantage of access to official information commit themselves to and persist in a statement so woefully inaccurate. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool stated to the House the other day that there were no less than five points in which the Transvaal Labour Ordinance differed from the Guiana Ordinance, and in every case differed for the worse. He showed that under the Chinese Ordinance a labourer contracts himself out of the right to hold real estate, and out of the right to dwell in the country after the termination of his contract. He contracts himself out of the right to dispose of his movements in his spare time, and of the right to rise by any skill which he may have to any more lucrative and satisfactory terms of employment. He contracts himself into the liability to be; arrested without warrant, and he did suffer from the disability of not being tried in open Court. Now, I do not say that any one of these conditions in which the Transvaal Ordinance differs from the Guiana Ordinance is necessarily indefensible in itself; but, taking them all together, as they should be taken, cumulatively and collectively, they undoubtedly constitute a notable and melancholy derogation from any standard of Labour Ordinance, even the lowest hitherto tolerated within the British Empire. I hope that that is a statement of the case which commands the support of my hon. friend the Member for the Abercromby division, than whom no one has been more active in drawing public attention to this question, or deserves in greater measure the gratitude of this House. Let me say at the outset that no responsibility for this system rests upon His Majesty's Government. We are not concerned to defend it, or to justify it. It was passed in spite of our votes and in spite of our protests. We have nothing to conceal, nothing to palliate, nothing to deny. The whole burden of this subject, whether it be a cause of glory, or of discredit, rests, and can only rest, upon the Conservative and Protectionist Party. We, the present Government, are the heirs to their evil inheritance; but we are doing the very best we can to undo the harm which has been done. We ask the support and confidence of the House, not in reference to matters which we could not deal with from the beginning, but in regard to measures that are projected. We ask for confidence and approbation for what we do ourselves upon our own responsibility, and upon our own initiative. I am sorry on general grounds that Mr. Lyttelton is not here, although I am very glad, from another point of view, that we have a very worthy representative of the constituency of Leamington. I am sorry that Mr. Lyttelton is not here, just as I am sorry that Lord Hugh Cecil is not in his old place. I am sure that every one—that is to say every one who is not unduly apprehensive of a sharp tongue—would wish that statesmen and politicians who have taken a considerable part in the affairs of this House, and whose actions must be criticised and brought under severe review, should be in their place, and should have some opportunity of defending themselves. In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman I cannot easily find words to characterise as I should have desired that great and cardinal error of which Mr. Lyttelton was guilty in sanctioning, in the first instance, the policy of the Transvaal Labour Ordinance. He bad no mandate from South Africa. No plebiscite was taken, and I myself remember that a very distinguished and wealthy gentleman connected with the mining industry admitted to me that it would have been a very good thing to have had a plebiscite. He said—

"We were perfectly willing to have a plebiscite, but the difficulty wag that it would have gone the other way."

[OPPOSITION cries of "Name."] It would not be fair to mention a private person's name.

That is evidence of its value.

