§ 1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,450, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a grant in aid of certain expenses connected with emigration."
§ *MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)
said that South Africa was the centre of interest in Colonial matters; 1245 but, while his remarks would be devoted chiefly to South African subjects, he had a word or two to say in the first Instance on a matter relating to the opium traffic, which, unless it was cautiously handled by the Government, might bring us trouble in our great Eastern Dependencies. In discussing the Resolution of the House for the discouragement of the opium traffic, it was presumed by everyone who took part in that debate that any action taken by the Government would be deliberate and cautious, and in particular that they would seek to enlist the co-operation of the authorities of the various Colonies concerned. Unless he was misinformed, there had be n a grievous departure from that wholesome rule in Hong kong, and a similar disposition seemed to be likely in regard to the Straits Settlements. The Legislative Council in Crown Colonies consisted of official and unofficial members. The latter were a kind of advisory council in a permanent minority, but their advice was extremely valuable. It was axiomatic at the Colonial Office that the utmost consideration should be shown to those gentlemen, and that they should be consulted on every occasion of importance. Such an attitude was preeminently desirable in the case of the question of opium. The opium habit had boon an engraved habit in the East for centuries, and a large portion of the revenue of these Colonies was raised from opium. In a matter so delicate, therefore, as that, he would have thought it hardly credible that the Government should not have consulted the Legislative Council of Hong-kong before taking any specific action in regard to the matter. He was informed that, a peremptory telegram was sent by the Secretary of State on 6th May saying to the Colony of Hong-kong that His Majesty's Government had decided to close the opium establishments in Hong-kong. That telegram reached Hong-kong three hours before the statement was made public in the House of Commons, and therefore before any information was vouchsafed to the Colony on the matter. Absolutely no previous consultation had taken place, so far as he was informed, and no opinion taken of the members of the Legislative Council Naturally this excited a great deal of feeling amongst the members of that body. They moved and voted for a 1246 resolution of censure on the Government for that very high-handed proceeding. He hoped there would be some explanation given of this proceeding, because, in his opinion, it was calculated rather to hinder than advance the object—the reduction in the consumption of opium. There was another matter which he thought would interest the late Under-Secretary more than the present, because it referred to some sarcastic comments which he made with regard to a certain concession that had been made in the pearl fisheries of Ceylon. The late Under-Secretary, who, if he might say so, was the youngest and most inexperienced of any official who had had any dealing with this subject at all, selected and identified himself as the only person among the officials to condemn that particular concession. His ground was—and he was good enough to absolve him (Mr. Lyttelton) from any fraud in the matter—but his ground of condemnation was that this was not a speculative but a very valuable and stable undertaking, and that therefore the Ceylon Government had acted very wrongly in parting for twenty years with the pearl fisheries. For 100 years the profits had averaged £10,000 a year. There had boon sometimes years without a pearl being taken at all; on other occasions the profits had been very large. The Government did not like to spend their revenue upon so unstable a product, and accordingly they thought it desirable to put the matter upon a proper footing. The fisheries wore therefore leased to a company for twenty years at a rental of £20,000 a year, and there was an obligation on the part of the concessionaires to spend 3,000,000 rupees on the development of the fisheries during the period of the concession. At the end of that time the Government were to resume possession. If, therefore, the large expenditure was successful the Government would have the results of that success, and if it was a failure the company would have to boar the expense. It might be thought that that was not altogether a bad arrangement, but the late Under-Secretary, cheered by the reflection that the company had an extremely good first year, spoke in very opprobrious terms of the wisdom of the grant, but unfortunately he forgot that time sometimes brought correction even to the 1247 youngest of them. This year the company was in the position of having to pay the Government £20,000 to execute 150,000 rupees worth of development work, while they had not been able to recover a single pearl. He thought that was worth mentioning.
Passing to the position of affairs in the Transvaal, he said that the minority there had borne themselves like men in the last two years. There had been no unmanly laments as to the consequences of the action that had been taken; they had courageously and toughly accepted that which was inevitable. He admitted that after self-government was granted they were bound not to indulge in any factious criticism nor to embitter feeling by any partisan comment. At the same time he utterly repudiated the indolent and pusillanimous counsel that, in the circumstances which existed in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, they were entitled to absolve themselves from all criticism, to shut their eyes, and to say lazily after all the sacrifices which our fellow-subjects had made and the immense financial aid this country had given them, that these Colonies were immune from all criticism because they had self-government. On the contrary, the condition of these Colonies and the financial obligations we had undertaken not only entitled Parliament to exercise, but demanded from them, an unceasing vigilance and also criticism where it could be honestly made and where it was sincerely felt. There were some features of the situation in the Transvaal to which he thought they were all entitled to look with satisfaction. The great fabric that had been erected by the labours and genius of Lord Milner and his colleagues after the war in the main stood. That fabric included the railways, the roads, the bridges, public works, schools, municipal self-government, a system of education which needed only wise and tolerant administration, a system of law remodelled so as to bring the Colony fully up to every modern need, a judiciary equal to any in the Empire over seas, a scientific system of agriculture which, by the assent of the Dutch and the British, had done great good in bringing classes together, in improving agriculture 1248 in the Colony, and in increasing its productiveness. There was also a progress towards unification of the Colony, a, progress which had been recognised by General Botha as being largely due to the results of the war. That unification was furthered by the Progressive Party in South Africa. He thought they were entitled to congratulate them, and to congratulate the country upon the progress that had been made towards it. Let those who had denounced the war from the beginning permit him to read a passage from a speech by General Botha. He said—If we go back into the history of South Africa we find that there were not only Colonies here, but also republics, and as long as there was more than one flag, it was impossible to think of a united South Africa. The dissension which has existed in the past has led to serious difficulties. We know that it has led to difficulties between the Colonies and the republics, and has led to one of the most bloody wars that South Africa has ever seen. … Before the war was over it was impossible to think of a united South Africa.They might congratulate Lord Milner and those who supported the war at the tune on the fact that such an authority should have uttered so striking a statement. He might say parenthetically that the main source of difficulty which he anticipated in the future in respect of the problem of unification was one about which he had warned the Government two years ago. It was the lowering of manhood suffrage in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, contrary to all South African precedent, with the result that when the position of the natives came to be discussed in connection with the entire subject the only argument left for those opposed to a native suffrage was "your skin is black and the white man's skin is white." That was a position of which the Government were warned at the time, and he was sorry that the warning had come only too true. Having pointed out some of those matters, which were matters of legitimate congratulation, he was bound to say that there were three main sources of irritation and bitterness which still existed in South Africa, and which he thought the influence of the Government ought to be enlisted to allay. First, he was glad to recognise that since there had been a change 1249 in the personnel of the Government the same abuse of the British minority which they used to have from the hon. Member's predecessor had been absent. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."] He was speaking in the recollection of the House when he declared that on almost every occasion when South African matters were discussed they were prefaced or concluded by the late Under-Secretary by whoops of invective and sarcasm more fitted for other assemblies than the House of Commons. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Then there had been—he knew some hon. Gentlemen did not like it, but he was going to say it—repeated and injurious comments made on the system of labour which had prevailed in the Transvaal for a number of years; and lastly, and most conspicuously, there had been a failure, as he read the difficult and obscure facts, to carry out towards the Civil servants employed in the country the honourable understandings which they owed to all those who served the King in any department. He maintained that the minority in South Africa endured the chiefest burden of the war. They also endured at the present moment the heavy taxation which was necessary. Seven-eighths of the taxation was borne by them. He did not think that any candid opponent would deny that a heavy strain had been placed upon them when, contrary to the policy of the last Government, to the treaty, and to the expressed intentions of many authorities, responsible government was granted to the Colony. He did not go back upon that, but he did not think that any candid opponent would deny that a serious strain was imposed on their cheerful loyalty and their temper by the handing over to the custody of a great majority of their political opponents the actual government of the country. He would have thought that every chivalrous adversary and every lover of concord would have thought them worthy of respectful treatment. But so far from receiving respectful treatment these Colonies had received in the House of Commons jeers and insults. The late Under-Secretary had delivered speeches containing many injurious attacks and he had caused them to be circulated in South Africa in official telegrams. It 1250 was one of those lucubrations which poured suspicion on the voters list, and the consequential alteration of the voters' list caused the minority to be a good deal smaller than it would have been. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] That, at any rate, was the opinion of those on the spot. What could be more odious to men of great industry and ability doing this work than an imputation cast on their good faith? That imputation had never been frankly withdrawn by the former Under-Secretary, notwithstanding the fact that Lord Selborne had absolutely denied that there was any grounds for suspicion, and that the present Under-Secretary was good enough to say the Government did not associate itself with the imputation. There were other matters tending to cause exasperation, imputations on the good faith of those who managed the recruiting of native labour, and reflections made, not here, but in South Africa, upon the financial administration of the Crown. Colony Government. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give some information in regard to this matter. It was reported that the Treasurer last year had condemned the extravagence and incompetency of the Crown Colony Government, by alleging that there was a large deficit, but it had been pointed out by the official auditor that the deficit had been created by putting a sum of £67,000 in the accounts of the following instead of the current year. He would not say that an apology was due, but a retractation should be made of the statement, because the honour of the Crown Colony Government ought to be dear to no one more than to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represented that Government in this House, and who was bound, when an accusation of that kind was made, if it were true, to call attention to it. He knew that offensive imputations of that kind had provoked the bitterest feelings in South Africa, and had done much to weaken the spirit of conciliation which they all desired to see in the Colonies. No one on the Unionist side ever doubted that there were mischiefs attendant upon indentured labour in South Africa. What were the facts about native labour at the present moment? What was the difference between indentured native labour and Chinese labour, about the 1251 abolition of which hon. Gentlemen opposite congratulated themselves so much, and asked the country to congratulate them? He would tell the House what the condition was now with respect to Portuguese natives, say, 50 per cent. of the native labour employed in the Transvaal mines. It was foreign alien labour. It was indentured foreign labour. It was brought thousands of miles, and from a climate which made those who came a great deal more susceptible to illness than Chinamen. These labourers were brought without their wives or their families, and the arrangements were such that there could be no holding of land and no holding of property by those who came.
§ *MR. LYTTELTON
said he would tell the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The arrangement provided also for the repatriation of the labourer immediately his in denture was terminated. The disability from holding land arose from the fact that the person who was subject to the indenture was bound under penalties to work in the mines for the whole period of his indenture, and he was obliged to return to his own country at the end of it. The recruiter was bound to effect and defray the cost of repatriation in accordance with the obligations undertaken by him. The native was under an obligation to return to Portuguese territory immediately the period of his contract was ended unless; he effected a re-engagement. He quite agreed that, in the absence of an Ordinance, there was no opportunity compulsorily to exercise the provisions of that contract. But Lord Selborne had stated explicitly that the Government were bound in honour not to countenance the settling of Portuguese natives in the Transvaal. What occurred was this. The Foreign Office had made an arrangement with the Portuguese authorities by which the system of indenture was permitted on condition that the Portuguese natives should spend the money they had earned in Portuguese territory. Not merely were we bound in honour 1252 to fulfil that obligation; but, if it were not fulfilled, the arrangement would be at once terminated.
§ *MR. LYTTELTON
said it might not be fulfilled in every case. But the Government had bound themselves to fulfil it, and if they did not, the Portuguese Government had a grievance against them, not merely because of an obligation of honour unfulfilled, but because of an actual injury done. If the Under-secretary did not value his opinion in regard to the character of this indentured native labour let him listen to the opinion of his great friend Mr. Cresswell, whose sincerity had never been controverted. That gentleman in a Report on the subject of native labour in the mines, after giving figures in regard to the natives imported into the Transvaal, said—It is clear from these Inures that so far as the Transvaal is concerned the supply of indigenous cheap coloured labour is wholly insufficient for the carrying on of the mining industry, and that the great mass of coloured labour employed upon the mines has to be obtained from outside its borders. The supply is, therefore, not a natural supply, indigenous to the Colony; it is not even a natural supply indigenous to British South Africa. So far as the natives imported from outside British South Africa are concerned, constituting a further 41 per cent. of the coloured labour force, these consist for the most part of East Coast natives, whose importation is dependent on arrangements between this country and the Portuguese authorities. The continuance of these arrangements on our side depends, among other things, upon the view being upheld, that while it is undesirable, and has been made unlawful, to import indentured alien coloured labour—from China—it is beneficial and deserving of State help to do so overland—from adjacent territories in Africa. In the opinion of the Commission, the imported Portuguese East African offers no advantages to the country, from a social or economic point of view, more than the imported Chinese coolie did. Both fill the place of, and do work which would otherwise be done by white, men. Both take out of the country a large proportion of the wages fund which ought to be spent in the country by a resident industrial population, thereby stimulating the prosperity and development of the country. There remains the 17 per cent. of the coloured labour force recruited in British South Africa, and the 5 per cent. recruited in the Transvaal.There they had the opinion of the greatest opponent of Chinese labour, given after months of investigation, that the difference between Chinese labour and the 1253 native labour, upon which, hon. Gentlemen opposite were always congratulating themselves, was the difference between bringing indentured alien coloured labour overseas and bringing black labour over land. Perhaps the subtlety of hon. Gentlemen opposite might be able to see some essential difference; he confessed he was unable to do so. The mischiefs such as they were attendant upon indentured labour arose from the settled determination of every white man's community in the world, in which there was a great preponderance of native labour, not to take any part in the work done by the lowest class of coloured labour. If they looked into the matter with a candid mind they would find that the mischief existed with regard to natives who were brought thousands of miles overland as well as with regard to those brought from China; and the one serious and lamentable difference was that the death-rate in the case of the former was two or three times what it was in the case of the latter. He came now to the third cause of exasperation, the retrenched Transvaal officials who had been employed when the Transvaal was a Crown Colony. He admitted that the facts were very difficult to get at, but many of those to whom notice of retrenchment had been given believed themselves to be dependent, first on His Majesty's Government and, perhaps, in a second degree on the Transvaal Government, for standing between them and absolute ruin. Naturally enough they were timid as to giving information. He did not wish to, and he did not believe that anyone would for a moment, impute to the present Government that they would bear hardly against any man whose name was mentioned in a debate like this, or who made any complaint as to the wrongs he believed that he had suffered. The position was this. Nobody denied that there was and had been a need of retrenchment; but the Civil servants in the Transvaal were given to understand that when they took that position—of course at that time the rule was that of a Crown Colony—that at any rate the rule of Great Britain in South Africa was going to last much longer than it actually did. They were assured by Sir Arthur Lawley on 1st December, 1905, that—Many of them had acquired vested rights, that the country was under obligation to them, 1254 and that he had sufficient confidence in his countrymen that these obligations would be fulfilled.Lord Selborne, at a meeting of the Intercolonial Council on 30th May, 1906, said of the constabulary—It would be quite impossible to ask the existing officers and men to accept reductions in their pay and allowances and not, at the same time, to fulfil those hopes which had always been admitted and encouraged, that the South African constabulary would one day be a permanent police force and their services pensionable.Sir Richard Solomon, acting Lieuten-ant-Governor of the Transvaal, at the Legislative Council on 25th May, 1906, said in no less strong terms—This session gives the present Government its last opportunity of redeeming its pledges to the Civil servants, and of that opportunity it intends to avail itself. An ordinance regulating the pensions of officers of the service will, therefore, be introduced, substantially based on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, to which I believe no possible objection will be take a by any section of the people of this Colony. I wish it clearly to be understood that the Government firmly believes that the new Parliament of the Transvaal under responsible Government would deal fairly with the Civil servants of this Colony, and it would with the greatest confidence leave any legislation relating to the status and pensions of Civil servants to such Parliament; but it feels that it cannot honourably leave the pledges it gave to these Civil servants any longer unfulfilled, especially in view of the fact that the principles on which the legislation will be based will have been decided by an independent Commission, whose personnel has been approved by the people of this country.The opportunity was not taken and there were now scores of Civil servants who were being retrenched without pensions. He inferred—of course, he had never seen the report—from a letter that Sir West Ridgeway had written and which appeared in The Times that he had reported so as jealously to safeguard the rights of the Civil servants. If that were so, it would only be candid if the Government would tell the Committee what the facts were, what they had done in order to fulfil the three separate promises which had been given, afterwards confirmed by the West Ridgeway Commission. He did not intend to weary the Committee with a long list of names, but those who had acquainted themselves with this subject of retrenchment knew that many British officers and, officials in the Transvaal had been retrenched and replaced by Dutchmen. 1255 He might mention the cases of Colonel Curtis and Colonel O'Brien, the heads of both police forces who had had eight years of honourable service. These distinguished men were replaced by a gentleman by the name of Papenfus who had had no active service in the police, and the outcry against whose appointment out there as well as here was so acute that he learned a day or two ago that that gentleman had resigned.
