BRITISH PARLIAMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2149, 26 March 1908, Page 3

BRITISH PARLIAMENT.

GABLE NEWS

CHINESE LABOR QUESTION. • A HEATED DEBATE.

United Press Association—Copyright LONDON, March 24.

In the House of Commons, in the debate off the second reading of the Consolidated Revenue Bill, Mr Lyttelton caused a great commotion on the Ministerial benches. He strenuously : protested against the Government sanctioning m December a reenactment dated last August, for two and a half years, every line of the late Government’s ordinance and regulations regarding indentured Chinese labor, which for four years , from 10,000 platforms, Liberals had held up to execration and scorn. Ho declared the re-enactment was deliberately, sanctioned behind the hack of Parliament, and was a breach of pledges to Parliament. Mr Asquith: “Do you say, wo m assenting to tho ordinance, intended to break pledges?” Cries: “You did break them.” Air Lyttelton, continuing, said: “The Government's intention must bo explained by the Government themspeech has assent been mentioned.” Mr Churchill admitted that there selves. Neither in Bluo Book nor in had been some clement of exaggeration during the period of election, butpredictions of tlio various results of tho system had been justified. Happily the Transvaal’s noble efforts, had reduced the number of coolies from 03,000 to 25,000. He predicted- that by the end of 190 S not upwards of 10.000 would remain in tho Transvaal. Any ordinary regulations which had been sanctioned had framed a necessary part of the liquidation of the Bon a r law. H quoted Mr Asquith’s speech of February, 1906. Mr Asquith, replying to Mr Lyttelton, reprobated tlio language used as being calculated to add" to tlio Transvaal difficulties of self-govern-ment. His pledge had been fulfilled in letter and spirit. In the speech made in 1906 he undertook to defeat any attempt to establishment permanence of Chinese labor. Mr Balfour, ill a trenchant reply, said that while emphasising violation ■of the pledges, ho accepted the declaration that the speech meant something it did not contain. Ho invited Mr Asquith to produce correspondence with the Transvaal relating to assent to the re-enactment. Ultimately the Consolidated Revenue Bill was read a second time. The “Standard” states that Mr Lyttelton accidently discovered that assent had been given to the re-en-actment while examining the Transvaal’s official records.