You can judge of its value as it stands. The pretext that the Legislative Council in South Africa could give any authority—a nominated council of gentlemen who owed their position and existence to the will, even to the caprice, of the Secretary of State—the pretence that such a council could relieve the Government of any responsibility, or could speak in the smallest degree with the authority of South Africa, was among the sorry farces which we were forced to witness in the closing days of 1904–5. I say, that to subject a Colony still in a state of tutelage to this sordid experiment; to introduce a new and sinister element into the racial complications in South Africa; to flout the opinion of all the self-governing Colonies to whom such passionate appeals had been addressed; to degrade the status of labour all over the world; and to do this without the slenderest authority from the people of the Colony concerned, and in defiance of every section of disinterested public opinion in Europe, was a reckless and wrongful act, an iniquity for which the Party opposite have suffered and richly deserved to suffer. It was characteristic of the late Administration that they plunged into this far-reaching and momentous experiment without any clear idea of how far they meant to carry it. No stopping-place was defined, and no limit to the number of Chinese to be introduced was fixed. In the first instance we were told that the number of Chinamen was to be limited to 10,000; a little later we had 55,000 as the utmost limit of those who would be required; and quite recently, just before the Government changed, all sorts of arguments and assertions were put forward to show the desirability, I think, of importing something like 150,000 Chinese into South Africa, and maintaining them on that great scale until the gold mines were worked out. By October, 1904, there were 20,000 Chinese in South Africa, and by October, 1905, they had increased to 47,000. On the 27th of October the late Colonial Secretary telegraphed to South Africa an inquiry whether the time had not come when the mine owners should agree voluntarily to limit the importation of Chinese labourers to the Rand. Between November 12th and 18th last applications were made for no less than 16,199 new licences, and on November 18th 13,199 were granted and signed, and 3,000 were signed but not delivered. On the 24th November the expectant nation was informed through the columns of The Times and the Daily Telegraph that the Ministry was about to resign. It would almost seem from these figures as if the Rand had had even earlier information, and that it was feared the new Government would stop all further issues of licences. That, of course, was regarded as a foregone conclusion. Everything alike indicated that that would be the earliest exercise of the newly acquired Executive power. I think it was one of Lord Elgin's first acts to inquire how many new licences were outstanding. No answer had come to Mr. Lyttelton's telegram, and there seemed every reason to believe that the number outstanding would be very small indeed. It was therefore with some surprise that my noble friend learned that no fewer than 16,000 licenses, or three, four, or five times as many as had been applied for in any other month had been granted in the fortnight preceding the change of Government! The question whether to revoke these licences or not was anxiously considered by the Cabinet. The Law Officers, here and in South Africa, expressed the opinion that these licences could not be revoked without an open breach of equity, or an arbitrary suspension of the law. However these licences may have been obtained, and whatever we may think of it, the word of the Crown had been passed, and the warrants to import the labourers had been issued on the authority of the British Government; and on the faith of these warrants money had been spent. It is quite true that the Crown cannot be sued for damages, but His Majesty's Government are bound by the laws which they administer. They are not above the law. Furthermore His Majesty's Government will not fall below the ordinary accepted standard of common equity. It was therefore quite clear that the licences could not have been revoked without admitting large and indefinite claims for compensation from British funds. The Cabinet consequently decided that the 13,199 licences which had been issued must stand, and they decided, furthermore, that no just ground existed for differentiating between these licences and 3,000 licences which had been granted, but which had not been formally delivered. So much for the past. Let me turn to the future. Here, I think, I shall carry the right hon. Member for West Birmingham with me when I say that it is not very easy to retrace a wrong step in politics. One of the strongest arguments against a system of protective duties is that once they have been imposed, once the industry of the country has adapted itself to them, it is almost impossible to remove them. Those who were with us in the last Parliament know that in the case of the remission of agricultural rates, of which every Member of the Liberal Party disapproved, that once that provision was passed into law and the counties were receiving the grants, it was found that the pressure was such that it was impossible to repeal the