§ *MR. LYTTELTON
said he was quite aware that he had been replaced, but he was not aware that his appointment I was temporary. Then there was the case of Dr. Sansome, a gentleman who had rendered eminent services in the Medical Department of the mines, and during the course of whose service in Lord Milner's time and afterwards had been able to reduce the death-rate amongst the natives by at least 50 per cent. Two persons had been appointed in his place, but he did not gather that there had been any reduction in the cost of the Department. Then there was the case of Mr. Thornton, the General Superintendent to the Victoria Hospital, whose dismissal could not be looked upon with other than grave indignation by those who valued the honour of this country; and the cases of the three magistrates, Major Bolton, who had filled his office of resident magistrate at Pietersburg for five years with conspicuous success, and who had given up the prospect of commanding his regiment to join the service; Major McInerney, the resident magistrate at Barberton, Mr. Rolleston, resident magistrate at Lichtenburg, and others. He did not wish to assume that all the facts in favour of the case which he was putting before the Committee were absolutely correct in every detail. He frankly admitted that he had found it impossible accurately to inform himself, except in a few instances, of all the details. He did not think he would be justified in asking the Committee to draw the inference which he had drawn if it were not for the fact that new circumstances had occurred since the time that he and the hon. Member for 1256 Gravesend had brought this subject before the House of Commons on a previous occasion. The position then taken up by the Government in regard to it seemed a very strong one. It was said that Lord Milner himself had pointed out the necessity for considerable retrenchment, and that many of the retrenchments had been made under the advice of a distinguished Indian Civil servant, Mr. Marriss, who had been appointed by the late Crown Colony to superintend the reconstruction of the Transvaal Civil Service. But these pleas were no longer open, for on 15th May, 1908, Mr. Marriss wrote to the Transvaal Government in these terms—I have decided with reluctance to ask your Government to relieve me from my present appointment under it, in connection with the public service reorganisation. I do not feel that retrenchments and appointments are being made in such a way that I can remain associated with them. I will send you a further memorandum on the subject, and need not go into details now. I place myself in your hands as regards the actual date of my departure. It may be convenient that I should wait a few days to finish half-completed proposals, and to give the Government time to decide what arrangements, if any, it will make to carry on the work. But I do not propose to undertake any fresh work, and should be glad to leave as soon as it is convenient.A valuable authority speaking with respect to the manner in which the grievances were to be redressed, said that a Bill was before the Transvaal Parliament to enable the Government of the colony to make the appointments to the Civil Service exactly as they pleased. There was no provision for entrance examinations, and it was truly affirmed that if that policy was carried out it might be said with perfect accuracy that there would be no test at all of the ability of the men to be appointed to the Civil Service in the Transvaal; and that the Government would not be able to resist the pressure put upon them by their supporters for appointments. Two years ago, it was pointed out in the frankest possible manner that the spoils should be given to the victors. He thought he had shown the Government the facts of the case, but he appealed with all the earnestness in his power to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to assume the facts as he had stated them, but to influence the Government 1257 to have an inquiry by three men of Impartiality from this country, who "would go into the facts, and who would say whether the case, which rested on the very strong prima facie grounds put before the House, was one which did not mark the action which should be taken by His Majesty's Government. He was extremely sorry to detain the House so long, but there had been no opportunity of discussing these matters at all this session. The only discussion of the affairs of Natal in which they had engaged in that House was afforded of what he thought, was the most exasperating form of controversy, namely, by Questions put to the Government by zealots below the gangway. In this controversy it should be remembered that our policy had added to the work of the Natal Government the very formidable problem of Zululand as well as the very formidable problem with respect to natives in their own territory. Natal was a small Colony with honourable traditions, and in the humanity of whose rulers he had the most implicit confidence. This controversy, so far as he was able to judge, had gathered round four principal points. One was the arrest by a strong force of the Chief Dinizulu; the second was the proclamation of martial law; the third was the question of the prolongation of the, preliminary examination of Dinizulu; and the fourth was the question of Dinizulu's salary. Speaking entirely for himself, he thought we were in this difficulty. We were bound to believe that the Natal Government were acting with reasonable cause. At the same time we were bound by all our honourable traditions to presume the innocence of a man until he was found guilty. These two positions were extremely difficult to reconcile in discussing this matter, and the House would bear with him if he might seem not always satisfactorily to recognise them. He was bound to assume that the Natal Government had good cause for arresting Dinizulu; he was glad to assume it, and he could assure them he would not do so unless he thought that they had good cause. He thought that the Natal Government were absolutely right, if they undertook that step, to use a force to effect the arrest which would make resistance impossible. That was both 1258 a humane and an expedient thing to do. They had also acted legally in putting Dinizulu through a long preliminary examination. A Statute had been passed by the House authorising them to do it. He spoke with diffidence, for there were lawyers present who would correct him if he was wrong, but he thought that even in this country there had been occasions in which two or three months had been spent in preliminary investigations in important cases.
§ *MR. LYTTELTON
said he did not think that was quite the point. The arrest took place under a warrant or under an information in this country, but frequently the result of a preliminary investigation was an indictment to be made of entirely different character from the cause of the original warrant. Now the length of time required for the purposes of the law was about double what was needed in this country. The distances in Zululand were enormous. The difficulty of finding the witnesses was exceedingly great, as was also the amount of time occupied in bringing them up to Court. The Attorney-General had also distinctly stated that he regarded it as in the interests of the prisoner, that every fact to be relied upon at the trial should be given notice of to him and his advisers in the preliminary examination. It was stated that the view which the Attorney-General had taken had met with the approbation of those who defended Dinizulu. Although it was natural that comment should have been made on the length of time occupied, yet on reviewing the circumstances in comparison with our own system, which, of course, possessed facilities infinitely greater for ensuring speed, he doubted whether any just condemnation could be cast on the Natal Government in respect of this delay. He did not pass any opinion in regard to the circumstances in which martial law was proclaimed, but he was entitled to say that martial law never had been administered in a more lenient way than by the Natal Government. Not a single 1259 execution had taken place under it, and it would be unjust and ungenerous in them at this distance from the scene to pronounce a hasty opinion against the proclamation until they were fully acquainted with the circumstances under which it was made. In regard to the payment of Dinizulu's salary, he thought that His Majesty's Government were right in having paid it to him. He thought that the documents showed that there was a primary obligation on His Majesty's Government to pay that salary, unless the circumstances could be established affording not technical but real and convincing reasons why they should not do so. He did not attach much importance to the question, but for what his own personal opinion was worth, he thought that His Majesty's Government were right, having regard to the length of the proceedings that were taking place and to the poverty and unjust needs of the Chief Dinizulu, in recognising that the obligation to pay the salary to him, even if their view did not coincide with that of the Natal Government. He did not believe that there would be much difficulty for anyone in whom they had confidence to persuade reasonable men in Natal on this point, and he did not think that he should have any difficulty now. He was afraid that he had detained the House longer than he had intended, and he knew that he had tried the good-will of the hon. Gentleman opposite once or twice. He had endeavoured, as he should always endeavour, to speak on these matters in no partisan spirit. He thought that that which had taken place with reference to questions in the East was of very serious importance. Unless the House was satisfied that the Government were really going to consult and pay some deference to the views of legislative councils in the Crown Colonies, an infinite amount of trouble would come upon us. He admitted that the problem of South Africa was more vital than even those other questions in the East to which he had referred. How could we expect to retain the confidence and allegiance of our fellow-subjects in South Africa if His Majesty's Government stood by and allowed Civil servants to return ruined from the country to which they had 1260 rendered good service? No country, however great, could afford to lose such allegiance, and he appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who he knew felt as strongly as he did upon this subject, whether this was not a problem which closely touched the honour and reputation of our own country. He had made no reflection on the Transvaal Government, and he would be unwilling to do so, unless the facts were more fully known. He had asked that an inquiry should take place in order to satisfy the people of this country. The honour and reputation of the country ought not to suffer at their hands, and he made this demand for an inquiry in terms which he had striven to make moderate in tone, and he commended it with the utmost earnestness to the consideration both of the House and the country.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said he had listened with much pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman, and although he had said that it was a long speech, it had not proved too long for those who had heard it. He would endeavour to answer all the points which the right hon. Gentleman had raised. He might say that he welcomed the moderation with which he had spoken, as he always did, with the exception of an allusion which he had made to his right hon. friend, to which he would revert later. On the last point to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred he thought that he had a complete answer—so complete that he made an appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in that House, and to all persons outside, especially those who had a knowledge of or were connected with our Civil Service, to take note of the official figures, which were an absolute refutation of the charges made against the Transvaal Government. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the opium traffic, and said that they had taken action without consulting the authorities at Hong Kong. It was impossible fully to consult the authorities. It was not certain until a short time before the debate that that particular debate would take place. Although they did their best to ascertain the views of those cognisant of the matter, it was quite impossible to get anything like a reasoned opinion from the inhabitants of Hong 1261 Kong. He reasserted what he had said in a previous discussion, that it was the policy of the Government to close the opium dens in Hong Kong. That remained the policy of the Government, and as regarded that policy itself the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him if he quoted some words of his. The right hon. Gentleman said on a former occasion—I congratulate the Government and the Under-Secretary on having taken steps which are entirely reasonable in the circumstauces.
§ *MR. LYTTELTON
Of course, I agreed with, that policy, but what I said was that every person of sense presumed that the ordinary steps had been taken that would make the policy palatable.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said the ordinary steps could not be taken for reasons that he had given. The ordinary steps were now being taken, and the Government would act throughout on the advice they had recently obtained, and would obtain, from the Governor. He believed he would be able to satisfy the House that the best public opinion in Hong Kong, and the opinion of the Governor himself, coincided with the policy of the Government as to the measure they proposed to take. With regard to Ceylon pearls, the right hon. Gentleman opposite was extraordinarily persistent on that point, which he would have thought anyone in his position would have desired to forget. In a public career which had been distinguished by almost uniform success, in the opinion of the man in the street, there were two matters on which the right hon. Gentleman had come croppers. One was the question of Ceylon pearls and the other Chinese labour. But the right hon. Gentleman would return to them. The right hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade had used some sarcastic language on the subject; but that language seemed to him to be well justified, and, speaking on behalf of the Colonial Office, he said they still thought that the right hon. Gentleman made an uncommonly bad bargain, for he thought he was right in saying that the company that got the concession, greatly to the right hon. Gentleman's surprise, made a profit of 1262 something over 60 per cent. That was a I fairly large percentage. When a man made a bargain with another man to exploit something which he had in his possession, and that person made a profit approaching even remotely 60 per cent., the man in the street would say that he had made a bad bargain. That the profits in this particular year had not been so great was exceedingly likely, but, of course, this was rather a barren controversy, because they would not know for many years, with certainty, who was right. But if they took the contract as far as it had gone and the profits made, the right hon. Gentleman had made a very bad bargain. Now he left these two points, and came to the question of Natal, which had occupied the House at Question-time very fully for many days past. He would say that the matter was critical and important, for at this moment the Natal Parliament was discussing it. The Natal Government had not seen fit to pay Dinizulu's salary. He did not wish to go over the ground again, but it would be remembered that their reason was that Dinizulu was in the position of an ordinary civil servant, and that, therefore, they were entitled to withhold his salary. To this the Government had replied that whatever their view might be, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made the bargain he said that the salary should not be withdrawn without the consent of the Secretary of State. The Government were convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman were present—and he need hardly say that every one in the House wished ardently that he were—he would agree with the Government that to take away a man's salary just at the moment when he wanted it most, just at the moment when by the operation of martial law he was debarred from getting resources from his own countrymen, was action they could not take and action to which they could not and would not give their consent. The Government had said they would wait until the Natal Supreme Court had decided whether the Natal Government were liable or not—because the Natal Government said they wished to submit the question to the tribunal—but they were not able to wait, first, because the action did not come on, 1263 and also for two other reasons which were conclusive to them and he understood to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The first was that they had found out that Dinizulu had got no more money, and that those who supported him had no money either. He did not know what the expenses of the defence of this native chief were, but he was told they amounted to £100 a month, and if they amounted to anything like that it was apparent that there had been a strain on his resources, and it was not surprising that he and his friends should be denuded of resources. Convinced that what they were told was correct and that he had no more money, the Government decided that that was an added reason why they should themselves pay in accordance with the statement made by the Attorney-General. The third reason why they considered that they must take action was that they were threatened with legal proceedings as a Government, based on the statement of the Attorney-General, for the payment of the salary from Imperial funds. So far as the payment of the salary was concerned, they would have been most willing litigants, for they wanted to pay the salary, and nothing would have pleased them better than to have been ordered to do so by the Court; but they foresaw; that were a case brought, either by petition of right or by some other method, against the Government in the Courts here the pleadings and the speeches of counsel would have contained violent indictments of the Government of the Colony of Natal for their action in not paying. They were anxious, and especially in view of the effect it might have on natives in Natal, that no such state of affairs should arise. A public controversy between the Government of this country and the Government of Natal on a matter of honourable obligation, would have been so injurious to all concerned that it was their bounden duty to put an end to it at once by paying the salary; and in taking that action he felt confident that the Government had the assent of all their friends on their own side of the House. And he must add that all on his side of the House would welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he was convinced that in this case the Government had acted rightly; but even 1264 more were they grateful to the hon. Member for Darlington, who, yesterday, knowing the views of the Opposition, and that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would come too late to be brought to the notice of the Natal Parliament, who would wish to know the opinion of the Members of the House of Commons, with characteristic courage and straightforwardness, stated in the form of a supplementary question the view to which he had referred. He thanked the hon. Member for his courage and assistance in the matter. With regard to the Special Court, hon. Members wished to know how it would be constituted. It would be constituted on similar lines, though not precisely the same, to the Special Court which tried what were called the rebels in Natal. He wished at once to explain that, of course, the forming of a Special Court of Judges was greatly to the interest of the prisoner. No one would wish to suggest that a jury of white men in Natal would not wish to come to an absolutely fair conclusion, but it was also true that when even the most honourable men were asked to try a prisoner whom they had lately been mobilised to capture they would find it a matter of almost superhuman difficulty to arrive at an unprejudiced conclusion.
