Hevific or Heti^ct, 1/6106. 



History of the Month. 



443 



acquiesced meekly in Lord Milner's misconduct. 

 When the matter was brought before Parliament by 

 Lord Portsmouth, but not till then, Lord ^Lilner 

 owned up. Thereupon the majority of the Minis- 

 terialists and the Labour men in the House of Com- 

 mons felt that justice demanded that a formal 

 censure should be passed upon a High Commis- 

 sioner for sanctioning flogging in breach of the law. 

 in violation of our treaty obligations, and without 

 the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Colo- 

 nies. Clearlv if Parliament was to notice the inci- 

 dent at all. it could not have said less. The argu- 

 ment that Lord Milner was not to be blamed be- 

 cause his responsibility was covered by that of th* 

 Colonial Secretary- is nonsense, for the chief count 

 against him is that after he had officially sanctioned 

 flogging he allowed his official chief to declare that 

 it was impossible there could be any truth in the 

 stories of flogging, because of the admirable system 

 both of law and supei-vision existing in the Trans- 

 vaal. Mr. Lyttelton passed no censure upon the 

 High Commissioner, who had made him eat dirt 

 and deceive the House of Commons. The House 

 of Commons had a right, and indeed was bound, to 

 put on record its disapproval of a Pro-consul who 

 had caused it to be deceived. But Ministers, ap- 

 parently acting under the dictation of the Jingo 

 rump of their parly, decided to oppose the vote of 

 censure on the culprit, and to offer instead an 

 amendment condemning the fiogging as wrong, but 

 abstaining from naming the man who did the wrong. 

 " It's very culpable, no doubt, and we know who 

 did it, of cour.=e, but for the sake of peace we refuse 

 to name him." 



The amendment, lame, inconclu- 



1. AmMrativo sive, and unsatisfactory as it was. 

 In Comparative ' . >, -n . -..i. i 



Sio. served its end. Mr. Byles withdrew 



his resolution, and the Ministerial 

 amendment was carried bv 355 votes to 155 — many 

 Labour members refusing to vote for an amend- 

 ment which refused to do what ought to have been 

 done, even when admitting in general terms the 

 justice of the indictment. The '' argument " of the 

 Opposition amounted in brief to this : that Lord 

 Milner, than whom Mr. Chamberlain — who had sat 

 i« the Cabinet with Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright — 

 said he had never met a greater man, had placed 

 the Empire under such an immeasurable debt of 

 gratitude bv his policy in South Africa that it was 

 monstrous to condemn him for such a trifle as the 

 flogging of Chinese coolies. The real fact is that 

 Lord Milner has deserved so ill of the Empire by 

 the war which he forced upon South Africa that it 

 seems absurd to censure liim for a minor offence 

 when that supreme crime remains uncensured. 

 When we remember that Lord Milner's policy cost 

 30.000 lives of fighting-men and 30,000 lives of 

 women and children — that it made us the laughing- 

 stock and the by-word of the world — that it cost us 

 in hard cash _^2 50,000,000. and inflicted losses 



rribunt.l [March 3. 



Britannia: "This is a free country." 



rXhough the Aliens Act expressly states that want of 

 means shall not be a bar to the entry of refugees flying 

 from religious or political persecution, some scores of fugi- 

 tives from Russia have been rejected.! 



amounting to ^^loo.ooo.ooo upon the Boers — it does 

 seem ridiculous to pounce down upon him for an 

 unguarded word which led to the flogging of a few 

 hundred coolies. 



The abominable hardships inflicted 



The Aliens Act by the Aliens Act upon the un- 



Hamstrung fortunate refugees who fled to our 



shores to escape political oppres- 

 sion and religious persecution, have at last been 

 terminated bv the action of the Home Secretary. 

 Mr. Herbert' Gladstone shrank from the simple, 

 straightforward plan of repealing the Aliens Act, and 

 hit upon the ingenious device of instructing those 

 who administer its provisions to do so in such a way 

 as to render it incapable of abuse. Lord Halsbur>- 

 furiously assailed the Home Secretary's directions 

 as equivalent to the exercise of a dispensing power. 

 If so they are illegal, and the sooner the question is 

 tried in court the better. But as no one knows bet- 

 ter than Lord Halsbury, that the alternative to these 

 instructions is the introduction of a Bill repealing 

 the Act or amending it out of all semblance to itself, 

 this course will not be taken. I confess I don't like 

 this svstem of administratively drawing the teeth of 

 a measure which ought never to have been passed. 

 But it may be the only practical course. 



Mr. Lloyd-George was the first of 



ch^ • the new Ministers to submit a 



New^smpprng ^^gj^,.,^;^.^ proposal to the House. 



It was a Bill providing for the 

 better treatment of British sailors, and incidentally 

 for compelling foreign shipowners who use our ports 

 to conform to the British standard of safety. In 