Act. That is true of any improper dole or grant which may be obtained by any interest in this country from the Government of this country. Once an improper or unjust contract has received the sanction of law it becomes the basis on which all manner of perfectly healthy and unobjectionable agreements are founded. Bargain is added to bargain, plan is built on plan, and a whole economic structure rises, tier above tier, upon the faulty foundation. If in erecting some great building it is found that a girder in the lowest story is defective, the building becomes a cause of peril and danger to the public, but it is not possible immediately to withdraw it. To wrench it away would be to involve the certainty of ruin; but to whom? The jerry-builder might have decamped. The contractor might have made a fortune from the job and retired. It is upon the humble occupants that the miseries of the downfall would descend. It is my duty to lay before the House all the facts and materials of this grave matter, and I cannot but doubt that the sudden and arbitrary deportation of a third of the labour supply of South Africa would produce an utter economic collapse. We need not waste our sympathy upon the Rand magnates. Whatever we may do or whatever n ay take place in South Africa, many of them will still retain as many millions as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil would consider it desirable that any individual should enjoy. But to thousands of small people, to honest investors, to shopkeepers and trades people in Johannesburg, to British miners and Boer farmers, to railway servants on South African railways, to hard-working colonists and others, there might come, if any violent or immediate action were taken and 60,000 coolies were deported, the harsh and unexpected pinch of poverty and suffering. The progress of Colonies struggling feebly forward out of the agony of the war would be rudely thrown back; the finances of every State in South Africa would be embarrassed, the whole course of South African trade would be dislocated, and something very like famine on a considerable scale might ensue in Johannesburg, and the great mining district connected with it. If such a catastrophe resulted from our action, however benevolent our intention was, however benevolently right in principle that action might be, we could not escape the most grievous responsibilty; and let me remind the House that when this country incurs a grievous responsibility the discharge of that responsibility takes the form of a serious financial payment. It is not beyond the resources of engineering to remove the defective girder by means of levers and other mechanical appliances. The lever which His Majesty's Government desire to use to carry out their policy and to bring to an end the present system of indentured labour in the Transvaal, is, first of all, the opinion of the people of the Transvaal. We have good hopes of that opinion. I do not think for a moment that any Parliament in the Transvaal would violently and immediately expel the Chinese, but I most firmly believe that a Parliament fairly elected and representative of all classes and both races in the country will decide against the continuance of this experiment in a permanent form, and will certainly reject the impudent demands—I can call them nothing else—now being put forward vastly to extend its scope. I read in the interesting letters which Mr. Massingham has contributed to the Daily News—hon. Members on the other side are perfectly entitled to laugh at that authority, but it is nevertheless an authority which on this side of the House will carry weight—Mr. Massingham shares very closely the views which we hold; and I observe that in those letters he states that if the opinion of the Transvaal is fairly consulted, and a really representative assembly is brought into life, the opinion of that assembly will be, as I have indicated, against the perpetuation of the system. I believe that the maxim: "Trust the people" ought to follow the flag, and a very considerable body of evidence which we have been able to collect, shows that a representative assembly which has never yet been consulted will probably effect a termination of this experiment. I would say also in the second place that the mineowners themselves are beginning to realise that Chinese labour is economically a failure, that it is expensive and uncertain, and exposes them to an amount of criticism and vexation which greatly unsettles their business, and that it is likely to be more expensive, more uncertain, and more liable to expose thorn to criticism in the future. There is no greater delusion than that low wages mean high profits. No labour is so dear as cheap labour, and the labour which costs nothing is the dearest of all. I am fortified in that paradoxical reflection by the enormous depreciation which I observe to have taken place in the prices of South African stock since this policy was initiated. If only the late Government had had the courage to stand firm and refuse their sanction to this Ordinance, hard and increasing pressure would have enforced the employment of more machinery and more skilled white labour, A telegram has arrived too late to be included in the Blue book from Lord Selborne in answer to inquiries which we addressed to him on this point. He says—