§ EARL WINTERTON
My interruption was directed against the amazing assertion of the hon. Gentleman that because a man was sent out to capture this unfortunate chief he would not be able to form an unbiassed opinion on his case.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said he had stated that it would be more difficult for such a man than it would be for the Judges who would be appointed under this Act. He knew the noble Lord was a soldier, but he was sure he would agree with him that were he to mobilise his Yeomanry in order to capture somebody with whom he disagreed in some portion of his constituency his judgment would possibly not be quite so sound as that of a man 1265 who had had nothing to do with the capture. But in order that the noble Lord might set his mind at rest, he wished to read from a despatch sent to the Government by Sir Matthew Nathan. Speaking on behalf of his Government, he said—Mr. Carter gave me various instances, some of which, I know, are recorded in your lordship's office, in which trial by jury, owing to racial feeling, had proved most unsatisfactory, and he told me that it had been generally recognised that, the special tribunal above referred to had served its purpose excellently.The noble Lord and every one in the House would see that by the appointment to this special tribunal, which was recommended by the Attorney-General in Natal, it was more certain that they could ensure an absolutely unprejudiced trial for this chief; and for that, he thought, all in the House would be grateful to the Natal Government. It might be supposed that pressure from home had induced them to take this step. So far as he was aware, that was not the case. Of their own motion the Natal Government proposed this Special Court in order to secure the most unprejudiced trial possible for this native chief. He had been asked what the constitution of the Court was to be. He could not say definitely, but he thought it was very likely that Sir William Smith, a puisnc Judge of the Transvaal, would serve, and every one who knew anything of South African Judges would agree that a more admirable and impartial appointment as President of the Court could not be made. The other representatives would be also judicial functionaries, and there would be at least one with a special knowledge of native affairs. Mr. Schreiner who, he thought, might be said to be the greatest lawyer in South Africa, had been retained for the defence of Dinizulu, and by the generosity of those who were anxious to see complete and unprejudiced justice done, the funds would be forthcoming for the defence. Much of the funds had been provided from Natal, and some by members of that House and others, irrespective of their general views, simply because they were anxious to see full justice done to the prisoner in the matter of legal assistance. Dinuzulu had been in prison seven months. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had very properly made the best 1266 case he could for the Natal Ministry, but the fact remained that to keep a man in gaol seven months without a definite charge was unprecedented, at any rate in recent times. It was impossible to expedite the matter from here, but he was sure the House would be glad to hear that Dinuzulu was not suffering in health from his confinement. The following telegram had been received from the Governor of Natal that morning in reply to a telegram sent by his noble friend the day before—Have spoken to Dr. Ward, medical officer in charge of Central Gaol, Maritzburg, in whoso sympathetic treatment of prisoners I have full confidence. He informs me that Dinizulu's general health considerably better than when he arrived in December, and that chief recently told Governor of gaol he had not been so well for years. He is less puffy, and unsatisfactory kidney symptoms are less pronounced. He has all exercise he wants and such dietary and medical treatment as suited to his state of health.He was sure the House would be glad to know that Dinizulu was not suffering from ill-health. The prosecution would be brought to an end very soon indeed. He understood that the extraordinary idea had gained ground in Natal that there was some intention on the part, of His Majesty's Government, as a consequence of undertaking the obligation of paying Dinizulu's salary, to take an active part in this matter and send him away from the legal proceedings which I were now going on and return him to Zululand. Such a statement was absolutely absurd. The Government had neither the power nor the wish to interfere in any direction of that kind and to attempt to send Dinizulu back to Zululand before any Court had pronounced judgment on a charge definitely brought against him was absolutely out of the question. With regard to the Indemnity Act, the point that had excited most; interest was whether, if His Majesty were advised not to disallow it, the Home Government would not be assenting to a proclamation made deposing Dinizulu from his position as chief—a position which was assured t o him by the Member for West Birmingham. It had been stated that a pronouncement had been made by a military officer that the sanctioning of the Indemnity Act by the Home Government would for ever deprive the supreme chief of his position as such 1267 in Zululand. They were informed by the Governor that he did not think that was the case, but he had induced his noble friend to send a further telegram with a view to making quite sure on the point, because he believed that irrespective of party the House would hesitate to assent to this Bill if the result of it was likely to be as stated by Miss Colenso and others. In reply to inquiries, the Governor of Natal had telegraphed—I have reason to believe that McKenzie did make statement imputed to him, but that he was not authorised by Governor Natal. I certainly gave no authority to exercise powers of supreme chief, nor was I advised by Ministry to do so.It would thus be seen that whatever pronouncement had been made by Colonel McKenzie was of no effect in law. The Indemnity Act would not legalise the action which he had taken, which was illegal from the start. The House, therefore, need have no fear that the Indemnity Act would prejudice the status of Dinizulu. In the view of the Home Government to take the step of hesitating to pass the Indemnity Act would be most unwise. The Act was the only means by which they could get rid of martial law, and to refuse to pass it would be quite contrary to precedent, and would have a most prejudicial effect. The Home Government were so convinced that to hesitate in this matter would be prejudicial to the interest not only of good relations between ourselves and the Government of Natal, but especially to the natives in that territory, that they would ask the House to raise no question as to recommending His Majesty not to disallow the measure which was shortly to be presented to them. He came to the question of the Transvaal, and Lord Milner's judiciary and agricultural proposals. He agreed that the judiciary and many other things set up by Lord Milner did admirable work; but they were set up on an altogether extravagant scale, and when the right hon. Gentleman asked them to say that all the retrenchments and reductions were due to the policy of General Botha's Government, he must remind him that the greatest retrenchment and reductions were made under Crown Colony government.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)
asked how many of those reductions 1268 were made during Lord Milner's administration.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said he could not say how many. With, regard to manhood suffrage, the whole question was whether we ought to have granted it, and in so doing indirectly set up a colour bar. He could not say more than that the thing was done. He remembered very well his right hon. friend below the gangway raising this point when the Constitution was first granted. He did not then fully apprehend the dangers which might follow from that course. He was not there to criticise in any way the conclusion which was come to, but he declared that the Government fully realised the difficulties which were created by this situation. It might be said that had they taken the other course, the difficulties would have been as great, in some respects even greater. That was all he now had, to say on this matter. The thing had been done and could not be undone. To deprive white people of the vote they had enjoyed was a thing which it seemed to him they could not seriously propose. With regard to federation or unification, he could only repeat that the Government would welcome proposals from the South African Governments to that end. They were fully aware that the unification or federation of the South African Governments in whatever form it came, must tend to make things easier in almost every respect, and especially in regard to the relations between this Government and the Governments out there. But the Home Government did not propose to make any proposition themselves; they thought it would be unwise to do so. They awaited confidently and with great interest the conference shortly to meet at Durban, and would take every step to render it due dignity. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they ought to remove the causes of irritation and bitterness which now existed in South Africa. He mentioned four, but before doing so he poured what he could hardly describe as less than vitriol on the head of the President of the Board of Trade. He admired the right hon. Gentleman's adroitness in choosing for the purpose a moment when the President of the Board of Trade was out of the House. Besides 1269 that his right hon. friend had left that Department and, therefore, could not speak for himself.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that they were to abstain from criticism of Ministers bemuse they were absent from the House when important questions were being discussed, in regard to which their presence was required.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said that when any Member criticised another in far more violent terms during his absence than during his presence, it might naturally be imputed to him that he was using a wise discretion.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
said he himself gave the hon. and gallant Gentleman notice of the general line of his argument and, therefore, he ought to have acquainted his right hon. friend.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said he thought his right hon. friend was fully justified in the statements to which the right hon. Gentleman took exception. Those statements were almost always directed against persons who introduced a particular form of labour in South Africa. That form was regarded on the opposite benches with favour; on the Ministerial side with disfavour. As to the voters' list, he did not wish to reopen the controversy. He must repeat that, whilst the Government did not disagree with or demur to Lord Selborne's statement that he was satisfied that the list was accurate, it could not be surprising that people in South Africa did demur to it when they found that several thousand more persons were on the register than they believed there were adult males in the country. There was great reason for people calling in question a roll of this kind with so remarkable a discrepancy. He himself was of the opinion that there had been an extraordinary influx into the Rand, and he should think there was no proof of any kind that the roll was not accurate. He submitted that it was most unwise to reopen a controversy which could only have the effect of reviving certain class and race bitterness in South Africa now happily passing away. With regard 1270 to Chinese labour, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no difference between Chinese labour and black labour imported from Portuguese East Africa. To that he listened with amazement, thinking such a statement could not be made by any reasonable man. What did the Liberal Party say about Chinese labour? They said first of all that it was introduced against the will of the people. They went to an election and by a majority of two to one they said the Liberal Party was right.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
here interjected a remark across the Table which was not heard in the Press gallery.
§ COLONEL SEELY
I trust that remark will not be recorded in the journals of the House. A more disgraceful and unworthy suggestion—[Loud MINISTERIAL cheers.]
I think hon. Members on the front benches ought to know that it is not in order to remain standing when I rise. If the right hon. Gentleman rises to a point of order I will hear him.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
I wish to ask whether the expression of the hon. Gentleman is Parliamentary—the word "disgraceful."
§ COLONEL SEELY
On that point of order may I ask whether the original statement of the right hon. Gentleman in Parliamentary? [SEVERAL MEMBERS: What was it?]
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
I said the people of the Transvaal arrived no such vote as the hon. Gentleman said 1271 they did, and I added, not till the loan of five millions was offered, and not even then did the people of the Transvaal arrive at such a vote.
I do not think, whatever opinion hon. Members may form of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that he said anything unparliamentary. Then I am asked whether the word "disgraceful" is unparliamentary. I do not consider the word s essentially an unparliamentary expression.
§ COLONEL SEELY
I remained standing, Sir, only because I thought it was the custom in this House that the hon. Member speaking should give way or not at his option, and I did not wish to give way until I had concluded my sentence. I apologise to you, Sir, for the mistake I made.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
In remaining standing, Sir, while you were standing I was undoubtedly guilty of a mistake, but I thought you were securing to me the right to raise my point of order.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said he was saying when he was interrupted, that such a statement commenting in such language upon a Government friendly to this country, which had rendered us such signal service, or under any circumstances, seemed to him absolutely contrary to the best traditions of this House, and he ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw it. [Cheers and cries of "Withdraw."] The suggestion was one which he could not characterise in Parliamentary language. Reverting to the retrenchments the hon. Member said that, although he did not consider there was any blame to be attached to the Transvaal Government in this matter, the Colonial Office had done their best to find places for those who were retrenched. The total number of these retrenched candidates since the beginning of 1907 was 164, and the committee of the Colonial Office had found room for thirty-nine and twenty-one and eight, making 56 per cent. of the vacancies. There were persons outside who had made the I extraordinary allegation against General 1272 Botha's Government to the effect that they were making wholesale displacement of British officials and replacing them by Dutch, that no Englishmen need apply, and other wild statements of that kind. It was admitted there was a larger Dutch population than an English in the Transvaal. It was almost certain that the adult males of South African descent were larger ' in number than the adult males of English descent. If there were any word of truth ' in the allegations made, one would expect to find that there were about 60 or 70 Dutchmen to 20 or 30 or 40 Englishmen in every 100. What were the facts? In the whole Transvaal Civil Service, including the police and prison department, but excluding the railways, instead of there being about 70 Dutchmen and only 30 Englishmen in a country where the Dutch preponderated, out of every 100 there were 84 Englishmen and 16 Dutchmen. He asked the House to realise the significance of those figures. He asked that the campaign of misrepresentation against General Botha's Government should come to an end. It was absolutely unjustified. What about the new appointments? He would not have been surprised if, in that case, there had been a preponderance of Dutch to redress the balance, though he would have deplored it. Yet, instead of 70 or 80 Dutchmen being appointed to 30 or 20 Englishmen, since General Botha took office the number of new appointments made were 59 English, 41 Dutch. Well, they had now scotched and killed that calumny, and he was glad they had. Looking at those figures which had just come to him, and certified officially to be correct, it would be observed that General Botha and his Government had treated the minority politically with extraordinary generosity. He did not himself admit that the cleavage was on racial lines. Then there were the railways. In 1907 there were employed of South Africa, born (English and Dutch descent) 2,195; English born, 3,629; other nationalities, 329, the percentages being 35 per cent., 58 per cent., and other nationalities 7 per cent. He could not add, therefore, to the statement he had made, and directly the figures were presented he thought that the whole argument fell to the ground. One could not help being 1273 sorry for the gentlemen whose appointments had been brought to a close. He had seen nearly all of them personally, and in several cases the Department had managed to get them suitable appointments. He had received an announcement, indeed, to the effect that on the previous day an important appointment had been secured for one gentleman, and he would make an appeal to the other Departments of the Government to see whether they could not give help in a similar direction. He thought, however, that he had disposed of the allegation that had been made. The right hon. Gentleman said it still stood on record that the Opposition protested against the grant of self-government to the Transvaal. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman continued to make that statement. It was a, great experiment, but its success had been most surprising. Of that there could be no question, for, whereas a few years ago we had there a hostile population, it was now true to say that in matters of great difficulty and delicacy during the last eighteen months no man had been so loyal a friend to the British Government as General Botha. That opinion was not confined to Englishmen in this country. He, did not know whether hon. Members had read the speech which had recently been delivered by Sir H. de Villiers during the celebrations at Quebec, but it was so interesting that he would quote it—South Africa in recent years has passed through a terrible ordeal, but she is slowly recovering from the effects of an injurious war. Only those who have lived there and had friends and relatives fighting on both sides can fully realise what that war meant to us. It was undertaken for the purpose of obtaining equal rights for all, but for some time after peace was established it looked as if political rights were to be withheld for an indefinite period from the new subjects of the King. At length, however, different counsels prevailed. A policy of trust was adopted, with the novel result that a, sullen and discontented people were, as if by, magic, changed into law-abiding, loyal subjects. From that quarter no danger need be apprehended for the future. On the contrary, if ever any foreign Power should attempt to wrest South Africa from the Empire, you may be quite sure that history will repeat itself, and, just as the French-Canadians were foremost in defending their country against attacks from without, so the Dutch inhabitants of South Africa will fight shoulder to shoulder with their British fellow-subjects for their King and country1274 The Government were persuaded that the eloquent words littered by this speaker represented the truth in South Africa, and His Majesty's Ministers rejoiced that they had enjoyed the privilege of helping to carry out this great and beneficent work.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
said that he adhered to what he had stated. He said that the hon. Member's description of the South African elections was inaccurate, and that it had been adopted for the purpose of casting obloquy on his right hon. friend. Personally he had said nothing which had not already been said both in and out of the House. General Botha had stated that the Government returned from the polls not pledged to abolish. Chinese labour—[Oh, oh!]—and for some time after they announced their intention not to abolish it. Thereafter the Government thought fit to accord to the Transvaal exceptional financial treatment which had never been accorded to any self-governing Colony; and he said that according to the historical sequence the evidence was accurate, and he had nothing to take away from the statement. It was for the Government to explain why they offered that financial assistance at that particular period of time. He had never seen any satisfactory explanation of the circumstance, and he refused to admit any inaccuracy in his statement.
§ COLONEL SEELY
pointed out that General Botha in his speech before the poll, said that—We will not have Chinese labour with indenture or without indenture.The policy adopted as to Chinese labour had been justified by its complete success, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that his statement with regard to the programme of the Government was incorrect. General Botha's statement was conclusive on that point. He regretted that the insinuation of the right hon. Gentleman had been made, and he hoped that before the sitting was closed he would withdraw it.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY
said that the statements were made by the Minister in the Transvaal to the effect that they returned from the polls to continue 1275 this Chinese labour policy. Hon. Members could only speak according to the general evidence that reached them.
§ *MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD (Leicester)
drew attention to the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, as shown in his opening remarks. The right hon. Gentleman had treated the Committee once again to the now familiar doctrine that if they persisted in their criticisms on the action of Natal, they were doing something that was showing disloyalty or that was giving embarrassment to the loyal minority in that Colony. It was a most extraordinary doctrine to be preached from the front Opposition bench that in that Imperial House they must not say what they believed to be true of the political conduct of Ministers of our self-governing Colonies lest they laid themselves open to the retort of the right hon. Gentleman that they were putting obstacles in the way of and creating embarrassment for what he called the loyal English minority.
§ MR. LYTTELTON
said that, on the contrary, he claimed and had always claimed in that House to criticise the action of the Government with regard to the Transvaal, and especially with regard to giving them self-government.
§ *MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD
admitted that that was perfectly true, but before the right hon. Gentleman made the general statement, he made with special reference to Natal the observation to which he (Mr. Macdonald) now referred. If the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to convey that impression, he could only say that that was the way it struck him. Those who had ventured to make these criticisms and who honestly believed they were entitled to do so, had met with the criticism outside that they were doing something to disrupt the Empire and putting difficulties in the way of Natal. It was perfectly true that they might sometimes criticise things that had happened in Natal during the last two or three years with a strength of feeling and in a way that might create offence in Natal, but hon. and right hon. Members must 1276 remember that whilst that criticism on Natal might be objectionable and indiscreet, those who exaggerated the meaning and value of that criticism and who came to that House and misrepresented that criticism were doing more than those who uttered it to contribute to the unrest in Natal. The person who exaggerated what was said in the House and caused it to be exaggerated out in Natal, forgot that it was his exaggeration quite as much as the criticism in this House that caused unrest there.
§ *MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD
said he was sorry he had not taken down the observations which were made by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the criticism that was offered both inside and outside the House on affairs in Natal. With regard to the Transvaal Civil Service appointments, his hon. and gallant friend had completely and in the strongest way disposed of the complaints which were so common on that subject. But there was something more that he (Mr. Macdonald) might say. He happened to be in the Transvaal shortly after the peace, and he saw the influx of those extraordinary Civil servants whom Lord Milner appointed to carry out the pacification. He did not wish to refer to what went on, it would be sufficient for him to say to any hon. Member of the House who had made himself acquainted with the affairs of the Transvaal that the whole body of imported Civil Service which Lord Milner placed in authority in offices in the Transvaal was known to the people of the Transvaal as "Milner's Kindergarten." Anybody who went into the Government offices of Johannesburg, Pretoria, or Bloomfontein must have seen that since the War a great change had taken place. Firstly, the staff, numerically, was far too large; and, secondly, the men whom Lord Milner appointed were not the proper men for the duty imposed upon them. Every Dutch Civil servant he had had the pleasure of consulting in the Colony held up his hands in horror and 1277 said that as soon as self-government was granted the unfortunate thing they would have to face was the complete reconstruction of the personnel of the Civil Service that had been imposed upon the Colony by the Governor. That had taken place. It was inevitable that it should take place, and it was an evidence of the common sense of the Government put into power both in Johannesburg and Blœmfontein. Last session he took part in the debate in the House on the question of the franchise in the Transvaal, and he then expressed some doubt as to the advisability of the manhood suffrage which the Government had instituted in the Transvaal, not because he was opposed to manhood suffrage but because he believed that everybody who had studied affairs in South Africa would see the enormous disadvantage of such a franchise when the time came to enfranchise the natives. It was certain that the question of the native franchise would not be left long, and directly that question came up it would be a great obstacle to the enfranchisement of the natives all over Africa that there was manhood suffrage in the Transvaal. His democratic principles, he was sorry to say, had struggled in vain to justify the action, the Government took on that occasion, in view of the larger question of native rights. He thought greater good would have been done if the white men had been subjected to a higher standard of franchise. He thought we should not have established a franchise in the Transvaal which might he a permanent bar to the enfranchisement of the natives of South Africa. He hoped the Government would do its best to see that the Cape solution was followed when the new Federal Constitution was being framed. Although he knew that the Home Government might not want to interfere unofficial members might express a hope that Cape Colony would stand by the native franchise when the Federation Convention meets. The first thing to observe about Natal was the extraordinary Indemnity Act, which he regretted the House was not going to have a further opportunity of discussing. The extraordinary feature of the present Bill, a feature that had never been known in connection with 1278 an Indemnity Bill, was the change that had be made in the Bill now on its way to this country as compared with the Act of 1906. In the Act of 1906 the preamble recited—That whereas serious disturbances accompanied by rebellion have recently arisen and still continue among certain parts of the native population of this Colony.Some Members doubted the rebellion. Some of them had never yet been convinced that there was ever a rebellion in Natal, though there were people who alleged from their point of view that there was a rebellion which justified the proclamation of martial law in 1906. The Bill did not allege rebellion. This was an example of the "Rake's Progress." The Natal Government were now going to withdraw "rebellion" and put in "several crimes of violence in Zululand creating a state of unrest and insecurity among the inhabitants." Was ever a more flimsy pretext made for martial law? What were we going to come to if we were going to jump from rebellion, from a state of war, from a hostile state of things under which it was impossible for the ordinary civil and criminal Courts to sit—the proper justification for martial law hitherto—to a state of things where "several crimes of violence" created a "state of unrest"—not even of civil disturbance but unrest—and insecurity among the inhabitants as the justification? Why, the brewers in this country at the present time could say that owing to the Bill in this House a state of unrest had come among them, and something akin to martial law should be established. He did not believe that political differences divided them on this matter. Hon. Members above the gangway shared their sense of British justice and were not going to countenance martial law in Natal because of "several acts of violence." Later on the words "disturbance and rebellion" were omitted, and the words "crimes and the restoration of order and good government" were inserted. Another reason given for the proclamation of martial law was to facilitate the investigation of crime and the arrest and detention of the persons charged. There was, he would venture to say, not a single Member of the House, even of the most old-fashioned Conservative type, who 1279 would maintain that the allegations in the Blue-book were adequate for a proclamation of martial law. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that if we did not accept this Bill things would remain as they were. That brought up the question of Dinizulu. What about evidence for defence? That was just the wickedness of it, because it proved that they went and did a certain thing which created injustice, and then at a certain point the Government turned round and said that unless they were excused from their wrong-doing the evil of that wrong-doing would be visited on the heads of innocent people. He was not going to argue the point, he only stated it and left the Committee to draw its own conclusions. The Committee would at all events agree that it was the duty of the Government to see that this sort of thing did not happen again. That was the general case against the Natal Government, not from a petty sectional point of view, but from an Imperial point of view; not from the point of view of Labour or Liberal Members, but from the point of view of the national, the inherited liberties of the British race. The right hon. Member for St. George's in his almost ladylike and drawing-room account of what was going on made him wonder if he was really listening to a statement of how Dinizulu was being tried. The right hob Gentleman left out the salient points. He did not tell them of the continued campaign of calumny, he did not tell them that they had to wait day after day and week after week before the Government could make any charge against Dinizulu; he did not describe the vagueness of the charges made against the chief; he did not refer to the long campaign of calumny which preceded the arrest when the Natal Government refused to protect Dinizulu from the libels. The Government were cognisant of the fact that these calumnies, amounting to libel, were published day after day in the South African Press, and the Government of Natal never gave any reason to show that they were the protectors of Dinizulu. They were, therefore, bound to say that the Government held on, waiting for an opportunity which inevitably came for arresting Dinizulu, not on any charge, but on a vague basis of assertions not one of which was definite enough to make it possible 1280 for Dinizulu's solicitor to deal with it, Dinizulu was accused of murder—the murder of whom, where, when—ten years ago, twenty years ago, or yesterday? Not a single definite statement was made in support of the accusations on which Dinizulu's solicitor or his friends could go and search for witnesses to enable them specifically to show that this or that particular story was untrue, because there was never a particular story told. The Natal Government had secured to themselves a roving commission to spread their emissaries and agents all over Zululand under martial law to inquire into this, that, and the other, not to find out whether this or that statement was true, but to find out whether Dinizulu had ever done anything which would enable them sooner or later to formulate a decent indictment to place before the Court. And not only that, but it had been alleged that in the course of gathering the evidence there had been certain floggings. He was perfectly well aware that this had been denied, anal he was not going to make the statement as absolutely true; but he thought that no one who read the Blue-Book published yesterday would be very, much impressed with that denial; nor did he think that anyone who read the newspapers would be very much impressed by it, seeing that Miss Colenso had offered to prove twenty-nine definite cases, with the names of the persons and circumstances under which they were flogged, and submit them for impartial investigation in Natal itself. But he was bound to say that hi this case his mind was open. It was said, also, that Dinizulu's wife had made a statement, it was not definitely said whether on oath or not, but he thought it must have been made under oath. She stated that Sir Duncan McKenzie had threatened to shoot her unless she gave evidence against her husband. That had not teen contradicted so far, and a statement given under those circumstances made it presumably accurate. Apparently a, good many Members of the House had come in contact with the native. He did not care where they met him, whether in the Southern States of America, where they saw him generally in railway carriages, or elsewhere, he was always willing to tell 1281 one anything that seemed to please. He remembered very well an interesting incident which happened to himself, which established this characteristic of which he had spoken. He got into a train exceedingly tired one morning about four o'clock, and the negro attendant, seeing he was weary, was very anxious to assure him that he would have breakfast immediately. It did not come, however, until eight o'clock. Anyone who had come in contact with the native knew perfectly well, that, owing to the social habit of obeying which he had acquired, it was easy to put statements in his mouth, and get him to say what his questioner required. If the Government came and said they wanted evidence it was a perfectly certain thing that some native would give it. It was the psychology of the native to do a thing like that. Martial law being proclaimed in Zululand, emissaries, who were known to be agents of the Government, had gone hither and thither across the face of Zululand asking for evidence on which Dinizulu was to be tried, telling the natives what the evidence was for and what sort of evidence they wanted. Would any hon. Member who understood the native psychology tell them for a single moment that evidence would not be forthcoming? That was the sort of way in which the Natal Government was conducting this trial. It was necessary to say that. He knew that right hon. Gentlemen above the gangway might think it exceedingly criminal on his part to express such sympathies and opinions; but he held them very honestly, and he could assure them that he held them not from a party or sectional point of view, but from the Imperial point of view, because he and those with him felt that the future of this Empire would be decided by its honour and by the way in which it administered justice. Then as to Dinizulu's salary. From every quarter of the House there came thanks to the Government for having determined to pay Dinizulu's salary. There was absolutely no distinction of opinion on that point, no dissentient voice on the matter. It was what they had expected from His Majesty's Government; and they were delighted that it 1282 had done precisely what they believed it would do. There was one little unpleasantness, however. Yesterday they had been told that after the reply to the despatch of His Majesty's Government, policemen were sent up into Zululand, and again there was the cry of "unrest in Zululand." Whenever anything was said by His Majesty's Government which seemed to run counter to the will of the Natal Government, the latter were in a position to have telegrams sent to this country, specially and carefully preserved telegrams, which appeared exclusively in certain organs of the Imperial press, for the purpose of trying to deceive the people of this country, who were ignorant of what was going on, and also for the purpose of getting responsive telegrams from this country to Natal to strengthen the hands of the Government of that Colony by misrepresentation of public opinion here. The reply to the despatch was the first step towards creating another defence so as to justify themselves. He had a cutting from the Natal Mercury which said—The whole Press of Natal is unanimous in condemning the Government's action in these matters as severely as any newspaper in England has done, and this expression of opinion is endorsed by the Colonists generally. The sooner the people of England are impressed with the fact that the Government are in these matters acting in direct conflict with the ideas of Natalians, the sooner they will recognise that a gross injustice is being done to the good sense and the good taste of people of Natal.That was the published opinion of an important Natal newspaper. Yet in spite of that, the moment His Majesty's Government ranged itself on the side of the majority of the people of Natal, some policemen were sent into Zululand in order to give His Majesty's Government reason to pause. In reference to Dinizulu's salary, his hon. friend had said that he could not understand the delay and Dinizulu's solicitor not applying for it. He had an extract from the Natal Witness giving the complete series of Mr. Renaud's letters. He was not going to read them, but this was one of them, written on 18th May to the acting Attorney-General—We beg to refer to the correspondence which has passed between us with reference to the cession of Dinizulu's salary to us. You wrote us on 30th January that the matter was receiving 1283 attention, but since that date we have not heard from you.Therefore, the explanation was that the delay was not due to Dinizulu's solicitor, but to the Natal Government. When there was nothing more than a mere acknowledgement required, they took a day or two to give it, when more was required, they took weeks and months to investigate the matter, and make their reply. He had said all that he need say on the subject. He had spoken not as what was called "a Little Englander," but as an Imperialist. He had spoken as one who believed that this Empire was going to depend, not merely upon its size or its physical strength, but upon its justice, and he was perfectly certain that if they gave way one inch in their desire to see justice done to the unenfranchised negro, then it would be absolutely impossible to keep the Empire so clean and so pure as to enable it to survive the stress and storm which time had in store for it.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER
thought he would not be alone in regretting that the debate had not been absolutely free from heat. Perhaps he regretted it more than anyone else, because of a rather painful interruption which occurred in the last Parliament and in which the hon. Gentleman opposite was responsible. His right, hon. friend below him was making his speech concerning South Africa, and was making statements in good faith and with great moderation as he always did, when the hon. Gentleman and several of his friends sitting below the Opposition gangway made remarks which he himself thought wholly unparliamentary concerning his right hon. friend and his statements. They questioned his good faith.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER
Allow me to finish. They questioned his good faith, and he interjected, but not loudly, the word "disgraceful." The hon. Gentlemen opposite, the President of the Board of Trade, the President of the Board of Education, and the President of the Local Government Board, entered 1284 a loud protest, and demanded that the Member for Gravesend should be pilloried by the Speaker. The Speaker rose, and the Member for Gravesend rose also, stating the cause of his interjection, and immediately, without being called upon to do it, withdrawing the word "disgraceful," which the Speaker had pronounced as un-Parliamentary. He only wished to say this because he thought it was the hon. Gentleman himself who had imported heat into the debate that afternoon. Remembering his career, I however short it might have been in the Colonial Office, and his urbane and admirable manner in all other debates, he regretted exceedingly that he had given them cause to feel that they were not safe in future in making reasonable, and as he believed, just criticism. He wanted to say something very quietly land he hoped without offence. He understood the position taken up by his right hon. friend. He had stated that the elections in the Transvaal were not decided on the question of Chinese labour. I He thought the right hon. Gentleman was correct. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman had suggested, as it had been suggested before and no doubt would be again, that considerations concerning the repatriation of the Chinamen entered into all the relations between this Government and the Botha Government, and also affected the granting of the Constitution itself, but he hoped I to be able to quote, the words of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies himself in which he frankly said, for no one eevr doubted his courage or audacity, that considerations of the repatriation of the Chinamen did enter into the granting of the Constitution and into our relations with the Transvaal Government, and the Transvaal Government would never have got the £5,000,000 loan if they had not agreed to repatriate the Chinamen. At any rate hon. Gentlemen would say he had said nothing offensive.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER
said he might very well be angry at the hon. Gentleman's saying there was not a word of truth in what he said, but he was 1285 too broad minded. He understood what the hon. Gentleman meant, though the hon. Gentleman did not always understand what he meant. The hon. Gentleman he thought could not be speaking with absolute accuracy. It would be better for him to consult with his friend the late Under-Secretary, who, if he was sometimes vituperative, could stand ft good deal of vituperation in return. He was a gallant fighter. He did not want to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not a gallant fighter—they knew that he was—but he must not really pretend to this splendid indignation against a right hon. Gentleman on that bench when he made perfectly Parliamentary statements. In the last debate he thought the statements of the hon. Gentleman opposite would not add to the smoothness of debate, and he had expressed himself strongly about it. How much more strongly could he express himself concerning the speech made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He had no fault to find with the underlying argument of that speech, but he had every fault to find with the manner in which it was expressed. He did not think the terms in which his argument was couched would tend to good feeling between Natal and this country, though he thought his main argument was sound, that martial law as it was applied by the Natal Government was not wisely applied. But he said in the last debate, and said very strongly, that the Government now in power was responsible for the present position, and it was responsible for the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. They had it in their lower, when martial law was to be proclaimed, through their Governor, through their supreme official, the King's representative in Natal, to prevent martial law being proclaimed. They had since acknowledged that the conclusion drawn by the Attorney-General was wrong, that in effect the Governor was the servant of the Natal Government. No one would stand up more strongly than he for the rights of a Colony or a Colonial Governor, but no one would stand up more strongly for the Imperial connection. The only thing they had was the Privy Council and the power of the Governor in regard to just such things as martial 1286 law. Our hold was very slight. Destroy the technical and constitutional hold that we had just through the Governor, and we destroyed our Imperial Power altogether. On the other hand, the refusal by Members to believe that Natal was acting in good faith, honestly and sincerely, did infinite harm to the Imperial connection. Suppose the Natal Government had made a mistake. Every Government desired to keep its self-respect and it was Natal who would pay the price of its mistakes, if it had made mistakes. It paid the cost in blood. This Government threw the whole responsibility for the late trouble upon Natal, and in a certain despatch, of which the hon. Gentleman was fully aware, said in effect: "We wash our hands of this whole business." But having washed their hands of the whole business they still intervened. Did they not see the absolutely absurd position in which they had been placed, not by Members of the House but by the Government? One word about Dinizulu's salary and the trial. He said deliberately that he thought Natal ought by every means in its power to expedite the conclusion of the examination of Dinizulu. Seven months was a long time. If the Government could not in seven months gather enough evidence against this man to formulate definitely a charge, he should be discharged. Of that he had no manner of doubt. Natal could only act, as he understood it, as a Government, compatibly with the relations of the executive and the judicial. It was a difficult situation, but lie believed the Attorney-General could expedite the conclusion of the examination either here or in Natal. He believed in Natal's bona fides absolutely. He believed it had acted honestly and sincerely, but he was firmly convinced that it would do well in all the circumstances, even if the guilty were to go free, to bring Dinizulu to trial immediately. As to the salary, he had his doubts in the last debate whether it was correct to pay the salary—whether the suspension of the salary did not go with the suspension of the office. But it was certain that if the Government on the best advice possible interpreted the arrangement made by his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham as meaning that the salary should in no 1287 case be suspended without the consent of this Government and this Government did not grant its consent, it was the duty of this Government to pay that salary. He knew the House recognised the consequences that must flow from such action. It practically overrode the act and the policy of the Natal Government. It was a dangerous thing to do at any time. It was extremely dangerous to do it now when events were so acute, and when feeling ran so high. Recognising the consequences that would flow, and it being a small matter, the Natal Government would have been well advised if it had paid the salary. Having said that he desired to pass to another subject. The position of the retrenched officials had been dealt with most effectively by his right hon. friend. The Under-Secretary read some figures which seemed entirely conclusive to hon. Members opposite. The figures showed that there had only been a very limited number of changes and that of those changes the preponderance of applicants had been of British born subjects. He hoped the hon Gentleman recognised that a great many of the names that appeared as English names were names of those who fought against us in the last war, and who were not Britishers in the true sense of the term. They knew perfectly well that the retrenchment of officials would go on slowly, and that the replacement of British officials by Dutch would also be slow. He had never made any wild statements. He had been most conservative in a double sense, in speaking of the action of the Botha Government. He had never accused the Botha Government of deliberately and wilfully throwing out British officials and putting in Dutch officials. If ever men worked, no matter how young they were or how inexperienced, for the country, giving their whole life and energy, it was the men who went out from this country to what had been called Lord Milner's Kindergarten. He could mention cases which ought to go to the heart of every Member of the House. It was idle to say that there were only a few. They knew that many of them suffered uncomplainingly. A petition was presented yesterday to the Prime Minister on this subject, and anyone who read it must be impressed by the quiet reserve and the diginity of its 1288 terms. There was no complaint, but there was an appeal, and that was what they all heard in every letter from South Africa. He had received two letters that morning, and he would venture to read one of them, because it was very important. The hon. Gentleman had said that there were practically no replacements of British officers by the Government. He would make the following quotation from one of the letters he had received—Owing to the characteristic thinness of the Boer methods it is difficult to produce evidence at this distance of specific cases such as this Gazette provides. Hitherto, many of the replacements have been indirect, that is to say, British officials have been 'retrenched ' from the established Government Departments and new offices embracing similar duties have been created to which only Dutchmen have been appointed. I refer in particular to the re-establishment of the Field Cornet system of pre-war days. In connection with these new appointments I would point out that when a number of us were retrenched at the end of last year on the ground of reduction of establishment, it was stated that in the event of vacancies occurring at a subsequent date the names of those officers who had already served for a good many years and who were leaving through no fault of their own, would be considered in preference to any new candidates. This promise like many others has evidently been ignored.To what did he refer? He referred to the appointment of eight acting inspectors of constabulary in the place of British officers, he being one of those who had been retrenched. When the hon. Gentleman said that British officers were not retrenched and replaced by Dutchmen, he made a statement which was not accurate. He did not deny the right of General Botha and his people to be represented in the Civil Service of their country; it would be a monstrous thing to assert that after his own experience of another country, which had two races, and he would be the last man to suggest that there should not be Dutchmen in the Civil Service. What he did say, however, was that to turn out Britishers in order to put in Dutchmen, and turn them out without adequate compensation or pensions, was quite a different thing. He did not accuse the Botha Government of this, but he accused the present Government in this country of being responsible for that, because they failed when they were grafting the new constitution to 1289 the Transvaal, to secure and safeguard the rights of British Civil servants. He assumed that the sympathy of the hon. Member representing the Government, and his patriotism disapproved of the action of the Government to which he belonged in making no provision for the seretrenched Civil servants. Had the hon. Gentleman any real reason for not inquiring further into this matter? The late Under-Secretary for the Colonies promised that every effort should be made to draft the retrenched officials into other departments at home. The figure which had been given amounted to 56 per cent, out of 164, and although that was not bad it ought to have been 100 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] Because, as the hon. Member knew, if there was one man who could not get a job it was a man who had been a Government servant. Men who had been employed in general professions or general trades could get a job anywhere. But in the case of men who had been in the Government service their chances were much less of getting employment. They all knew that those who had served in the Army or in the public service had always a difficulty in getting a situation. The Governments in every other country, in Italy, Prussia, Canada, or anywhere where responsible government was granted, always took care that the Civil servants should have their interest safeguarded, and he thought the letter he had read might very well be framed and hung up in the Colonial Office for the guidance of his hon. friend and his colleague. Whoever wrote that letter was well informed as to what was the duty of the Government in the matter, and there was an element of ugly meanness in a representative of any Department of the State not even going extravagantly in the direction of protecting civil servants. There was not a right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Ministerial front bench who did not hold that the members of this Department and of all Departments of State deserved the best of treatment by this House, and this Government did a brutal thing in throwing upon the Botha Government the necessity of providing for the retrenched civil servant. They found money to pay Dinizulu's salary, and to 1290 repatriate Chinamen. He had evidence in his pocket in the shape of a letter showing that a distinguished officer, holding the C.M.G. Order, was given a third class indulgence passage by the Transvaal Government home to this country. He submitted that that was a case which ought to bring the blush of shame to the representative of any Government. Would it not have been a fair thing, after deciding that the compensation should be one month's salary for every year's service, to have sent that man and his five children home. Would it not have been fair, having deprived that man of that which he believed was a permanent position and pensionable, to have given him a second-class passage home? Not a single retrenched Civil servant had had his passage paid from Johannesburg to the Cape or from the Cape home, and many of them had been assisted in regard to their passages by people in this country. He thought the Government would do well even if they set apart in the Estimates a sum of money for these retrenched officials. [Cries of "Oh, oh"] Why not? They had no hesitation about voting £10,000 to Jamaica. He desired to draw attention to the railway which was being built in Uganda. Already a number of officers had gone out as engineers, and there were a good number of retrenched officials who were very capable and competent engineers. He would like to know why they could not be employed on those railways.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER
said he had presented a concrete case where something could be done, and he did not see why these men should not be given a chance. The conduct of the Government was to be wholly reprehended. It was not too late to redress this grievance, because these men had been led to believe that their positions would be permanent and pensionable. He thought it was the duty of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to see that none of these men should suffer so severely and cruelly as many of them were now suffering. He wanted to speak briefly on the question of land settlement in the Orange 1291 River Colony and the Transvaal. He wanted to warn the House that an effort was going to be made to force the Land Board into making an arrangement with the Government. The Land Board which had been established was independent of the Government for five years. Both sides of the House agreed to that. Since the Board was set up there had been steady pressure to force it into an arrangement with the Government. The Board had behaved extremely well, and it had refused to do this. He did not hesitate to say that they had been incited to quarrel with the Land Board, in spite of the fact that the Board had been eminently successful in all it had done. He thought it was perfectly natural that the Orange River Colony should try to quarrel with the Board. Why? There was a revenue of £40,000 a year from rents and payments for land, and they would take that sum and apply it to the interest on the £1,200,000 loan which went for land settlement. The £40,000 now went to get fresh land on which to put the few settlers who did go there and to make it easy for the settlers when bad times came, and to shepherd them over the rough places. The Orange River Colony would be glad to have that money. A member of the Orange River Colony Government had said that it was inequitable that they did not get that money. They forgot that the Government here in its magnanimity wrote off a loan of £5,000,000 for which the Orange River Colony was responsible. He did not think that the Orange River Colony had really any ground of complaint. He still believed in the policy of the late Government in regard to Chinese labour and other matters, but he thought they made a great mistake when they guaranteed the £5,000,000 loan. What was the basis of his argument in saying so? It was that, when two races were together in a country, having to face prosperity and disaster together, they ought mutually to be responsible for all their liabilities and all their needs. He believed the hon. Gentleman opposite agreed with him that it would have been far better to have said to those people: "Work out your own salvation and raise your own loan within your colony. Struggle together until you find common working 1292 ground." The two races would have come more closely together infinitely sooner if they had been jointly responsible for the £5,000,000 which this Government secured to them, not without a political purpose behind it. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the £30,000,000?] Passing to West African affairs he said he did not think he would shock the susceptibility of any hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the question he was about to raise. The Committee might be surprised if he appeared in the rôle of temperance advocate, but he did so that afternoon. He was going to challenge this Government, the past Government, and all past Governments in this country for their dealings with the natives in regard to the liquor traffic. There were certain portions of His Majesty's dominions where the sale of liquor was prohibited. He had always taken the ground that the vices of one race should not be made possible or incorporated in the nature of another race. The oriental could bear the effects of opium much better than the occidental. A European would find himself upset if he took a small portion of Kaffir beer, but a native would drink it by the gallon and not feel any evil effect. To every race its own vices. For this Government or any Government to yet 67 per cent. of its revenue out of the sale to the natives of spirits made from potatoes chiefly in Germany was a thing which made one's Christian blood boil. In our own race there was he supposed, a natural microbe which resisted to a very considerable extent the effects of our own liquors and spirits. The native had no such microbe. He thought the view expressed by the late Lord Salisbury in 1888 was one which would commend itself to all members of the Committee. He said—I need not inform you that I am not a temperance enthusiast myself. I do not coincide with many of the views which I hear urged with great controversy in this country. But the controversy here and the controversy with respect to the native races have nothing in common. The native races are for all practical purposes children, and so far as we can do it, like children they must be protected. No one who even looks at history, still less at contemporary history, can doubt the extreme character of the evil which this unrestricted traffic causes. It has before this swept whole races away; it is now producing the greatest havoc in all parts of the world. We are so 1293 deeply convinced of that, that any efforts on our part would never be wanting, nor would our attention for a moment relax, from the purpose of inducing that common effort by which alone this miserable traffic can be restrained.The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in 1889 said—I do not think I am a fanatic, and no one, I hope, has called me a sentimentalist, and I am certainly not a teetotaller. I hope I am not extreme with regard to any subject; but I hold, as a matter of deep conviction, that the liquor trade, and above all, the increase of the liquor traffic in West Africa amongst the native races, is not only discreditable to the British name, not only derogatory to that true Imperialism—the sentiment which I desire to inculcate in all my countrymen—but it is also disastrous to British trade.He believed that to be the indubitable truth. What were the places where the sale of spirits to natives was prohibited? It was prohibited in the northern territories of the Gold Coast and Northern Nigeria. It was also prohibited in British Somaliland, the British East Africa Protectorate, Uganda, Nyassa-land, and Rhodesia. In all the countries of the South African Customs Union, namely, the Cape, Natal, Orange River Colony, Transvaal, Southern Rhodesia, Basutoland, Swaziland, and the Bechuana-land Protectorate, more or less stringent prohibition of sale to natives existed. Lord Crewe, the other day, replying to a letter from an association which took a great interest in this subject, said that the question of revenue had to be looked to. Of course if once they established the principle of getting revenue from liquor, it was very hard to do away with it. It was very hard to get it out of cotton. A certain amount was got now out of cotton in Nigeria. Wherever the revenue from drink was highest the record of cotton was lowest. This Government and hon. Members opposite were always on the side of the angels, and they often said that the Members of the Unionist Party were on the side of the diable. When hon. Members opposite were challenged to carry out their good intentions they always hesitated if it was a question of revenue. They hesitated on the Licensing Bill to apply their principles to the off-licences. He wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would make a sympathetic reply now. Would the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Cape Government prohibit the 1294 sale of drink to the natives in Southern. Nigeria? If he would not do that, would he promise that the Committee which the Colonial Office had promised to appoint would be guided in the conclusions it came to on the merits of the drink question? Would he appoint a Committee to sit in London with power to send out a Commission to take evidence in West Africa? Southern Nigeria was a small place so far as the trading community was concerned and there were going to be difficulties in carrying out the examination there. There were local difficulties to be contended against. The native hesitated to give evidence in regard to the people with whom he was associated. The clerk to the small trade knew the effects of the drink trade, but he would hesitate to give evidence if a Member of the Committee happened to be his official superior in the district. He did not question the impartiality of any man in West Africa, but he did say that the choice was narrow. They could not argue this case from the purely official standpoint, or as the case of those who were necessarily more or less interested in the production of revenue. He suggested that the Committee be appointed here, and from that committee one commissioner should be sent out to Africa who would act as chairman of a local committee. He believed that this was one of the gravest questions with which the Imperial Parliament had to deal. He had always been a prohibitionist where native races were concerned. There was going to be in South Africa an increase of the native races. And they would increase still more if liquor did not destroy them. This country was bound to lead, as he believed it led at the Brussels Convention when it secured that there should be a minimum taxation of liquor, so as to have some effect in checking the trade. He believed that this country should lead all other countries in the matter of the treatment of the native races. We knew more about them than all other nations and we had the faculty for governing them. But we must go with clean hands to other nations and not say to them that out of potato spirit we got 67 per cent, of our revenue. He trusted that the Committee would have a favourable reply from the hon. and 1295 gallant Gentleman. He knew that the, hon. and gallant Gentleman tried to meet the views of the Committee so far as was compatible with his position as Under-Secretary and the difficulties of his Department. He appealed to him to exercise to the fullest extent his influence with his Department, and when he was told that they could not get revenue otherwise, he should say they must. They tried for years to get cheaper postage of magazines to Canada before getting it and now the Post Office was going to make it pay. They could make temperance pay. He hoped that when the hon. and gallant Gentleman replied, he would make it clear that there were no longer to be mere vain pledges, but that a real reform in this respect would be introduced which would redound to the credit of the Empire.
§ *MR. G. GREENWOOD (Peterborough)
said he would not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Gravesend, but as one of those Members alluded to by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Han-over Square, as guilty of putting Questions, he desired, with the permission of the Committee, to say a few words on the subject of Natal. He thought they were all agreed on one thing, that when we granted self-government to a colony, the less we interfered with that colony the better. But he ventured to say that there should be some limit to the doctrine of non-interference. A self-governing colony, after all, was not a separate and independent country. He had listened to speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, in which opinions were expressed which, if carried out to a logical conclusion, came to this; that if a self-governing colony were to establish a system of undoubted slavery in their territory, it would, nevertheless, be the duty of this country to acquiesce in it. To that doctrine he could not subscribe. There must be a limit, and after that limit had been passed—as he thought it had been passed in this matter by Natal—it became the duty of the predominant partner in the concern to interfere to save the credit and honour of this country. There was that going on in Zululand and Natal which it would not be time wasted carefully to consider. 1296 Sometimes it was said that they were making an attack upon the colony of Natal. He wanted to repudiate that idea. Even if they ventured to criticise the Government of Natal it could not be said that they were making any attack or criticism against the colony, because he did not believe that the Government of Natal really could be said to represent the colony. He was entitled to say that, for he had in his hand what he believed to be an authentic document which purported to be the declaration of combined committees in Natal who asked for redistribution in the Colony. These combined committees pointed out that the Prime Minister of Natal was returned to Parliament by 327 votes, that Mr. Carter, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General only polled 302 votes, whereas both the senior and junior Members for Durban had each polled more votes than Mr. Moor and his whole Cabinet put together.
§ *MR. G. GREENWOOD
said he saw no relevancy in that interruption. The combined committees went on to say that—The numbers of the white population are decreasing at a rate that already makes it questionable whether we are entitled to the status of a self-governing Colony, sufficient to itself, in maintenance of its authority, unaided.He thought it would be well to bear that in mind, because, as was pointed out, owing to the gerrymandering of the constituencies in the colony, it could not be maintained that the present Government represented the colony. The question of the treatment of Dinizulu had been often discussed. From the Blue-books which he had carefully read, he found that in September, 1907, the Natal Ministers and the Native Affairs Commissioner had apparently come to the conclusion that cost what it might, he might almost say whether the Chief was guilty or innocent—it was absolutely necessary that Dinizulu should be arrested and deported front the country. That was in strong contrast to what was said during the rising in May, 1906, when Sir C. Saunders and Sir Henry McCallum consistently 1297 bore witness to the correctitude of Dinizulu's conduct and his loyalty. But opinion changed and the Ministers and the Commissioner asked that Imperial troops should be sent into Zululand, and they decided that a secret inquiry should be held as to the guilt or otherwise of Dinizulu, and whether he was implicated in the rising of 1906. Lord Elgin replied in September, 1907, that the Government could not possibly become parties to the proposed policy, nor could they defend it in Parliament. Time went on and it seemed to those gentlemen that if they could not get their own way in this matter, there was another expedient open to them: they could suspend the constitution of the colony and govern it at their own sweet will by martial law. Accordingly on 3rd December, 1907, martial law was proclaimed in Zululand, followed by martial law being proclaimed in the Northern districts of the colony. The Governor of the colony when he announced that decision to the Home Government said that in his opinion the proclamation of martial law was premature. And why? Because there was no armed resistance. Lord Elgin on 11th December asked on what charge was Dinizulu to be tried and before, what Court, and when the proclamation of martial law would be withdrawn. The Natal Government replied that they would not assent to the withdrawal of the proclamation of martial law, although on 23rd December the Governor telegraphed to Lord Elgin that the forces were to be demobilised, except 200 men, showing that it could not be maintained that there was any danger of a rising. The Governor telegraphed again that his Ministers, against his advice, would—Maintain martial law pending the arrest of criminals and further search for arms.Lord Elgin telegraphed that it was unjustifiable to maintain martial law for that purpose, and that martial law ought never to be extended whore there was no armed resistance, and that he had confidently expected to hear that the proclamation of martial law had been withdrawn. There was one extract which he asked to be allowed to read. On 28th December, 1907, the Governor said that he had urged upon Mr. Moor—(1) The immediate withdrawal of martial law; (2) the release of all men in prison in 1298 connection with last year's rebellion except those at St. Helena and those awaiting trial; (3) the proclamation of a general amnesty(with certain exceptions), and that he had pointed out to him—that the continued maintenance of martial law tended to bring the civil law into contempt, and to prove the Government devoid of moral power.Nevertheless the Government of Natal insisted on maintaining martial law although there was no suspicion of a rising and although they knew that it would "tend to bring the civil law into contempt, and to prove the Government devoid of moral power." What was martial law? It had never been better stated than when stated to the Governor of Canada as long ago as 1838 by Sir John Campbell and Sir R. M. Rolfe, the then Law Officers of the Crown, each of whom subsequently became Lord Chancellor. They said:Martial law is stated by Lord Hale to be in truth no law, but something rather indulged than allowed as a law, and it can only be tolerated because by reason of open rebellion the enforcing of any other laws has become impossible. It cannot be said in strictness to supersede the ordinary tribunals, inasmuch as it only exists by reason of those tribunals having been already practically superseded. The right of resorting to such an extremity is a right arising from and limited by the necessity of the case—quod necessitas cogit, defendit."If it was said that that was an old authority he had a more modern one, and one to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite would pay the greatest deference. Lord Alverstone speaking in the House of Lords in April, 1902, quoted Vice-Chancellor Kent to this effect—Martial law is quite different from ordinary military law. It is justified by paramount necessity and proclaimed by a military chief.And further on Lord Alverstone stated—The acts must be acts done by necessity for the defence of the Commonwealth where there is war within the realm. … The whole question is, is there such a state of war or rebellion that it cannot be put down by the civil authority, or by the military authorities acting under the orders of the civil authorities?And finally—The limits of what the executive may do under military law are limited by that necessity," because "the foundation of martial law is necessity.That was in entire agreement with what was stated in Lord Carnarvon's circular despatch of January, 1867, which had 1299 been reprinted in the Blue-book of May, 1906, in which he said that to justify martial law there must be men rising in armed resistance to the authority of the Crown. He could hardly conceive why it was said with all these cumulative authorities that there was any doubt upon the point. In Natal it could not be suggested for a single moment that any of these conditions existed. There was no armed resistance, no paramount necessity, and no rebellion. As the hon. Member for Leicester had pointed out, the proposed Act of Indemnity omitted the word "rebellion," so that it really came to this that martial law was applied unconstitutionally and illegally, against the advice of the Governor and the Secretary of State. They continued it in order that they might search for arms and arrest prisoners. They not only flogged natives because they would not give the evidence they required them to give, but they also prevented Dinizulu's solicitor going into Zululand to get evidence. They did exactly what the Stuart Kings did in the past, and which the Petition of Right declared to be illegal—they tried to govern by martial law in time of peace. He had called the attention of the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary, to the fact that in Lord Carnarvon's circular despatch it was stated that the Governor was solely responsible both for the proclamation of martial law, and the withdrawal of that proclamation at any moment—that the responsibility for proclaiming martial law and the power of declaring it at any moment to be at an end must rest with the Governor as the representative of the Crown. He asked the late Under-Secretary whether that applied to the Governor of a self-governing colony, and he was told that it did not because he was bound to act on the advice of his Ministers. He ventured, with respect, to submit that that answer was given on imperfect consideration, because it was perfectly clear that this was a matter peculiarly within the prerogative of the Crown. There were certain things the responsibility for which rested on the Governor alone; there was the prerogative of mercy, and the prerogative of amnesty, and the dissolution of Parliament. Though a Governor 1300 ought, of course, to consult his Ministers, the responsibility in these cases was his alone. If they referred to the highest authority in this matter, such as Todd's Parliamentary Government in British Colonies, they would find it laid down that—It must always be remembered that the Governor is not bound to comply with the advice of his Ministers. In the event of a recommendation being submitted to him that involved a breach of the law, or that was contrary to express instructions received from the Crown, he would be obliged to refuse to sanction it. For no violation of the law could be excused on the plea that it was advised by others.Surely that must be so when the Governor was asked to supersede the civil law in the country in favour of martial law which was no law. This question of martial law was considered in this House by a Committee which sat in 1849, before which Sir David Dundas, then Judge Advocate General, gave evidence, and said—I believe the law of England is that a Governor, like the Crown has vested in him the right, where the necessity arises, of judging of it and being responsible for his work afterwards, so to deal with the laws as to supersede them all, and to proclaim martial law for the safety of the Colony.He, therefore, submitted that it was for the Governor and the Governor alone on his own responsibility to proclaim martial law or to issue a proclamation putting an end to it. He ventured to point out that the mere proclamation by the Governor did not make anything legal which would be illegal without it. All that such a proclamation amounted to was a notice that in future the country was to be governed by martial law and that was an answer to the suggestion that if this Bill of Indemnity was refused martial law would continue. When it was considered that the ordinary Courts, civil and criminal, were open during the whole time, because there had never been any armed resistance, he should think there was no necessity for accepting that Bill. He respectfully submitted that if the Governor was responsible for proclaiming martial law or putting an end to it, the Government should advise the Governor of the Colony to issue a proclamation putting an end to martial law, which could be done without assent being given to this 1301 Act of Indemnity. The Bill of Indemnity was on the model of the Act of Indemnity of 1906. That was an Act to which, in his opinion, in its present form, the assent of the Crown should not have been given. He did mot believe any precedent could be found for such an Act of Indemnity. Not only did it legalise things to be done in the future under martial law, but provided that there should be no appeal from any sentence by court-martial which had been pronounced before the Royal assent was given to the Act. Here he might refer to the case of the unfortunate chief Tilonko, now undergoing a sentence of ten years imprisonment in St. Helena. Martial law was proclaimed on 9th February, 1906. On 12th April the Minister of Justice of Natal, with the knowledge of the Governor, wrote to the Commandant of Militia that in view of the suppression of the native insurrection he thought it undesirable to try any more natives under martial law. It was on 7th July that the Bill of Indemnity passed the Legislative Assembly, and on the 12th it passed the Upper House of Natal. It was not till the 30th that Tilonko was tried by court-martial under martial law. On 13th August Lord Elgin telegraphed to the Governor that he might give his assent to the Bill of Indemnity on the assumption that martial law should be withdrawn. For some reason or other that assent was withheld until 1st October, and the Colonial Parliament was dissolved in the meantime. The result was that this unfortunate chief, because of the delay which had taken place in the assent being given to the Bill of Indemnity, was told when he appealed as he did, to the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of Natal, that he was deprived of his legal remedy, because under the Act of Indemnity there could be no appeal from any sentences by court-martial pronounced before the Royal assent was given to the Act. The same thing was in this present Bill. It was laid down that there should be no appeal from sentence of court-martial, and more than that this Bill did not conform to what the Duke of Buckingham, in his despatch to the New Zealand Government, laid down as being the proper form of a Bill of Indemnity. 1302 The Duke of Buckingham in his despatch of 18th May, 1867, said—In my opinion the Indemnity Act should have been limited in its phraseology to an indemnity from acts ordered or approved by some responsible military or civil authority.That despatch had not been published, but it was to be found in the Colonial Office, and it had been reproduced in the debates of the Parliament of Newzealand at the time. What the Duke of Buckingham said in his despatch applied to this Bill, and the Government ought not to give their consent to it in its present form, for it would be an evil precedent. It would actually provide an indemnity for acts done wantonly and maliciously. They heard a good deal at the present time about Imperialists. He thought they were all Imperialists now. But there were Imperialists of different shades and complexions, and for his part, he thought the best and truest Imperialist was he who was most jealous and sensitive for the honour of the Empire and the sanctity of its obligations, for the justice of its dealings, and for the rights and liberties of all its subjects on British soil throughout the world, whether their colour were white or whether their colour were black.