"The points you make are of great importance and interest. I have on every possible occasion urged on mine-owners the value of labour-saving appliances, and I have every reason to believe that the mine managers are constantly alive to the urgency of the matter."

We are going to make them more alive. The telegram continues—

"I have of course, no technical knowledge on that subject; but what I most hope is that labour saving appliances, where applicable, would at once and at the same time reduce the demand for unskilled coloured labour and maintain the demand for skilled white labour. I will place the subject before the mine-owners without delay."

If the Chinese are gradually withdrawn and no collapse takes place, if by cutting off the possible supply of Chinese labour to South Africa, the whole experiment is forced to "peter out" by the natural process of exhaustion, as that operation is effected that pressure of which I have spoken will revive. The expectation that the unrestricted supply of cheap Celestial labour will never end will be abolished, and in its place will come that more manly alternative, more skilled and educated men, and more perfected mechanical appliances. It is quite true, as has been said by an hon. Member, that the gold mines of the Witswaters-rand, although not the only industry in South Africa, are nevertheless the mainspring of its commercial development, and that Johannesburg is the great stage upon which all South African dramas are played out. But Chinese labour is unpopular, and the pro-Chinese party are losing ground steadily in South Africa. If we handle this matter delicately, gently, and patiently they will be beaten at the election, but we must be very careful not to send them reinforcements. If Chinese labour is unpopular in South Africa the interference of this country is also unpopular. I was talking to Mr. Creswell on this subject the other day. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members may say "Oh," but Mr. Creswell is an honest man, and let me say that it takes a good deal of courage for a mining engineer to live in South Africa for two years and fight the great capitalists. I was struck by Mr. Creswell's opinion on this point, and we must take care not to reinforce the dwindling pro-Chinese party by a formidable band of those who would stand up for Colonial autonomy and self-government and who would resent our interference in what they regard as their local affairs. I observe that Mr. Wybergh, who used to be Government Commissioner of Mines, and who owing to his extreme opposition to Chinese labour has terminated his employment with the Chamber of Mines, in a long letter to Mr. Creswell said that it would be extremely inadvisable simply to repeal the Ordinance, as such action would be most resented by those most strongly opposed to the Chinese. The House will see that we have to walk very warily in the matter if we are to attain the ends which we hold most earnestly in view. It has been said that our policy is to leave the decision of this question to a Transvaal Legislature. Broadly speaking that is true, but the statement requires to be much more carefully defined. The hon. Member for Gravesend has embarked on a very long and technical argument showing how necessary is Chinese labour for the prosperity of South Africa. I do not propose to follow that argument, and I advise the House not to be enticed into the technical aspects of this question. Such a discussion would be perfectly endless.

Oh!

No doubt the right hon. Member for West Birmingham is supplied with masses of highly technical information which he is prepared to use in a highly controversial manner. But I respectfully submit to the House that the question whether Chinese are cheaper than Kaffirs, whether white men and machinery can work the mines at a profit, whether the Chinese are on the whole a law-abiding people or a terror to the countryside, whether the importation of Chinese was in the true interests of the white people in South Africa, whether the product per stamp was less or more and why, whether the big houses discouraged Kaffir labour when they wished to establish a case for Chinese, whether it would really make a difference to South Africa if the mines are worked out in ninety years instead of in forty-five—all these questions are, no doubt, very interesting and important, but they are not the business of the House of Commons. This is not the place to thrash them out with advantage. They are questions that can be fought out in the Transvaal Assembly, and it is there that the material and political issues should be fought out. It is in a Parliament of their own that the people of the Transvaal must make up their minds on social, technical, and economical grounds whether Chinese labour is a good foundation on which to build the permanent welfare of the land in which they live. But there is another set of considerations which, without exciting the derision of the Party opposite, I might perhaps call humanitarian and moral considerations. On those this House is fully competent to pronounce, and is entitled and even bound to pronounce. On these great matters of principle the opinion of the House of Commons must always be expressed as a guide to the practice of other Legislatures all over the Empire. The fact that there will be a greater delay than the Government had anticipated before the Transvaal Assembly can meet together forced these considerations on the Government with irresistible weight. We have been forced to examine the Transvaal Ordinance with searching and attentive eyes. I think the hon. Member who sat down last expressed his entire approval and commendation of the Transvaal Ordinance of 1905. That view cannot be shared by the House.

The amended Ordinance.

There are certain clauses in the Ordinance of 1905 to which His Majesty's Government cannot consent, and which they have taken steps to remove. Clause 3 says—

"Whenever a fine has been imposed by the superintendent or inspector under the jurisdiction by this Ordinance conferred, the superintendent or inspector, as the case may be, may notify the fact to the employer of the labourer who has been convicted, and it shall be the duty of such employer, on receiving such notification, to withhold the amount so imposed as a fine from any wages due or to become due to such labourer, and pay it over to the superintendent or inspector for the benefit of the Colonial Treasury."

That section provides that an employer should deduct from the wages of the labourer the amount of the fine to which the labourer has been condemned, and His Majesty's Government cannot approve of that principle. It is a vicious system which might easily lead to the gravest possible abuse. Clause 6 provides that—

"It shall be the duty of every importer to divide the labourers employed by him on any mine into so many gangs or sections as he may think necessary for the proper conduct of work and for the maintenance of discipline and good order, and to appoint a labourer hereinafter referred to as a head boy in charge of each gang or section. The name and passport number of each such head boy shall be notified by the importer to the superintendent, and thereupon it shall be the duty of such head boy to report forthwith to the manager of the mine at which he is employed, any offence committed by any labourer in his gang or section, and on failure to do so he shall be guilty of an offence against the said ordinance and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding £5."