§ EARL WINTERTON
said he did not propose to touch on the case of Dinizulu, but if he might say so without impertinence, he thought the attitude of the Under-Secretary was entirely correct and proper. Although, of course, he disagreed with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said, he did not think he could accuse him of unfair bias in favour of Dinizulu; but they must remember, in dealing with this subject, that whatever view the Committee might hold as to the action and attitude of the Natal Government they could not too much emphasise the special circumstances by which that Government found themselves surrounded. Natal had an enormous black population, with only a small handful of white men. They must remember further, and it was a point which some hon. Gentlemen opposite or their friends in the country apparently had not realised, that the Government of of Natal had been aggravated beyond 1303 human endurance. For the last six or nine months, indeed long before the case of Dinizulu came up, every species of inuendo and suggestion had been made against the Natal Government by so-called responsible newspapers in this country, and it could not be wondered at, in these circumstances, having regard to the situation in which the Natal Government found itself, that it had shown natural indignation, and had resorted to measures which did not meet with the support of the people of this country. Moreover, hon. Gentlemen who had taken up the attitude they had done on this question, an attitude which certainly he did not think they could complain of that day, must remember that certain hon. Gentlemen were altogether suspect in the matter of native administration, because they belonged to a body of people who for the last four years had done their very best in England and elsewhere to make native administration an impossibility. Probably they had done it with the best intentions. He did not refer to the hon. Member for Newbury, but to some of the hon. Members below the gangway, and chiefly those below the gangway who had done their very best to make native administration an impossibility. They had not realised that their attitude was not supported by a single section or class of the population of those countries where there was a native question to be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil was not supported by a single man of his own class or any other class in the Colonies. Though he thought it was most regrettable, yet the hostility which he was met with in South Africa was a demonstration which represented the very strong feeling which his action had caused, and the entire lack of sympathy on the part of the people who had to deal with such problem with his views on the subject. He hoped the Committee, whatever their views might be as to what Natal had actually done, would not be too hostile in their views towards it. There was another matter which had not been, sufficiently ventilated and which had been referred to by his right hon. friend in his speech, viz., the retrenchment of the Civil service in the Transvaal. He did not think the answer which the 1304 Under-Secretary had given was at all an adequate reply to the contention put forward by the Opposition. He wished to put aside the question of race prejudice. He was fully aware that it was difficult to form an unbiased opinion on that subject, and for various reasons he thought it better to leave it entirely alone; but he would say, referring to what had been said by his hon. friend the Member for Gravesend, with reference to the statistics and tables which were put forward, it was abundantly clear, but not sufficiently known in this country, that the vast majority of Britishers, or rather men bearing British names, were renegades in the South African war. A large proportion of them fought for the Boers, and they must remember that circumstance when the hon. Gentleman put forward his figures and tables so triumphantly. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to General Botha, and had paid a great tribute to his loyalty, which he had been surprised to hear loudly cheered by the hon. Members below the gangway. Indeed, it was a very pleasing feature of that afternoon's debate that loyalty should be cheered by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the other side of the House, and most pleasing of all by the hon. Member for Newbury. The Under-Secretary finished his speech by saying that he did not think any prejudice had been shown in the matter by General Botha. He thought that if the Under-Secretary went to South Africa and, ascending any platform, Dutch or British, said that General Botha had shown no kind of prejudice towards men of his own race, he would be laughed out of the Transvaal. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that General Botha had shown no prejudice in favour of men of his own race was ludicrous.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said that General Botha had been freely denounced by people of Dutch extraction because he had not employed enough of them.
§ EARL WINTERTON
said that that was no doubt true, because a large number of Dutch people voted for General Botha believing that when he came into power there would not be a Britisher left in 1305 Africa, apart, perhaps, from some half-hearted men among the Dutch population, but he would find no one really prepared to support him in that contention. The point with which both sides could deal that afternoon with a more or less unbiassed mind was what was to be done with these unforunate men who had been retrenched. They held on that side of the House that there had been unnecessary retrenchment, and that it had not by any means resulted in increased economy. He did not see how anybody on either side could disagree with the statement that those men had been led to believe, both by the late Government and the present Government, that they would have something in the nature of permanent employment and a pension at the end of it. For the first time in British administration the honourable continuity which had lasted for scores of years, the continuity of the relations between many of the Colonial Governments and Civil servants, had been broken. That relationship had been referred to in eloquent terms by the President of the Board of Trade in the life of this Parliament, and by writers on politics. In future, any man sending his son into the Civil Service of Egypt or India or elsewhere would say that he could not trust that some Government would not come into power and at one stroke sweep away the future of the men in its service. It was the bounden duty of the Government to make inquiry into the circumstances and do something for these unfortunate men. His right hon. friend had mentioned that there were many cases of Civil servants, who had been retrenched, a very large number of whom were men who came from other parts of the Empire—New South Wales, Australia, from Canada, and other places, where they had been previously in employment and occupied high positions. [An HON MEMBER: Not high positions.] These men had filled high and honourable positions. He would like to ask hon. Members to think what His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas would think of the Government of a country which could treat its servants as this country had treated these men in South Africa. These men who raised contingents and 1306 did yeoman service to the Empire during the war would now go back to their part of the Empire penniless and broken men, and it would be a warning to the people in those Colonies not to place any reliance upon the gratitude or the good faith of the British Government. What would happen in the next time of crisis when this country relied, as she would have to rely, upon assistance from other parts of the Empire in fighting her battles? What would they say when they remembered these men who fought for their country and were afterwards so badly treated? There had been no attempt made, either by answer across the House, or in the course of debate, to deny the charges which had been brought against them. They knew perfectly well that there had been many hard cases; men had been put out of employment through no fault of their own, pledges had been shamelessly broken, and though they had not perhaps excited the interest of the country as they ought to do he believed when the next election came round the people of the country would not forget the Government's treatment of these faithful Civil servants in South Africa. More especially it would not forget the sneers delivered by the hon. Member for Leicester against men who did more yeoman service for the Empire in a time of stress and crisis, than perhaps had been done for the last 100 years. As a protest against the refusal of the Government to make an inquiry into these circumstances and to treat these men justly, he moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,350, be granted for the said service."—(Earl Winterton.)
§ MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)
said the question on which he wished to say a few words was whether it would not be practicable to have a conference to consider the whole question of oriental immigration as it affected the Empire—a conference in which our Colonial and Foreign Offices could take part, and in which the India Office would 1307 be represented, as well as the Governments of the great Dominions and Colonies beyond the seas. It was a matter in which we should properly take the lead, not to dictate, but to endeavour to clear away the difficulties with which the Empire was confronted. We had the greatest responsibility in this matter, both with respect to Imperial as well as foreign affairs, and yet we were apt to look on whilst each Colony in turn had to deal piecemeal with oriental immigration as each incident occurred. It would be well if we upon our side realised more fully the difficulties with which the Colonies had to deal and if they upon their side could realise a little more clearly our responsibilities. If such a Conference could be held we should get a clear statement from them, and even if no solution were in the first instance propounded, if we had to face the facts and obtain a clear statement of them, that of itself would promote a solution and might be the only way to do so. It was not a matter which should be treated piecemeal by the exigencies of each Colony. The Indian was told that everywhere within the Empire he was treated as an equal under British rule. He found out that that was not so and what they had to find out were the parts of the Empire where oriental immigration could be allowed and those parts where it must be subjected to some restriction or limitation. If they were to have restrictions and limitations they should be applied so as to create as little friction as possible. The matter was put forward in some detail in a letter to The Times last April—a letter to which he was one of the co-signatories, but which he did not himself write. He could say, therefore, that it gave a very excellent statement of the case. He would like to know that that matter had been considered at the Colonial Office. As matters stood the questions arising from oriental immigration into the different parts of the Empire hindered in some respects the unity of Imperial interests and therefore he would urge that they should find out by a Conference whether it was possible or not to have a more comprehensive policy than we had now in the Empire as regarded restrictions or limitations upon oriental immigration. The question was whether these could not be applied 1308 with less friction and danger than now existed. He trusted that this very important matter would have received the attention of the Colonial Office and t at some information might be given to the House upon it, because he regarded it as one on which the House was entitled to have some information.
§ *MR. HAMAR GREENWOOD (York)
said he was clearly of the view, speaking as a Colonial, that the attitude of all the self-governing Colonies required no conference to be well known. Hon. Members might take it that Canadians, Australians, South Africans, and New Zealanders, reinforced by the whole of the American people, would not allow any unrestricted immigration, whether the Orientals were Chinamen, Japanese, or our own fellow-subjects from Hindustan. One of the peculiarities of discussing Colonial questions in that House was that the debate seemed to get off on an academic line, leaving out of consideration the strongest instincts of those white men who lived on the frontiers of the Empire, who were not interested in academic definitions of Empire or of martial law; but who were brought face to face with one of the most profound and mysterious problems, the racial problem, as well as the problem of how to keep out, or co-exist with, this Oriental immigration. At present it threatened to swarm on the Pacific edge of both Americas, from Alaska to Patagonia. The Conference would do good in this, that it would show the Home Government once and for all that in dealing with Orientals the mind of the self-governing Colonies was made up, and that made-up mind should receive, as in reference to the Chinese in South Africa it had received, the endorsement of the present Government. He had risen especially to speak on the Natal problem. It presented to him but two points, one a point of detail, namely, the imprisonment of Dinizulu, and the second, a point of substance, namely, the whole of the negro problem in South Africa. As to the point of substance, namely, the relationship of the white people of Natal, to the million of negroes that surrounded them, he believed it ought to be the principle of the Government to endorse the view and uphold the attitude of the 1309 Natal Government in dealing with the black races, unless they had the clearest and most unmistakeable sign that that view would ultimately work against the white population in Natal. He had no sympathy whatsoever with those learned and finely spun discussions as to whether or not there was really a rebellion, or any of those minor matter that in no way touched the great and awful problem of the relationship of the white races to the great and numerically predominant black races in South Africa. There they were discussing in an almost empty House one of the most profound conflicts that the human mind could conceive, namely, of conflict between two races. He believed the consideration of His Majesty's Government of to-day and of the great to-morrow should be primarily the consideration of the Britishers living in those distant Colonies, and they should trust them to see that justice was done between black and black, and between black and white. It was very easy to find fault with the Government of Natal because perchance they had made a mistake in arresting Dinizulu. Whether they had or had not, far be it from him to prejudge, the Natal Government. He would rather trust the Natal Government on that question than the Government of any party in that House. There were in Natal about 100,000 white men, women, and children, surrounded by 1,000,000 of the most militant of the black races of the world. To these colonists there was a constant source of impending menace. This black 1,000,000 might for some unknown reason rise up, and that would mean the annihilation of the white people who came within their sphere of operations. The Natal Government was not only the best but the only judge as to the proper action to be taken to repress a supposed riot. He had always held that the return of Dinizulu was a mistake. The return of this hereditary king to the Zulus was an invitation to those great native warriors to resume hope that j Natal, or at any rate that part of it which they thought was theirs, would be once more under the dominion of a negro monarch. He hoped that the Government would not continue on the lines on which he was compelled to think they had started, of finding fault with 1310 the Natal Government in terms and tones which to his mind, in the first place, were undignified to the Mother Country's Government, and, secondly, detracted from the dignity and self-respect of those Ministers of the Crown in the Colony of Natal. They had to face the problem free from all this threadbare discussion as to whether martial law should be declared to-day or to-morrow afternoon. They had to make up their minds at once because the lives of thousands of men and women were in danger at the seat of trouble. Surely it was possible for this Imperial House to refrain from endeavouring to draw out of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies day by day every little detail in regard to Dinizulu, and the visits paid to him by this man or that woman, the only effect of which might be to make the loyal government of Natal appear unworthy in the eyes of this country and of the world. He thought that more respect should be shown to the views of a self-governing Colony and more consideration paid to the Ministers of the Crown who were faced with difficulties which the Government of this country knew nothing about. He could not see why the communications of the Colonial Secretary live the communications of the Foreign Secretary should not remain private, and not always be made public. If it became necessary for the Home Government sympathetically to complain of the attitude of the Natal Government surely it could be done in courteous terms, and if they must be strong let their despatches remain secret as between this and that Government and not be dragged out in such a way as to make the Government of the Mother Country appear querulous. He had every sympathy with the Government of Natal, and if he were in Natal he would be the first to resent, as that Government had resented, the unfortunate attitude the late Colonial Secretary took up in reference to this matter between the Home Government and Natal. He would go so far as to say that neither the present Government nor any other Government would venture to take up that attitude in dealing with General Botha. They would not write those despatches to Sir Wilfred Laurier, and he was inclined to believe that some 1311 unfair advantage had been taken of the fact that the Government of Natal was a small Government of a small white population in a small Colony, although in his opinion that should be all the more reason why they should have greater consideration, more dignified treatment, and more respect shown them than had been meted out to Natal. So much for the relations between the self-governing Colony of white people and the black population. As to the treatment of Dinizulu, that was a point of detail which in his opinion had been exaggerated out of its true position in the proper perspective one should have in dealing with native affairs. He was a Chieftain whom the Government of Natal thought fit to arrest. As to whether they should have withheld his salary or not he did not express any opinion, but that could not be fairly urged as a reason why this Chieftain was unable to prepare his legal defence. He knew something about the Bar and the long time one had sometimes to wait for fees. He knew that in Natal there would never be the slightest difficulty for Dinizulu to get the money necessary for his legal defence. Whether Dinizulu was guilty or not it was not for him to say, and he expressed no opinion as to whether he should have been arrested or not. As a Colonial himself, as a Liberal, and as one who believed that Liberalism had made the British Empire, in spite of the sneers of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham; as one who believed that Liberal principles in dealing with self-governing Colonies alone were the sound and safe principles upon which to continue the structure, he said that this Government had been ill-advised in not more cordially endorsing the attitude of the Natal Government. Even now the Natal Government should be made to know clearly that in their dealings with Dinizulu, which was a point of detail, and in their dealings with the black races, which was a point of substance, they had the whole-hearted and cordial support of the Government, and he would also like to think the cordial support of this Imperial House of Commons.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)
said that no doubt the 1312 powerful speech of the senior Member for York would carry great weight upon the other side of the House. If he did not follow him it was not because he did not appreciate that speech, but because of the fact that the time which remained for the discussion of Supply was so short that a thrice told tale should be avoided. He wanted to bring to the attention of the Government two matters connected with the West Indies and British Guiana. One of those questions related to a question of principle, and the other touched some commercial interests. The first question was in relation to the Island of St. Vincent. Six or seven years ago in that island, in the year 1902, there was a great disaster. There was a violent eruption, the countryside was devastated, and the island laid in ruins, and an appeal was made to charitably-minded persons. A large number of subscriptions were collected in this country towards a fund for the relief of the distress caused by the eruption, and to assist in rehabilitating the industries of that island. This country responded nobly, and a sum amounting to £73,000 was collected for this purpose. He wished to point out that to-day, £25,000 or 40 per cent, of that sum still remained unspent. In view of the purpose for which the fund was collected the greatness of the sum which was left seemed to indicate a rather grave state of affairs. Its gravity had been accentuated by circumstances which he might be pardoned if he pursued a little in detail, because it illustrated the importance of the principle he wished to emphasise. Before the eruption there was a canal called the Carib Canal which conveyed the water to the inhabitants of a country which was otherwise waterless and destitute of any hydraulic power whatever. That canal was constructed he could not say when, and it was almost impossible to ascertain by whom. It had been in existence for a very long time, and its upkeep was borne by various estates through which it passed. There were five estates in all and the upkeep cost something like £500 a year. That canal served a considerable area of the country, and hon. Members would appreciate what a water supply meant in 1313 that island. They would also appreciate the benefits conferred by the presence of this canal, because it was now impossible, without the presence of a water supply, to rehabilitate the industries of that part of the country, and continue the cultivation which previously went on there. In the course of the eruption that canal was destroyed. It was blocked up with ashes and broken down by lava. The water supply was cut off, and the country which the canal served was evacuated and became a desert and had remained a desert ever since. Therefore, the importance to the island of reconstructing that canal must be obvious to the Committee. Its importance had been insisted on in Reports presented to the Colonial Office from Sir Daniel Morris, from Mr. Powell, and from a local committee which inquired into the administration of the eruption fund and how the fund could best be employed. All those people recommended that among the objects towards which the money should go was the reopening of this canal. This canal passed in large measure through an estate or upon the borders of an estate which belonged to one person. That was a fact which ought to be stated at once, although it was of no weight in considering the question, because the representations which had been made on the subject came from a very wide area and strata of society which showed that the demand was a genuine one. So far as he was concerned personally, he did not know this gentleman and it was only the other day that he heard his name. He had never had any communications with him, and he was simply stating the facts as they were laid before the local committee. That supply had been lost in consequence of the eruption. Proposals were made by the owners of the land to the Government and they were accepted. The Government gave a grant of £1,600 out of the fund, and the owners spent between £3,000 and £4,000 in advancing the work. At a certain stage it was discovered that the damage done by the eruption had been more serious than was at first supposed. The lava had filled up ravines, and it was found that the water would have to be carried by pipes for irrigation and power purposes, and that must 1314 necessarily be an expensive method The owners were put in the position of being £5,000 out of pocket, and they had to decide whether they would go on or not. They decided to drop the project. So serious did the matter appear with regard to the industries of the island that the matter was considered by the local committee and public meetings were held regarding it. The committee recommended that a loan from the fund should be made for the purpose of carrying on this work—a loan from the fund subscribed by charitable people in this country. The loan was to be terminable and interest-bearing. The Secretary of State refused assent to that course. He was aware that when a colonial in any portion of the British dominions had a grievance to state it was the Colonial Office that was cast for the part of the wicked uncle. He had found that that was sometimes done in circumstances which were entirely undeserved. When there was a conflict of opinion between the official and the non-official members of the legislative council the duty of the Colonial Office was plain, and that was to support the official members. Unless the Colonial Office carried out the policy of trusting the men on the spot there would be difficulty. But that was not the question here, because among those foremost in recommending that a loan should be made for the purpose mentioned were the official representatives of the Government. It was they who had been repeatedly urging this policy on the Colonial Office. The policy had been recommended by the legislative council, by the officials in charge of the island, and by the Governor in charge of the group of islands. The reply of the Colonial Office was that they had no objection to the loan being made, but that if it was made it ought to be out of the floating balance of revenue. He was bound to say that from the point of view of financial theory there was a good deal to be said for that policy, but in the circumstances it was ludicrous, for the floating balance only amounted to £5,000, and from that had to come provision for secondary education, provision for a subsidy to the West Indian Telegraph Company, and a contribution for a new jetty which was now under construction. The floating balance was already earmarked and it 1315 was absolutely impracticable to take the loan out of it. When that suggestion was made a special meeting of the legislative council was called to consider the question. Apparently there was an objection to laying the dispatch sent by the Secretary of State on this matter on the Table of the House, but it had already been published in the island. The Governor telegraphed to the Secretary of State asking him to reconsider his decision. The administrator made, a speech in which he quoted a Memorandum setting forth the whole details of the subject. That Memorandum, which had teen published in the Colonial papers, was one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refused to lay on the Table of the House of Commons. He took the greatest exception to the despatch being laid before the legislative assembly, while the representative of the Colonial Office refused to place it before the House of Commons. That was quite a novel proceeding, and he vent red to say that it was unconstitutional. The whole of the legislative council, official and unofficial members, were united in refusing to have anything to do with the scheme which the Secretary of State put forth. He submitted that that constituted a state of affairs which was really in principle rather grave. He would support the Colonial Office in acting on the advice of the officials on the spot, but the position was rather grave when they set up their own view against that of the local representatives and their own officials. He appealed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give further consideration to this point. The fund was subscribed for the relief of distress and for the rehabilitation of the industries of the natives, but the Colonial Office desired that a portion of it should be left so as to form an insurance fund against future disasters. That might or might not be a desirable thing to do, but he maintained it was ultra vires to devote any portion of the money subscribed for the relief of distress to that purpose. When a fund was being raised for the relief of the people of St. Vincent many of the subscribers pointed out that 40 per cent, of the money subscribed to the Jamaica fund was still in the coffers of the Colonial Office, and they 1316 subscribed on condition that the money would be applied to the purpose for which it was given. Referring to the question of cable communication with the West Indian Islands, he said that the cable service with Jamaica was above reproach. There were two competing lines at about 3s. a word, and there had been remarkably few interruptions during the past ten years. With regard to the southernmost islands, Trinidad, Barbados, and British Guiana, the very reverse was the case. The cable service was costly and unreliable. The service had been always and was at the present moment costly and unreliable. The rate to Jamaica was 3s. a word, which was reasonable. It was not a light rate, for a telegram could be sent longer distances for less. The rate to Siam, Australia, and Japan, half-way round the world, was 4s. 10d. a word, while it was 4s. 9d. to Barbados, 5s. 1d. to Trinidad, and 7s. to Demerara in British Guiana. That showed that the service was costly, which was partly in consequence of an agreement with an American company to Cuba to "route" the messages. That the service was unreliable was demonstrated by the fact that during the last six months of this year, to the end of June, or 182 days, cable communication was interrupted between British Guiana and Trinidad and Barbados on forty-five days, or two days out of every five. The best practical evidence as to the unreliability of the service was shown by the way the Colonies concerned had reduced their contributions to the cable company by way of subsidy. The subsidy cost this country nothing; the charge fell only on the exchequers of the different Colonies, amounting in all to £13,000 a year. Barbados had reduced its contribution from £2,500 to £1,500; Demerara from £4,500, to £3,000; Trinidad from £6,000 to £3,000. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that it was time that something was done to improve matters. It was evident that from the commercial and political point of view great use was made of the cables by the Colonies, and from a strategic point of view cable communication would become more important when the Panama Canal was an established fact. The Government of British Guiana in November last made an agreement with a cable company 1317 for the establishment of a system of wireless telegrams, but he understood that nothing had been done to carry it into effect. If that were so, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that something was done soon? He was far from saying that wireless telegrams would prove less costly than cable messages; all he was anxious to see in the meantime was that something should be done to establish communication between British Guiana and Trinidad. As regarded the link between Trinidad and Barbados and between Barbados and Bermuda, the strongest possible case had been made out for an all-British cable. A direct cable between Bermuda and Trinidad was recommended by an Inter-Departmental Committee which sat in 1902, and by a resolution passed unanimously by the chambers of commerce of the Empire in 1906. The only question that remained to be settled was that of finance; and he wished to make a suggestion. The Colonies used to contribute £13,000 a year; they now contributed £7,000, and had expressed their willingness to make an increased contribution if this direct cable were laid. He had been told that the cost would be £23,000 per annum.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON
Yes, including Demerara. Of course a great saving would result in the rates. If the Colonies contributed their original subsidy—which they had practically agreed to do—of £13,000 that left £10,000 to be provided for. Canada at a conference held last year at Ottawa had expressed willingness to contribute towards this cable £5,000, leaving only £5,000 to be borne by the Colonial Office. He did not put forward this financial method as final, but he thought it was worth consideration by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in view of the value such a cable would be from administrative and strategic considerations to the Government. In the meantime he pressed on the hon. and gallant Gentleman the great importance of doing something in regard to the existing state of things, which constituted a burden which could hardly be borne by the Colonies 1318 and an injustice which required immediate remedy.
§ MR. SUMMERBELL (Sunderland)
said that the noble Earl above the gangway had gone out of his way to sneer at the Labour Members, more especially the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and the hon. Member for Leicester. There was a great deal of difference between the way people looked at things, but he would like to say that if the noble Earl was prepared to change places with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and had gone out to the Transvaal to expose how the country was being ruined by men whose only desire was to make wealth, he might not have got a better but rather a worse reception. He had great admiration for officers who did their duty, but men who went into the factory and the mine could be just as great heroes as any man who served under the colours; and whatever might be said in regard to the Transvaal War the Labour Members had felt that they were speaking in the interests of the common workers of the country. Last year on this Vote he had called attention to the Government of the West Indian Islands, but without much effect, and he hoped he would have more success with the hon. and gallant Gentleman than with his predecessor. He asserted that the administration of the West Indian Islands was altogether too costly and that it imposed on the people of those islands an enormous burden of taxation which was altogether out of proportion to what it should be. The revenue of the islands last year amounted to £3,000,000, and how had that been raised? What he was about to state ought to appeal to a free-trade Government. He found that in Jamaica the duty at present on bacon was 20 per cent. He asked the hon. Member what he thought of Customs taxation which ranged from 33 per cent, on biscuits and bread, and 45 per cent, on flour, to 70 per cent, on domestic lighting oil. No one supporting a free trade Government could argue that such a state of things could continue. This taxation it must be remembered, weighed on the people of these islands very heavily. Of course if reductions in the Customs were to be made it was necessary to find 1319 some way of reducing the expenditure, and he suggested that Governors of these islands were considerably overpaid as compared with the Governors of self-governing Colonies. In Tasmania, with an average export of £16 a head the Governor's salary was £2,500. In Jamaica, where the exports were £2 a head the Governor's salary was £5,000. The same remarks applied to other islands. They ought therefore to commence by reducing the salaries of the Governors of these islands. The importation of coolies from the East Indies to these islands had reduced the wages of the agricultural labourers from fifty-five cents to thirty-two cents per day, and they objected to the subsidy of £8,000 taken out of the taxation which they had to pay being given to the planters of these islands in order that they might bring in cheap labour. There were plenty of men to work if the planters only paid a proper price, and it was unfair that these people should be compelled to pay this taxation and that out of that taxation £8,000 should be given to the planters to import cheap labour from the East Indies. Year after year he had applied to the Opposition when in power for this redress, but instead of giving it they did exactly the opposite in 1896. In the Straits Settlements the planters themselves had to pay for the introduction of this labour and the Government should now see to it that they did not subsidise the planters in these islands any longer. He also appealed to the Government again to allow the Port of Spain to have a municipal council. In 1896 they had a municipal council which was suppressed owing to a riot. They had been without now for thirteen years which, he thought, was punishment enough for what had taken place, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would, in his reply, indicate to the Committee that the municipal council would be re-established next year. He also objected to the power which was placed in the hands of the town board of the Port of Spain summarily to sell by auction the property of anybody who was indebted to them. He knew of a case of a man whose house, which was worth £250, was sold for about £17 at auction because there were some £2 or £3 due from him for certain work in the shape of municipal repairs done by 1320 the town board. With regard to the Gilbert Islands he had seen a document signed by several chiefs on those islands which stated that the laws were badly administered and flagrantly broken by the Governors; that people were wrongfully deprived of their land; that their trees were cut down; and that there were numerous floggings and other outrages. He asked that these matters should be investigated because, if they were as stated, it was quite time that some reform took place. He also appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of Mr. William Davis of Dominica which had now been hanging on for several years. That gentleman had, it appeared, a genuine grievance, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider the matter and, if he found that the case was as stated, see that justice was done.
§ *MR. THEODORE TAYLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)
drew attention to the question of the opium consumption in Hong Kong. The people there resented the action of the Home Government in bringing their action upon this question into line with the action of the Chinese Government. All that the Colonial Secretary had done was to say that sooner or later the opium dens must be closed. That was two months ago, and not a single den had yet been closed; so that time was certainly being given for the change. The old argument had been brought up that if opium was bad it was not so bad as drink, as if that had anything to do with it. On 28th May in the Hong Kong Legislative Council a resolution of protest was moved against the dens being closed. In seconding that resolution a Chinese member of the Council said he desired to maintain the council's rights, but he described the existence of the dens as "a blot on Hong Kong's fair fame, dragging the splendid Colony in the mud." He "urged that the opium dens and farms should be destroyed root and branch." That was the attitude of the respectable Chinese members of the Colony. The objection to suppression was merely a question of revenue. He begged the Government to persevere in their policy of suppressing the opium habit. The colonists were complaining that there would be a loss of revenue and asked to be relieved 1321 of their contribution of $1,250,000 towards military expenditure. The same question arose in the Straits Settlements. Sympathising with this complaint, he supported the Government in giving them a little time, but he implored them to stick to their policy and not to be dismayed in the very least by whatever was said. There were interested parties who helped to create a local public opinion in favour of the traffic, and, though he did not want to overstate the matter, he had the very best evidence for saying that many of the Chinese were afraid to move to show their anti-opium feeling. As a matter of fact, whereas in China the Government encouraged by edict anti-opium societies, the natives in Hong Kong feared to promote these societies because they were afraid to offend the British there. He had good ground for stating even more than that, and he was quite certain there was in this Crown Colony, owing to the fact that a large proportion of the revenue depended upon the opium dens and habits, a considerable European opinion in favour of the continuance of them. The question affected not only Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements, but the other day they heard of it in connection with Ceylon. He thanked the Government for the action they had taken there. Contrary to common belief there was not only opium-eating but opium-smoking in Ceylon. He had a letter written by the late Sanitary Officer of Colombo to a local newspaper stating that, "as the Sanitary Officer, he was well acquainted with all the slums in Colombo, and there was no part of the city when making inspection of the poor parts where he did not find opium-smoking; the pity of it being that the habit was prevalent among the women." It was very important that they should not allow this habit to grow. They had the same story from South Africa. A memorial lately presented by the Witwatersrand Church Council in the Transvaal stated that there were twenty opium dens with 300 regular customers, whilst the number of victims was increasing and included white people as well as coloured. The Secretary of the Transvaal Government replied that they could not do anything this year. Mr. Mackenzie 1322 King's inquiry for the Canadian Government into the damage resulting from the anti-Asiatic riots of last September discovered that a large trade was being carried on in the manufacture of opium. There were seven factories in Victoria, Vancouver, and New Westminster, the majority of them only recently established. The opium was mostly consumed by Chinese, but the habit was making headway among white men and women, and even among white boys and girls. The Canadian Parliament had just passed a law prohibiting the importation, manufacture, and sale of the drug except for medical purposes; and that was the kind of thing they wished to press upon the British Government. They wanted the non-medical use of opium prohibited, whether inside or outside dens. It was not a question of opium dens merely. If the opium dens were closed the practice would be carried on in private houses, though no doubt to a less extent. They had to follow the practice wherever they found it. Australia and New Zealand had stopped it, and in every country public opinion was waking upon this question, and it was becoming the policy of the civilised world to suppress the traffic. He urged the Government not to fall short of that policy, lest we should soon find more opium dens in our own country. There were a few already. They largely existed in Crown Colonies for which we were specially responsible. In the United States, in Japan, in our own chief self-governing Colonies, and elsewhere public opinion now apprehended the seriousness of the matter, and it was becoming the policy of the world to stop the smoking of opium. They were told by those who excused this easy method of raising revenue that they might follow it wherever they liked, but they would not stamp it out. It was no doubt very easy to smuggle. He remembered when our own sugar duty was imposed, the Government had to take very stern measures to stop the smuggling of saccharin, an article of high value and small bulk; and if the Government meant business, the opium traffic could be stopped. Where there was a will there was a way. There was no need for the Government to be mealy-mouthed. Why should it 1323 deal more gently with the traffic than Japan? They only needed a thoroughgoing law and to have it properly administered. If the Government was determined and passed stringent laws and saw they were rigidly enforced, the traffic could be put down in our territory as it had been put down in Japanese territory and in our own self-governing Colonies. The United States also were about to pass a law prohibiting the traffic.