That is an attempt, I suppose, to introduce the monitorial system into South Africa, and no doubt it is a reminiscence of the public school days of those who were responsible for this Ordnance. His Majesty's Government have directed that this provision shall be abolished. Subsection 2 of Section 6 I will not read at length; its object is to assert the principle of collective fines. A gang of labourers accused of any offence may be punished collectively. That is an odious system, that persons should be punished for acts not specifically alleged against them, the truth of which has to be ascertained by process of law. That provision has also been abolished. Subsection 30, Section 6, says—

"Any importer refusing to carry out the duty imposed on him by this section, shall be guilty of an offence against the said ordinance, and shall, on conviction, be liable to a penalty of £100 for every day he is in default."

Why, they will soon be able to pay some of the £30,000,000 back at that rate.

That is to say, if the importer refused to divide his labourers into gangs, and appoint monitors, he would also be liable to punishment. That clause will go with the others. Section 17 provides that any labourer who shall practice any fraud or deception in the performance of any work which he is bound to perform, or who shall wilfully or negligently lose, or throw away, or damage the property of his employer, or who shall use threatening or insulting language towards his employer, or to any one in lawful authority over him, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £5, or to imprisonment not exceeding one month, or to both such fine and such imprisonment. That is to impose criminal punishment for offences which are not of a criminal character, and which happen in the ordinary conduct of a manufacturing establishment. In the opinion of the Government this provision was inadmissible and has been abolished. The Government have also directed that all trials shall in future be held in open Court. None are to be held in the mines, although it is intended to allow a mine inspector who knows Chinese to exercise the functions of a magistrate. That is permitted, as being in the interests of the Chinese labourers. These are the provisions to which most marked objection is taken—provisions indeed "calculated to bring the reputation of this country into contempt." Now let me come to a more serious aspect of the ordinance. We are all agreed that cruelty and illegality must be suppressed whenever discovered. Flogging was bad enough, and I gladly recognise the work accomplished by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in reducing the annual number of lashes administered under the British flag. But here is the logging without the safeguards of the law. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said there was no proof of the charges of inhumanity which have been brought.

I said there was no support for the language in which Gentlemen opposite who condemned the conditions of the Chinese work as slavery.

The hon. Member or South Kerry has been mentioned particularly. I quite admit that Mr. Boland's charges are exaggerated. Very often when a private individual brings charges against a great system they will be exaggerated, but even if a small part of his charges are true, and they are the means of bringing about reforms, he has, in spite of exaggeration, rendered a public service. Lord Selborne says in the Blue-book, page 21—

"It is not denied, and, indeed, I have already informed you that prior to June 1905 illegal corporal punishment after trial by the mine authorities was widely resorted to as a disciplinary measure in the mines of the Wit-watersrand; and it cannot be disputed that it was administered in the manner described in Mr. Boland's letter, namely, in a manner borrowed from the practice of the Chinese Courts of Justice."

That, in the words of the Amendment, constitutes a state of things calculated to bring the reputation of this country into contempt.

It is a lie.

Some one says it is a lie. Well, I am reminded by that of the remark of the witty Irishman who said, "There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true." It is not enough that the Government should endeavour to put down these illegalities. Of course, it goes without saying that persons guilty of such things would be put down by any Government with all the rigour of the law, but in the vast area over which these mines extend, cases of cruelty might occur without the knowledge of the inspectors, and it is that consideration which has induced His Majesty's Government to take the third important step in their policy as regards the Chinese Labour—I mean what is commonly called repatriation. That is a system by which we hope to undercut cruelty. I do most earnestly urge the House not to underrate the importance of this provision. Its importance is not underrated elsewhere. If anyone will study the fall in prices that I regret to say has followed the declaration of the policy the Government have thought it their duty to carry out, they will see that we are not playing with words in this matter, that it is not a sham fight in which we are engaged, hut that, on the contrary, it is ball cartridge that is to be fired. This provision of repatriation comes strictly within the general policy of observing the law, which I say is one of the limitations in which the Government action will be confined. Under Clause 14 it is open to any coolie who tenders £17 10s. to return at once to China.

Out of his bob a day!

My hon. friend has defined the weak point of the provision. The right hon. Member for Croydon seemed to indicate the other day that there was no difference between the effect of the clause in the contract and the proposals of the Government in regard to repatriation, and when he said that, an hon. Member wittily interjected, "Only the expense." That is true. Why, there is no difference between protection and free trade—only the expense. I have had a calculation made to show how long it would take a coolie to save the £17 10s. necessary to pay his passage home. Last year the average wages were 33s. 6d. per month, and during the present year they were 37s. 7d. per month. It takes a long time to save £17 10s. out of that. The cost of extra food or clothes, or the money the coolie might wish to remit to China, must be deducted, and we must also make a deduction for the fines which might be easily imposed on coolies who were known to be intending to leave the mine. How enormous the sum derived from these fines is may be judged. In July, 1905, the amount was £1,844; in August, £1,793; September £2,154; in October £5,200; and in November £3,419.

Why, they will be able to pay the £30,000,000 directly.

I am told that the utmost a coolie could save by the most rigid self-denial would be 20s. a month, in which case it would take him, roughly speaking, eighteen months to earn the amount necessary, and, of course, any accident or illness would delay his power of earning that money; and observe, that the very men who would most want to leave are those least suited to the work, and, as payment is made by piece-work, they are men who would probably earn much below the average wages. Altogether it is not untrue to say that the average time it would take a Chinaman to earn the money necessary for his repatriation under the Lyttelton Ordinance would be between eighteen months and two years, and if he did not make up his mind as to whether he wished to leave until he had been in the Transvaal six months, he would be brought to within six months of the expiry of his contract before he could avail himself of the clause. That shows how farcical and nugatory is this provision, which looks so elegant on paper. But our system which has been introduced by the Prime Minister and Lord Elgin operates almost immediately. No doubt a short period of notice would be required in order to; make sure that the labourer was sincere, in his desire to return home, but if a Chinaman expresses the desire to return for any good reason, or without giving "any reason at all, his right will be sustained by the forces of the Crown, and the funds to return him to his country will be provided from the British Exchequer. I cannot but think that this decision, to secure which Lord Elgin has exerted himself, will carry relief to many hearts throughout this country. [Some OPPOSITION laughter.] You may laugh, but I had the good fortune to address as many meetings in the country as anyone, and I know there was no subject which caused greater and more genuine sorrow among the people than the belief that Chinamen were being kept in the mines against their will by forces of armed constabulary, and were hurled back to their compounds when they tried to escape. Many of them went to South Africa in the belief that they could pursue their own handicrafts in a rich land—an Eldorado; but instead they found themselves compelled to do nothing but drill so many inches of rock at the bottom of a deep level mine, and I say the spectacle of the Chinaman wandering over the veldt, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him, with half the world between him and his home in China—I say that spectacle is as degrading, hideous, and pathetic as any this civilised and Christian nation has made itself responsible for in modern years. At any rate, that spectacle is gone, and gone for ever. The Chinese are free to be free. If they are kept in South Africa by compulsion it shall in future be compulsion on the voluntary system, and if they consider these conditions unpleasant they will be mitigated by the operation of a conscience clause. If they are ill-treated, unhappy, or brought to South Africa by misrepresentations, the way is open, the field is clear, and the door has been unbarred. So long as His Majesty's Government are forced, through no fault of their own, to administer this Ordinance, no man will be held to such a contract as the Ordinance embodies unless of his own will. I must say one word more to complete the circle of this argument. The steps which the Government have taken remove all danger of cruelty, of impropriety, or of gross infringement of liberty. I believe they remove the practical objections which have been urged against the Ordinance, but they do not, of course, remove our fundamental objections in principle to this system of labour. In these days, with every important nation of the globe in communication, and brought closer together, with Asiatic labour fluid as it never was fluid before, I think it is necessary to state the clear principle by which we should be guided so far as possible in the future. What is the cause of the innate and instinctive aversion which is maintained by this; Parliament and the country to the system of Chinese indentured labour? It is that underlying that system there is the idea that men are to be treated as if they were implements. Are the Chinese necessary to Africa, to the development of the gold mines, to the fertilisation of its fields? Is it really true, as those who sit opposite say, that their co-operation is necessary for the prosperity of the country? Is it true that without their co-operation, collapse, stagnation, and bankruptcy must ensue? Does your great business really depend upon the laborious industry of these strangers? Is your empire to be maintained, are your fortunes to be amassed by the day to day consumption of their vital energies? Then, at least, receive them with that gratitude and respect which you owe to persons having it in their power to render such indispensable and inestimable services. Is it not an unworthy thing to accept wealth and security at their hands, and at the same time to shrink from the contamination of their touch? I lay down this principle in this democratic Parliament, that no man should be imported into a country as a labourer unless you also accept him as a human being. A great matter of principle like this affects not only the particular colony chiefly concerned, but it affects the working of our whole colonial system. That system can only rest upon the basis of self-government—or Home Rule, whichever name you prefer. Home Rule implies within broad limits the right to govern or misgovern, manage or mismanage, for good or for ill, the community upon which it is conferred. No one can watch the unceasing flow of business transacted through the Colonial Office without seeing that many things are being done, by persons to whom the Government has been forced to give wide discretionary powers, of which the people at home would not approve. Laws which are hard and narrow are being applied in certain British dominions. There are instances of the treatment of native races and the infliction of punishments and penalties which do not commend themselves to the sense of this House or the people of England. We have got in some cases to put up with those things, but there is no reason why we should cease to keep over South Africa the same regulating control that we do over other great self-governing colonies like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. I believe that, generally speaking, given free institutions on a fair basis, the best side of men's nature will in the end surely come uppermost. But this doctrine has its limits. Honestly, I do not believe that the Transvaal Parliament, fairly elected on a reasonable basis, will decide in favour of the retention of the Chinese. I think they will bring the experiment gradually, but surely, to an end. But while believing that, it would be un-reasonable not to face the other alternative, however remote the contingency of it may be. What if the colony should decide to continue the importation of Chinese? I must point out that while the responsibility of the Imperial Government would be lessened, our objections to the present conditions under which Chinese labour is carried on will not be removed by any vote of the Transvaal Assembly, however unanimous, however representative. Nor should we be altogether without our remedy, quite a part from the power always reserved to the Crown. Anyone who knows the Acts and Conventions under which this system of Chinese labour is obtained and maintained will see how vital Imperial co-operation is and how fatal Imperial opposition would be. In Lord Elgin's original telegram he expressly says:—

"While reserving their opinion and form of action in the whole matter His Majesty's Government," etc.

Those are words to which a real and serious significance should be attached. It should not be taken for granted for one moment that while the conditions of Chinese labour continue to be repugnant to the opinions and feelings of the people of this country, Imperial sanction for the extension and maintenance of such a system would be forthcoming. This is the policy of the Government. For this policy I invite and claim the confidence and support of the House of Commons. It is a policy of integrity, a policy earnest, yet not violent, a policy which, without being impatient in its beginnings, will in the end prove very sure.

The Undersecretary for the Colonies has had a hard task to perform this afternoon, but he has discharged it with vast ability and great courage amidst the deepening silence of his supporters below the gangway. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] His speech has had to be a versatile speech. He began by saying that Chinese Labour is not slavery, and he went on to show that its undesirable characteristics can be removed by altering the regulations and fines, and by helping the labourers with a fare. That is very different to the advice tendered at the recent election. The Under-Secretary has, in fact, boxed the compass of every view expressed before the election and since the election. But what of his followers in this House, who, until he rose, have declared that Chinese labour is "slavery?" [Cries of "It is."] The Government do not take that view now.

We do, all the same.

If the hon. Member for Woolwich had waited and allowed me to put my case he would have heard that I was about to point out that there were many in this House who said it was slavery and who still adhered to that opinion.