§ *MR. BOULTON (Huntingdonshire, Ramsey)
said the Opposition had laid down a new and extraordinary doctrine, and they were making the most of it inside and outside the House: they said that the Government were acting in an anti-Imperial way when they made suggestions in the mildest form to the Natal Government, and refused to take any steps to interfere in the internal policy of the Transvaal. The Opposition drew a great distinction between Natal and the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. It was wrong to interfere in the slightest way with Natal, but it was right to interfere with the Transvaal. That, in his opinion, was absurd. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late Colonial Secretary, had suggested that the Government should appoint a Committee to investigate the local policy of the Transvaal. He had never heard of a precedent for doing anything of the kind. The local affairs of a self-governing Colony had never been investigated in such a way as the right hon. Gentleman suggested in the history of the Empire, and the suggested Committee of Inquiry would be entirely unconstitutional and quite uncalled for. At the same time, the Opposition attacked the Government for making a mild suggestion to the Natal Government in a matter of exterior policy—the question of the government of the natives. It had been suggested that the Government had entered into some sort of disgraceful conspiracy with the Transvaal by which they lent a large sum of money in consideration of the Transvaal Government doing away with Chinese labour. The Transvaal Government had decided to do away with Chinese labour before any negotiations were 1324 opened for a loan. It was, in his opinion' a disgraceful charge to bring against His Majesty's Government and the Government of a self-governing Colony. There had been some strong language used, and he thought the words of the Under-Secretary were largely justified. He protested against any such suggestion. It never ought to have been made. He had felt a considerable amount of doubt about the retrenched officials of the Transvaal, but the speech of the Under-Secretary had satisfied him that the position in the Transvaal was not at all unsatisfactory. That was a matter of satisfaction on that side of the House. He was very glad to hear that steps were being taken to find positions for these unfortunate men. He knew several of them who came from Canada, and got positions after the war was over, and had now lost them. At the same time knowing something about those gentlemen and their capacity he could understand perhaps that while capable for positions while the war was going on they were not altogether suited to fill very responsible positions in the civil administration of a self-governing Colony. That might of course have had something to do with their retrenchment. At any rate it was perfectly obvious from the start that the Civil Service of the Transvaal was very much overstaffed and would have to be very largely retrenched, and consequently what happened was only what might have been expected. They were satisfied that the retrenchment had been principally under the last Administration—under the Administration of Lord Milner—and not under this, and further he felt very great satisfaction that the new appointments had been made without any respect to race. In these great Colonies where they had two races side by side, the only chance of amalgamation and fusion of the races was to treat them as Transvaalers, and not as Boers and Englishmen, and in that way they might hope some day to have one race in the Transvaal, a race of Transvaalers living under the Union lack. The speech of the Under-Secretary would give great satisfaction to the country generally.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)
asked how the authority of Parliament was to be obtained for the payment of the salary to Dinizulu. It was a new service, and could not be paid out of any economies in the Votes they were going to pass that evening and the next day, and it could not be done by Supplementary Estimate. He did not know how the authority of the House could be obtained. The proper thing was a Supplementary Estimate, but if it was introduced during the autumn session a Consolidated Fund Bill would be necessary.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said the proposal was to take a Supplementary Estimate in the autumn session. In any case they would have had to come to Parliament for a supplementary sum, and this small sum of £400 for Dinizulu would be included. The money would be paid and would be forthcoming, and he thought he could undertake that it should be done in due form. With regard to the opium question, he had been asked whether some action would be taken to deal with the evil effects of opium derivatives as well as of opium itself. That was no doubt most important. There could be no question that, bad as was the effect of smoking opium, the injection of morphia was even more injurious. He had received a most interesting letter from one of the Governors of the Straits Settlements, in which he pointed out from personal experience how awful were the effects of the injection of morphia, making a man a wreck in a year if he once took to it. He trusted the International Commission, which was to assemble shortly, would include in its purview these opium derivatives. He understood, though he did not know this officially, that the American representatives were anxious to take this course. The Government would of course agree on that point. The International Commission would meet in Shanghai, on 1st January next. Our representatives would be present and would take part in the deliberations with a view to at least coming up to the standard of China, if not of going beyond it. The hon. Member for Lanark had devoted some time to the question of 1326 St. Vincent and the Carib Canal. He was sorry to find himself in disagreement with the hon. Gentleman on the subject, because on the whole of the other matters connected with the West Indies he gladly availed himself of his help and saw eye to eye with him. If the hon. Member was of opinion that they were wrong about the Carib Canal he must continue to endeavour to convert them. They were not converted yet. The situation was this. A benevolent public subscribed £73,000 to repair the damage done in St. Vincent at the last eruption and in general terms to relieve distress. It seemed good to Lord Elgin that of this amount £25,000 should be retained as a nest egg for future eruptions. A gentleman who was specially concerned in these matters, and had personal acquaintance with the West Indian Islands, had said regretfully to him that he could guarantee either an eruption, an earthquake, or a hurricane within ten years. It was very unfortunate that this should be the case, but if there was any truth in it surely it was wise to keep this sum of £25,000 for the moment when the next disaster occurred. They trusted it might never occur, but unless a fresh cataclysm of Nature occurred, which should transfer the earthquakes and eruptions to another part of the world, something of that kind, or even a drop in the price of sugar of a phenomenal kind might occur which would need immediate application of relief. They would then have this £25,000 available under the scheme laid down by Lord Elgin. The hon. Gentleman said—"But the Carib Canal will remain full of ashes, and without a fresh water canal you cannot expect to have the island properly cultivated." This Mr. Porter who owned the land at the edge of the canal was digging out the ashes as fast as might be, and if the hon. Member said in point of fact he would give up digging, his only answer was that he was coming over to this country, and they hoped to have an opportunity of seeing him, for they would then know just how they stood. They would, of course, see Mr. Porter and learn all he had to say; but as at present advised they were not disposed to devote this sum to the digging of the ashes out of the canal believing as they did that Mr. Porter would do it.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON
said his point was that although it might be desirable to provide a fund for future contingencies, they had no power to divert this sum, which was subscribed for the relief of immediate necessities and earmarked for that particular purpose.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said he knew the legal aspect of that matter had been considered, and he himself had looked into it, and he was of opinion, speaking as a lawyer, that they were fully justified in the action they had taken. If it should turn out that they were bound to expend the sum, they would have to reconsider their attitude, but they had taken the best advice and were quite sure they were right. He thoroughly agreed with what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the importance of doing something to improve the cable communication both between the West Indies themselves, and between this country and the West Indies. It was certainly a most remarkable fact that the cost should be so great. The hon. Member told them it cost 7s. to Demerara, and that it cost to telegraph to the West Indian Islands, which were only a fortnight's steam from here, within a penny what it cost to telegraph to Japan, which was half-way round the world. He agreed that they ought to do something, and the Secretary of State proposed to take what action he could. There was this difficulty, that there were the two competing systems of submarine cable and wireless telegraphy. The hon. Member was quite right in what he told the Committee about the superior efficiency of cable communication, and the fact that they had taken to it in one case if not two. This made it difficult, because the inhabitants of the Islands themselves, who had subscribed the money, were not at one as to which was the best method. There must come an end to knocking people's heads together, and the Secretary of State was anxious to try the experiment of wireless telegraphy in one place, and, it might be, to increase and improve the cable communication elsewhere. These Islands were not very rich, and although it might be desirable to improve cable communication, when any concrete proposal was made, the Islands frequently 1328 took exception to making a contribution. But they had shown a disposition to join together to increase their contributions for a particular cable, and although he could not give any assurance on that particular point he could tell the hon. Gentleman on the authority of the Secretary of State that they were anxious to improve communication with the least possible delay. The hon. Member for Sunderland had addressed them on the subject of the finance of the West Indies. It was true that the salaries paid appeared to be large, but they must take into account the climate and the liability to earthquakes in estimating the salaries of Governors. The hon. Member had also referred to the coolie question and to the fact that in some of the West Indian Islands there was assisted immigration. It seemed to him that there were sound grounds for protesting against that system. It did not seem reasonable on the face of it to assist immigration which might be supposed to cut down wages. He consulted the Governor of Jamaica on the question of indentured coolies when he was over here, and with regard to the cutting down of wages he assured him that wages had gone up, and that the work done by the coolies was work which would not be done by the natives of Jamaica.
§ COLONEL SEELY
replied that he was convinced that the system did not operate in Jamaica in the way it might be expected to operate in other parts of the world; but the Government did not propose to extend the system, and they would watch the experiments closely. His Majesty's Government were not in favour, as a rule, of indentured labour, but such indentured labour as existed they could not sweep away except in South Africa where it would be swept away; but in other parts of the world they could not sweep it away. He would return to that subject later on. As to the Gilbert Islands, there was in the Pacific a gentleman well known for his sympathy with the natives, Sir Everard im Thurn, and his Report did not bear out the statements 1329 that had been made. That gentleman was on his way home, and he would bring before him what his hon. friend who raised the question had said. Although it might be very unfortunate that people should have to work four days a week when three days work was enough, and that they should be only allowed to dance on Saturday afternoons, he hardly thought his hon. friend was justified in viewing the situation in the Islands with the alarm which he professed.
§ MR. SUMMERBELL
said he had only asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give his attention to the state of things alleged to exist by the chiefs.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said he understood that the people alluded to were what were called "the old men." He did not wish to appear to be in any way throwing ridicule upon this question, but he wished to defend those whom he had reason to believe were administering affairs with due regard to the conditions under which those people were working. With regard to West Africa and the liquor traffic, he admitted that there they were by no means on strong ground. The hon. Member for Gravesend had pointed out that 60 or 70 per cent. of the revenue in some Colonies was drawn from drink. That was, no doubt, approximately accurate. The Secretary of State viewed with concern the immense amount of liquor imported into West Africa and the immense ratio which the liquor tax bore to the rest of the revenue. That was not a desirable state of finances in the interests either of the natives or of the country, and the Secretary of State was anxious to amend it. They were of opinion that demoralisation followed from the importation of this spirit, and as he understood that it only cost 8d. a bottle he was not at all surprised at that. One would suppose from what had been said that this spirit was highly injurious and was killing the natives in great numbers. To his great surprise he found on inquiry from persons who were qualified to judge that the actual harm done was slight. It seemed to him that that was very unlikely, but the Secretary of State had decided to appoint a Committee to investigate the matter, That Committee would be ap- 1330 pointed without delay to investigate the matter on the spot, first, to find out the extent of the evil, and secondly to make suggestions as to a remedy. Of course the hon. Member for Gravesend was aware, and other hon. Members who had spoken on the Ministerial side were also aware, that the Government were somewhat tied in this matter by the contiguous frontiers of foreign countries. They had entered into engagements with foreign Powers to raise the duty in order to check the traffic. Some of those Powers were anxious to go much faster and some of them were not anxious to go much further. Unless they could come to some agreement with those foreign countries which had contiguous frontiers the drink which was being smuggled in might cause as much damage as the other drink evil. Unless they could get the consent of foreign Powers in this direction they could not check the sale of the article. He could assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Secretary of State viewed the whole situation with concern, and he proposed to appoint this Committee to consider what action was possible.
§ MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)
asked if the hon. and gallant Gentleman could say of whom the Committee would consist?
§ COLONEL SEELY
replied that he could not. The association of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton was a leading light had been asked to communicate their proposals on this subject, and he was now waiting to hear from them as to their suggestions.
§ COLONEL SEELY
said he was glad to hear it, and as soon as they were received they would be considered without delay.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER
asked if the Government had considered the suggestion to appoint someone from this country to act as Chairman of the Committee?
§ COLONEL SEELY
said he would bring that suggestion to the notice of his noble friend, and ask him if he could see his way to follow it. With regard to Natal his hon. friend the Member for York had addressed the House at some length on this question, and he had begged of the Government not to interfere. They hid endeavoured not to interfere in Natal; for over seven months they had endeavoured to avoid any undue interference and he did not believe that any words which had been addressed to the House from that box could give offence to anyone in Natal. He had always endeavoured that that should be the case. With regard to Natal, the Home Government had endeavoured to avoid any undue interference. It was necessary for them to take the action they had taken. He was glad to have the approval of every Member of the House who had spoken on this subject. It augured well for the bringing of Colonial matters out of the scope of ordinary party politics. In this matter every hon. and right hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House had expressed himself in the main satisfied that His Majesty's Government had acted in this matter with every wish not to offend the Natal Government, and they desired that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham should be fulfilled. Points had been raised in regard to the Act of Indemnity by the hon. Member for Gravesend, the hon. Member for Leicester, the hon. Member for Huntingdon, and the hon. Member for Peterborough, and they had given a long and accurate account of the circumstances which had led up to the present situation. The omission of the word "rebellion" from the Act might be, in the view of the hon. Member for Peterborough, an indication that the
§ state of affairs did not amount to rebellion. He submitted respectfully to the Committee that that made no difference whatever as to the policy of assenting to the Indemnity Act itself. It was a fact that the operation of martial law had not been attended with violent measures, and it was admitted that it had not been attended with much disturbance. If the Government were in any way to demur to assenting to the Act, the practical effect would be to the disadvantage of the natives. It was said that the Governor had an absolute right to proclaim martial law; but some things were possible which were not expedient. He wished to say a word or two about the Transvaal officials. It had been assumed in the course of the debate that although the figures were more or less conclusive that General Botha's Government had not unduly favoured the Dutch, there was an impression that those officials who had been retrenched had not been adequately compensated, and one hon. Member had said that they had received nothing. Altogether the retrenched officials, 345 in number, had received £87,000 from the Transvaal Government. That might not be enough to compensate them for the loss they had sustained, but at least any obligation undertaken by the Transvaal Government had been loyally fulfilled. He had no time to deal with Asiatic exclusion. It must be the subject of careful consideration, and the Government were most anxious to co-operate with the Colonies in finding a solution of the difficulty.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 92; Noes, 247. (Division List No. 228.)1335
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F||Bowles, G. Stewart||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Burdett-Coutts, W.||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon|
|Ashley, W. W.||Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Balcarres, Lord||Carlile, E. Hildred||Du Cros, Arthur Philip|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Duncan, Robt.(Lanark, Govan)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Faber George Denison (York)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A.E.||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.||Fell, Arthur|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Craik, Sir Henry||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey|
|Forster, Henry William||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Gardner, Ernest||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Snowden, P.|
|Gill, A. H.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Starkey, John R.|
|Gordon, J.||M'Arthur, Charles||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Guinness, Walter Edward||Magnus, Sir Philip||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Hamilton, Marquess of||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Summerbell, T.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Nicholson Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Nield, Herbert||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Valentia, Viscount|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Parker, James (Halifax)||Warlde, George J.|
|Hudson, Walter||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n|
|Jenkins, J.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Keswick, William||Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Law, Andrew Bonar(Dulwich)||Ronaldshay, Earl of||Younger, George|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.||Salter, Arthur Clavell||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl Winterton and Mr. Gretton.|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles|
|Lowe, Sir Francis William||Seddon, J.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cooper, G. J.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Agnew, George William||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Cotton, Sir; H. J. S.||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Cowan, H. W.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Crooks, William||Hyde, Clarendon|
|Astbury, John Meir||Curran, Peter Francis||Idris, T. H. W.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Dalziel, James Henry||Jackson, R. S.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Davies, Ellis William (Eikon)||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Beauchamp, E.||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Duckworth, James||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Bell, Richard||Duffy, William J.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt||Erskine, David C.||Kearley, Sir Hudson, E.|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamets, S. Geo.||Essex, R. W.||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Findlay, Alexander||Lambert, George|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Lamont, Norman|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Fullerton, Hugh||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington|
|Branch, James||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)|
|Brigg, John||Glover, Thomas||Levy, Sir Maurie|
|Bright, J. A.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Brodie, H. C.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Brooke, Stopford||Greenwood, Hamar (York)||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T(Cheshire||Griffith, Ellis J.||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Lynch, H. B.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Gulland, John W.||Maclean, Donald|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Hall, Frederick||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Carr-Gomm, H.; W.||Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)|
|Chance, Frederick William||Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N. E||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston.||Harwood, George||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Maddison, Frederick|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Cleland, J. W.||Helme, Norval Watson||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hemmerde, Edward George||Marnham, F. J.|
|Massie, J.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Roberts, Sir John H.(Denbighs.)||Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Robinson, S.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Mond, A.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Toulmin, George|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Verney, F. W.|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Wadsworth, J.|
|Morse, L. L.||Rowlands, J.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Myer, Horatio||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Walsh, Stephen|
|Napier, T. B.||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Nicholls, George||Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)||Walton, Joseph|
|Nolan, Joseph||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne||Waring, Walter|
|Norman, Sir Henry||Sears, J. E.||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Seaverns, J. H.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Nuttall, Harry||Seely, Colonel||Waterlow, D. S.|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Watt, Henry A|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick, B.)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|O'Connor, T, P.(Liverpool)||Sherwell, Arthur James||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|O'Malley, William||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Partington, Oswald||Simon, John Allsebrook||Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wiles, Thomas|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Pearce, William(Limehouse)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester)||Spicer, Sir Albert||Williamson, A.|
|Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)||Stanger, H.Y.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh'e||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Pollard, Dr.||Steadman, W. C.||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Winfrey, R.|
|Radford, G. H.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Raphael, Herbert H.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Rea, Russell, (Gloucester)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Sutherland, J. E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Richardson, A.||Thomas, David Arthur (Merthyr|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ And, it being after Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put Severally the Questions, "That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in each Class of the Civil Services Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amount of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, the Army (including Ordnance Factories), and the Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates—