Commons Sitting of 30 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely—
  Higham Ferrers Water Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  HARTLEPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL.
  SOUTHPORT EXTENSION AND TRAMWAYS HILL.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  WAKEFIELD CORPORATION MARKET BILL.
  WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered; a Clause added; Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
  MARKET WEIGHTON DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION HILL.
  As amended, considered; a Clause added; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
  ST. DAVID'S RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  To be read a second time upon Thursday, 26th April.

  UNIVERSAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [Lords] [STAMP DUTIES].
  Resolution reported:—"That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of the following Stamp Duties upon certain Memorials under any Act of the present session relating to the Universal Life Assurance Society, namely, for and upon the First Memorial enrolled of the names of persons who shall be deemed, held, and taken to be Trustees of the Society, the sum of Five pounds; and upon every such Memorial in which the name of any person shall for the first time be inserted as a Trustee of the Society, the sum of Five pounds.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Universal Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords] that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Allerton, Much

  785
  Woolton, Little Woolton, and Childwall, Barnet, Barnstaple, Birkenhead (Extension), Bonchurch, Boston, Brierfield, Egremont, Hyde, and Sudbury, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Allerton, Much Woolton, Little Woolton, and Childwall, Barnet, Barnstaple, Birkenhead (Extension), Bonchurch, Boston, Brierfield, Egremont, Hyde, and Sudbury," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

  HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL.
  WELLINGBOROUGH AND DISTRICT TRAMROADS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 3).
  Mr. HOB HOUSEreported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway, etc., Bills, That for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  HAMILTON, MOTHERWELL, AND WISHAW TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 2).
  Mr. JEFFREYSreported from the Committee on Group 2 of Railway and Canal Bills, That for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  Reported [Parties do not proceed); Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
  Sir WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHreported from the Committee on Group A of
  786
  Private Bills, That Sir George Pilkington, one of the Members of the said Committee was not present during the Sitting of the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Corporation of the City of Lincoln with respect to tramways, and to authorise the Corporation to construct new tramways, and to work tramways within and without the city; and to borrow money: and for other purposes." Lincoln Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords].
  And also a Bill intituled, "An Act for rendering valid certain Letters Patent granted to Melvin Batchlor Church for the manufacture of an improved compound for coating and decorating walls and other surfaces, and for the production of casts or mouldings, and for analogous, purposes. Church's Patent Bill [Lords].
  Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [Lords], Great Southern and Western and Water-ford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [Lords], and Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill [Lords],—That they have come to the following resolution, viz.: "That it is desirable that the Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [Lords], the Great Southern and Western and Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [Lords], and the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill [Lords], be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

  LINCOLN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  CHURCH'S PATENT BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
  Mr. OLDROYDreported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills, That, to meet the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Tuesday, 3rd April, at Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  PORTLAND URBAN DISTRICT GAS.
  Petition for Bill; referred to Committee on Standing Orders.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
  Petition of the Incorporated Society of Law Agents in Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Brechin, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (EXEMPTION FROM RATES).
  Petition from Plumstead, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOUSE OF SALE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Alnwick, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Peterborough, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT ACT, 1899.
  Petition from Plumstead, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  OLD AGE PENSION SCHEME.
  Petition from Baildon, for adoption: to lie upon the Table.
  PETROLEUM BILL.
  Petition from Manchester and Salford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (SCOTLAND) LATER OPENING BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Greenwich; Eastbourne; and St. Leonards; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL AND SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition from Newcastle-on-Tyne, favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Haughton; Silksworth; Ryhope (two); Murton; Hylton; Hetton (two); North Biddick; Fulwell; Silksworth (two); South Hetton; Hetton Downs; Newbottle; Coxgreen; Easington Lane; Weston-super-Mare; Burradon; Berwick-upon-Tweed; Newcastle-on-Tyne (three); Felling; Wardley; Brandon; Whitley Bay; Forest Gate; and Shepherd's Bush; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Sheffield (twenty-one); and Attercliffe; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from West Kent; Wheatley; Churchill; Salford; Sheffield: and Camberwell; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY.
  Return [presented 29th March] to be printed. [No. 115.]
  MERCANTILE MARINE COLOUR TESTS).
  Copy presented, of Report on the sight tests used in the Mercantile Marine for the year ended 31st December, 1899 (in continuation of [C. 9248]) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury

  789
  whether he is aware that Father Simon Knapp, a friar of the Carmelite Church at Kensington, has volunteered his services as a Roman Catholic chaplain to the Roman Catholic soldiers now serving in South Africa; and that he has been appointed by the War Office as a chaplain, and sailed in the "Briton" for South Africa; and seeing that Father Knapp is a member of a religious community which under a penal statute is an illegal monastic order, will Her Majesty's Government give facilities for the passage of a Bill now before Parliament, or take such steps as may be necessary to remove the disabilities under which certain Roman Catholic religious communities are penalised in Great Britain and Ireland.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. With regard to the second paragraph the hon. Member must be well aware that on general grounds it is neither customary nor convenient to attempt to deal with these matters by Private Members' Bills. I may, perhaps, add that as far as I can understand the Bill, a copy of which the hon. Member was good enough to send me, the object he desires would not be furthered by it.

  TRANSPORT—ALIEN SEAMEN IN BRITISH SHIPS—THE "CASPIAN."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state if the British steamer "Caspian" has been chartered by the Government for the purpose of conveying stores to South Africa; whether he is aware that this vessel carries a crew of thirty-two hands all told, the only British subjects employed on the vessel being the officers, seven in number, the remainder being foreigners of eight different nationalities; whether he is aware that some of these foreigners are Germans, Belgians, and Hollanders, and if he intends to take steps to insist on vessels which are employed by the Government being manned by British subjects or seamen who have homes in the United Kingdom; whether he is aware that the able seamen are paid at the rate of £3 10s. per month, whereas the current rate of wages for seamen from British ports is £4 10s.; and whether, in hiring transports, he will give
  790
  the preference to ships carrying British crews.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The "Caspian" was engaged as a freight ship for the conveyance of a full cargo of supplies to South Africa, through the Admiralty agents, from the Union Steamship Company, by whom she was chartered from the owners. I am informed by the owners that when she sailed for the Cape she had her full complement of thirty-six, of whom fourteen were British subjects. The Admiralty is charged with the duty of conveying troops and stores when required with the utmost expedition to their destination. It would not be possible to take the action suggested in the third paragraph in the case of freight ships without serious and perhaps fatal delay. The statement as to the wages paid is correct, but I have no information as to the current rate of wages at British ports. With regard to the fifth paragraph of the question the answer is in the affirmative, provided the ships are otherwise equal.

  MARTIAL LAW AT THE CAPE—LEGED MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the alleged miscarriage of justice in connection with the administration of martial law at the Cape; whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter, with a view to steps being taken to prevent recurrence in the future; whether, in particular, he has information as to the case of F. A. Botha, aged upwards of sixty, who was arrested on his farm near the Modder River on 27th November last, and sent thence about 700 miles to Cape Town, whence he was returned to the Modder River; whether he was kept in gaol till 9th January, when he was convicted by a military court on the evidence of four native servants, who said the accused had told them that he would lend a wagon and oxen to the Free State burghers, though it was not alleged that he ever did lend them, and whether the accused denied the charge; whether on this evidence Botha was sentenced to two years hard labour, and is now treated as an ordinary convict, doing hard labour in the Hope Town Gaol

  791
  under the guard of Kaffir constables; and whether similar cases have been brought to his notice.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Secretary of State for War cannot undertake to question the decisions of competent military tribunals in areas within which martial law has been proclaimed; but if the hon. Member will place a question on the Paper, I shall be glad to explain the constitution and procedure of such tribunals.

  INDIA'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE WAR FORCES—ROYAL COMMISSION ON INDIAN EXPENDITURE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is in a position to give in detail the contributions of India to the war in South Africa as regards men, horses, and military equipment; and whether, in view of the value of India in the military defence of the Empire demonstrated in this war, the Government will give an opportunity for the discussion of the claim of the Government of India for relief from some portion of its home military charges, before the Indian Budget discussion at the end of the session.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): As far as I am able to furnish details, the contributions of India to the war in South Africa up to date are approximately as follows:—Officers and men (British), 8,215; natives (non-combatants), 5,717; horses, 6,700; mules and ponies, 1,510; field guns, 50; Maxim, naval, and machine guns, 15. There are besides, artillery waggons, ambulance carts, and a large supply of boots, saddles, haversacks, warm coats, tents, and other equipment. All supplies of Indian material and animals were paid for on terms not unfavourable to the factories or agencies furnishing them. The subject of the home military charges was specially referred to the Royal Commission on the Administration of the Expenditure of India, whose Report has not yet been received.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: When does the noble Lord expect that the long delayed Report will be received?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no control over the Commission. I understand that we are very shortly to receive the Report, with the subsidiary Reports of the individual members of the Commission.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: Is there any chance of the Report being received before Easter?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I know nothing about it. I have no control in the matter.

  TELEGRAMS TO AND FROM SOLDIERS ON SERVICE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in order to allay the anxiety of thousands of families in this country who have relatives at the war in South Africa, he will open negotiations with the directors of the Eastern Telegraph Company and its allies for sending messages and replies (prepaid) by telegraph not exceeding ten words at a total cost of half a guinea, or even a guinea; and whether he will represent to the cable companies that the concessions they have already made in this direction for the soldiers would be greatly enhanced if arrangements for these social or family messages were embodied in a reply message of the kind indicated at a fixed charge.
  MR. WYNDHAM; The Eastern Telegraph Company recently of their own accord reduced the charges for telegrams from four to two shillings a word, and the Secretary of State for War is not prepared to call upon the company for any further concession. I ought to add that the number of telegrams is already so great as to lead to frequent blocks on the line.

  CONDUCT OF THE WAR—MEASURES FOR THE RELIEF OF MAFEKING.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House whether, since Kimberley and Ladysmith were relieved, any expedition has been sent or special measures taken by Lord Roberts for the relief of the gallant defenders of Mafeking.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am precluded on military grounds from giving any indication of Lord Roberts' plans.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS—BOOTS.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, of 226 pairs of boots supplied by a well-known Government contractor for the use in South Africa of the volunteer contingent of the Worcestershire Regiment, over forty pairs were condemned as utterly unfit for use within four days of delivery, whether 100 more pairs were shortly afterwards condemned for the same reason, and whether the remaining pairs were of an inferior quality usually sold for one-third the price paid in this case; and whether a report to this effect has been received by the War Office; and, if so, whether the contractor who supplied such defective goods is still on the War Office list, and whether, if a report to the above effect has not yet been received, an inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the above contract.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A report has been received of the unsatisfactory character of the supplies furnished by Messrs. Samuels to the Volunteer contingent of the Worcestershire Regiment. The order was given by the Volunteer Corps, and not through the War Office. The Contract Branch was not consulted. The goods would be paid for out of the corps funds. In consequence of their conduct in this matter the contractors have been removed from the War Office list. They have not had any dealings with the Department for some years.

  THE QUEEN'S VISIT TO IRELAND—WELSH GUARD OF HONOUR.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the 3rd Volunteer Battalion, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, furnished guards of honour on the occasion of the visit last year of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York to Wales, and that this battalion has a company now at Holyhead, and that the officer commanding the battalion offered a guard of honour to consist of 100 men, whether he will explain why arrangements are being made to convey men of the Derbyshire Militia to act as guard of honour; and, whether it is possible to alter these arrangements.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there
  794
  was not only an offer from the 3rd Welsh Battalion, but an offer from the 2nd Welsh Battalion, including the services of 118 men now waiting orders for service in South Africa? Why were these two offers set aside and the Derbyshire Militia chosen? Was the selection made on military or personal grounds?
  MR. WYNDHAM: This matter rests entirely in the hands of the general officer commanding the district. He, however, has detailed a guard of honour of the 3rd Volunteer Battalion Welsh Fusiliers as well as of the 3rd Battalion Derbyshire Regiment. In reply to the hon. Member for Anglesey, I have to say that I have no knowledge as to the offer of the second battalion. I must remind the hon. Member that Her Majesty is travelling privately from this country to Ireland, and therefore there are no guards of honour at all by command. The presence of any guard is a matter of local arrangement between the residents and the general officer commanding the district. I think this will show the hon Member that these are matters which should be left to the general officer commanding the district and that we should not endeavour to take them out of his hands. I may also point out that Derbyshire is in the north-western district command.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: Can fifty men form a guard of honour for the Queen?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have explained that there is no regulation guard of honour in question. Her Majesty is travelling privately through the northwestern district, and the inhabitants have represented to the general officer commanding that some of the troops in the district should be present, and that the honour has been allocated between one district in England and one district in Wales.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY OFFICERS AT HYDERABAD.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in the existing dearth of trained artillery officers, it is possible to obtain the services of Royal Artillery officers at present employed with the Nizam's forces in Hyderabad, and especially of

  795
  those attached to Hyderabad contingent batteries armed with smooth-bore guns.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. The Royal Artillery captain and four subalterns employed with the field artillery of the Hyderabad contingent are not available for service elsewhere.

  ARMY PENSIONS—CASE OF TIMOTHY COUNIHAN.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Timothy Counihan, who served thirty years in the Third Brigade, South Irish Division, Royal Artillery (Militia), and was then (in the year 1887) discharged as an invalid six months before his engagement terminated, after having received five good conduct badges, and with his character certified "very good"; is he aware that he was invalided owing to an injury to his foot by a shell whilst in the execution of his duty; and whether, in view of the fact that this man is unable to follow his trade owing to the injury thus received, and that he has since been several times in hospital from the same cause, and is over sixty-three years of ago, a pension will now be allowed to him or some compensation made to him for the injury.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): This case was thoroughly and repeatedly considered both before and after the man's discharge from the Militia. I regret that it cannot now be reopened.

  CRIMEAN PENSIONS—CASE OF PATRICK HENNESSY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Patrick Hennessy, whose regimental number is 1780, enlisted in 1846 in the 95th Foot, and served through the Crimean war, and was engaged in all the battles, and wounded at the battle of Inkerman; also that he served throughout the Indian Mutiny, and was specially noted for his bravery in action by General Sir H. Rose, and in China for four years, and also in Egypt, Malta, and Africa; and whether, seeing that Patrick Hennessy is now aged 77 years, and was discharged in 1868 with a pension of 8d. per day after twenty-one years of active and
  796
  foreign service, the War Office authorities will now consider his case with the view of increasing substantially his present pension of only 8d. per day.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, Sir. I have told the hon. Member before* that the case cannot be reconsidered.
  MR. FLAVIN: Did not the hon. Gentleman request me to again put this question to him?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I do not remember doing so. I told him the case could not be reconsidered; that we had looked carefully into it, and that nothing more could be done.
  MR. FLAVIN: But does the hon. Member not remember that last October he asked me to put off the question, in order that it might be reconsidered?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have no recollection of it. But I repeat the case of this man has been looked into over and over again, and nothing more can be done.
  MR. FLAVIN: Who is to support this old soldier?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE PARIS EXHIBITION—SUNDAY OPENING.
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the rule recently created by the British Commissioners for the Paris Exhibition which has made it imperative on all English exhibitors to uncover and display their goods on every day when the exhibition is open, and for all hours of the day, including specifically the Lord's Day; whether he is aware that in the Paris Exhibitions of 1867, 1878, and 1889, exhibitors from Great Britain have as a rule steadfastly refused to exhibit on Sundays; whether the President of the United States of America has directed the United States Commissioner to prevent as far as possible the exhibition of goods from America on the Lord's Day. And whether the Government will use their efforts with the
  * See The Parliamentary Debate [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxvii., p. 731 (26th October, 1899); Vol. lxxviii., p. 712 (6th February, 1900).

  797
  British Commissioners to secure as far as possible the non-exhibition of goods on the Lord's Day.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The matter has been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, but it is a question for consideration by the Royal Commission, and does not fall within the competence of the Foreign Office. The attention of the Secretary of the Royal Commission has, however, been drawn to the subject.

  HONG KONG—REPORTED ABDUCTION OF A CHINESE REFORMER.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Kang-Yu-Wei, the Chinese reformer, is living under British protection at Hong Kong, and whether he was abducted on Tuesday last from Hong Kong and taken to Canton; and whether he can state what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in order to secure his immediate release.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Government have received no information, but we have telegraphed to inquire.

  DISTURBANCES IN SHANTUNG AND PECHILI.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state whether the country round Tien-tsin is greatly disturbed; and whether concerted action by the Powers is contemplated.
  MR. BRODRICK: Disturbances have taken place in the provinces of Shantung and Pechili stated to be due to the action of secret societies. Representations have been made to the Chinese Government on the subject by the foreign representatives, including Her Majesty's Minister, and the Government of Shantung has been recalled and a new one appointed. Two of Her Majesty's ships have been sent to Taku for the protection of British lives and property.

  CABLE COMPANIES' CHARGES.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON (Hythe): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Eastern Telegraph Company and the Indo-European Telegraph Com-
  798
  pany, respectively, pay to Her Majesty's Government, in accordance with the terms of the International Telegraph Convention, the sum of 2d. per word as terminal tax on all extra-European telegrams intended for the United Kingdom and reaching this country by the above-named companies' cables, and what is the total amount due to Her Majesty's Government from these companies individually during the year 1898–9 for this terminal tax; and whether he would state the nature and terms of any agreement which, as indicated in the evidence of the Eastern Telegraph Company's representatives before the Pacific Cable Committee, may have been come to in connection with this terminal tax between the Post Office authorities and this company, as well as the number of extra European messages, and the average number of words in each such message having reached this country through the cables of the Eastern Telegraph Company and the Indo-European Telegraph Company respectively, and the amount actually received from each of them during 1898–9.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER(for Mr. HANBURY): My hon. friend has been misinformed. The International Convention does not require the companies to make the payment he describes, and no agreement in connection with it has been come to with the Post Office. As to the extra-European telegrams reaching this country by the companies' lines, the Post Office is not in possession of the particulars he indicates.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Eastern Telegraph Company and the Indo-European Telegraph Company pay to Her Majesty's Government the covenanted transit rate of three halfpence per word on all extra-European messages reaching the United Kingdom by the above-mentioned companies' cables and destined to Transatlantic addresses; the total amount due to Her Majesty's Government during 1898–9; the total number of such messages; the average number of words per message for this period; and in the event of any agreement having been come to between the Post Office authorities and these two cable companies individually, whether he would state the nature and particulars of such agreement, and the amount received by

  799
  Her Majesty's Government from them on account of these transit taxes for the year 1898–9.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The answer is in the negative. The messages are handed over direct to the Transatlantic companies, and are neither handled, counted, nor charged for by the Post Office.

  DIVIDENDS OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES—DATES OF PAYMENT.
  MR. M'LAREN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is any reason founded on public advantage why the Government should adhere, for Government payments, and in the case of Crown leases for receipt of rent, to the ancient quarter days of 5th January, 5th April, 5th July, and 5th October, seeing that the Gregorian Calendar was adopted by Act of Parliament in the reign of George II., under which the quarter days universally recognised by Her Majesty's subjects fall twelve days earlier in each case; whether he is aware that there is always at the end of June and December a demand for money in London, and that the market in order to tide over the turn of the half year has to borrow from the Bank of England until the Consol dividends are paid on the 5th July and 5th January; and whether he can see his way to modify the present system so that money arising from dividends on Government securities may be available for market purposes just before the close of each commercial half year, and so diminish the stringency that now prevails at these periods.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I do not think the proposed change would be desirable. It could not be introduced without legislation, as the dividend days are fixed by Act of Parliament, and it would give rise to a great deal of trouble and complication. One of the results would be the imposition of a very heavy charge on the finances of the year of change, as in that year there would practically be, roughly speaking, five quarterly payments to be made.

  FACTORY ACTS—PARTICULARS CLAUSE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home
  800
  Department whether he can state to how many trades the Particulars provisions under the Factory and Workshops Acts have been extended since 1895, and how long the inquiries have taken in each case.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): Six orders extending the Particulars provisions of the Factory Act of 1895 have been made, and another is at the present moment under consideration. I am afraid I cannot say how long each of the inquiries has taken. Having regard to the number and complexity of the points involved in these cases, the inquiries may reasonably be somewhat protracted.

  GUY'S HOSPITAL—PRESCRIPTIONS ORDERED BY UNQUALIFIED STUDENTS—CASE OF MABEL BLANCH.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at a coroner's inquest at Bermondsey, on Friday, 15th March, on an infant named Mabel Blanch, that the child was seen and prescribed for by an unqualified student at Guy's Hospital, and subsequently died; and whether he will make a representation to the authorities of Guy's Hospital that effect should forthwith be given to the rider of the jury that patients should in every case be examined by a qualified medical man and a record kept of the prescriptions.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I find that the facts are as stated in the question, except that the jury do not appear to have believed that any prescription was given. I am assured by the authorities of Guy's Hospital that it is entirely against the regulations for unqualified students to treat patients on their own responsibility; and that on the day following the child's death the case was brought before them and the student dealt with by them.

  PORTSKEWETT SEVERN TUNNEL SCHOOL.
  MR. GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Portskewett Severn Tunnel School was closed about three months ago, owing to the death of a sub-

  801
  scriber on whose contributions the school had almost entirely depended for local support; whether since the school was closed more than 200 children have had no opportunity of securing education; and whether he can state what steps the Department propose to take in order to provide suitable school accommodation, and whether, if another small school board be formed, he can give the population of the district over which such board would have jurisdiction.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (SIR J. GORST,): The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. Since the closing 200 children have had no public elementary school to which they could reasonably have access. There is no course open to the Education Department but to establish a school board. This will be done forthwith. The population of the Portskewett school district was 1,190 at the census of 1891.

  SCHOOL BOARD JURISDICTION.
  MR. GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education how many school boards are now existing in England and Wales, and of them how many have jurisdiction over districts containing a population of less than 500 persons; and can he state how many school attendance committees there are, and of them how many have jurisdiction in districts having a population of less than 500 persons.
  SIR J. GORST: In England there are 2,184 and in Wales 343 school boards—total, 2,527. Of these 531 in England, and 62 in Wales have jurisdiction over populations not exceeding 500. In England there are 740 school attendance committees for boroughs, urban district councils, and poor law unions; in Wales there are 52 such committees. None of them has jurisdiction over less than 1,000 population, and most of them have populations of from 2,000 to 20,000, and upwards.

  POSTMEN'S FEDERATION—REFUSAL OF LEAVE TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster
  802
  General, whether he is aware that the application of the general secretary to the Postmen's Federation for leave of absence to enable him to attend meetings of the executive of the Federation, to be held on the 29th, 30th, and 31st instant, was refused, although leave of absence was given to other members of the executive who reside in London districts; and whether, in view of the fact that the General Post Office authorities always profess a readiness to give facilities to the officers of the various associations of employees to conduct the business of these bodies, and in view of the importance of the secretary of the executive being present, he will see that leave is given them to attend.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): It is the case that the application referred to was refused, under well understood rules, which my right hon. friend will be glad to explain to the hon. Member

  BIRMINGHAM TELEGRAPH CLERKS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain on what grounds Mr. Lacon, a telegraphist in the Birmingham Post Office and secretary to the local branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association, has been stopped in the efficiency barrier; and whether as it is admitted that Mr. Lacon is a capable operator, the Postmaster General will investigate the case with a view to discover the cause which has led to this punishment.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): When the question of Mr. Lacon's increment came up for consideration in July last the postmaster felt unable for for the time being, to furnish the necessary certificate to enable Mr. Lacon to pass the efficiency bar on the ground that, although a capable officer, he had habitually exhibited a spirit of insubordination and indisposition to submit to authority. Under the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee, no officer is allowed to pass the efficiency bar without a certificate of the excellence of his conduct as well as his ability to perform the highest duties of his class, and in fixing the bar at the comparatively high point (40s. a week), the Committee stated that they held in

  803
  special view the purpose that it should be rigorously enforced.

  LIVERPOOL POST OFFICE—FINES FOR LATE ATTENDANCE.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the new arrangement for the disposal of the fines inflicted on Liverpool postmen for late attendances, whereby the staff have no longer a voice in the decision as to how the money shall be appropriated, has resulted in breaking up the men's organised effort to help the local Saturday Hospital Fund; and if so, will he consider the advisability of repealing the new regulation.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The Tweedmouth Committee stated in their Report—
  "We are informed that it is the custom to distribute the fines among the employees, and it often happens that they are returned to the very men from whom they have been exacted. For the future it is recommended that fines levied by way of punishment be applied to some purpose for the general benefit of post office servants or of their families, to be approved by the Postmaster General."
  In carrying out this recommendation the Postmaster General issued instructions that the money was to be administered by the local postmasters and to be devoted, subject to his approval, to (1) some charitable or benevolent institution for the general benefit of Post Office servants; (2) to local institutions of benefit to the staff; (3) to the relief of members of the staff—whether on the establishment or not—who through no fault of their own are in necessitous circumstances, or to afford temporary relief in cases of distress among widows and orphans of deceased members of the staff. At Liverpool the postmen have not recommended to the postmaster that any of the money should be devoted to the Hospital Saturday Fund, and it is not quite clear whether such a method of disposing of it would be altogether consistent with the directions above laid down. But the postmaster would no doubt give due weight to any representation from the staff on the subject.

  LIVERPOOL ASSISTANT POSTMEN.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain
  804
  why two assistant postmen at Liverpool, hitherto in receipt of 15s. weekly while engaged on hoist duties, have been removed in order to make room for pensioned sailors, and are now only receiving 12s. 6d. and 11s. 3d. respectively per week, although one is twenty-two and the other twenty-three years of age; and whether steps can be taken to allow the men at least an increase of wages.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The two assistant postmen referred to were temporarily employed on hoist duties only until permanent arrangements for those duties could be made. They were then returned to their former duties, but in a week's time they were employed as substitutes for postmen with wages of 18s. a week, and they are still so acting.

  SCOTTISH COMMISSIONER OF LUNACY.
  MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state under what circumstances the Commissioner in Lunacy for Scotland, who recently retired, was granted superannuation allowance on the basis of thirty-five years service, although his actual service was only twenty-eight years.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): Seven years were added to this officer's services under Section 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1859, which enables a number of years, not exceeding twenty, to be added for pension purposes to the actual service in the case of officers requiring "professional or other peculiar qualifications, not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service."

  SCOTTISH POLICE—ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE—CASE OF LAWRENCE HENDERSON.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Lawrence Henderson,, merchant, Leith, against whom a charge was made of falsifying the books and embezzling the funds of Lawrence Henderson, Sons, and Co., Limited, of which he was the managing director, who absconded from this country in consequence of that charge, and for whose arrest a reward was offered, returned to this country on 25th February, and spent

  805
  several days in Glasgow without any steps being taken for his arrest, and whether the Procurator Fiscal of Midlothian issued instructions that the warrant which had already been issued for his apprehension was not to be put in force; if so, why was not this done; why instructions were not given to watch Henderson's movements so as to prevent his again leaving this country; and whether information of Henderson's being in this country was communicated to the Procurator Fiscal on 28th February; if so, why instructions were not again issued to put the warrant in force until 6th March, and whether the original information against Henderson was lodged with the police authorities while he was still residing in Edinburgh; if so, why steps were not taken to prevent his leaving this country.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): By telegram of 17th February, and again by letter dated Philadelphia, 16th February, and received 26th February, Henderson, for whose apprehension a warrant had been granted, informed the Procurator Fiscal of his intention to surrender, stating that he would sail from New York on 24th February for Glasgow, reaching Edinburgh eleven days later. In these circumstances it was not thought necessary to put the warrant in force in the meantime. On 1st March the Procurator Fiscal was informed by the police that Henderson had reached Liverpool on the 25th February. This excited suspicion, and after inquiry instruction was given for his apprehension, which, however, has not been effected. Henderson had left Edinburgh before the original warrant was issued, and no information has been obtained that he was subsequently seen in Glasgow.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Were any steps taken to watch him at Liverpool?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: As soon as it transpired that he had arrived a day before the one announced, inquiries were made, and when the warrant was about to be put in force he was gone. We have no information that he was enabled to get hold of any money.

  SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that aiding
  806
  and developing spinning, weaving, and other home industries, the breeding of live stock, and poultry rearing, and the aiding and developing of dairy farming are amongst the duties of the Congested Districts Board, will he state what means are adopted to make known amongst the people living in the congested area the facilities which the Board are prepared to offer; and whether any Circulars dealing more especially with stock breeding, poultry rearing, and bee-keeping are issued by the Board for distribution amongst the people; and, if not, will he consider the expediency of issuing some such Circulars printed in Gaelic and English.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they have used their best endeavours to make known their objects by sending a copy of their first Report to all county and parish councils, by distributing seed and bill posters in various parishes, by conference with representative men, and in other ways. They recently issued a pamphlet upon potato spraying, and are about to issue one on poultry, as well as leaflets about stock management and ordinary cattle diseases.
  MR. WEIR: Was the pamphlet in English or Gaelic?
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: As my hon. friend knows, there are very few people there who cannot understand English.

  MIGRATIONS OF SCOTTISH CROFTERS AND COTTARS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how many crofters and cottars have been migrated, with the assistance of the Congested Districts Board, from the congested districts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland to other districts.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed that up to the present time no crofters have been actually migrated. The whole difficulties connected with the subject will be dealt with in the forth-coming Report of the Congested Districts Board.

  FISHERY HARBOURS—COLLIESTON.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to the fact

  807
  that most of the fishermen of Collieston have deserted that village and migrated to Torry, because, amongst other things, the harbour is not adaptable to the larger class of boats now indispensable to successful line fishing; whether the Fishery Board has spent a sum of about £3,000 on the harbour now deserted; whether it has been the policy of the Fishery Board to refuse help to the larger class of harbours, such as Stonehaven, which could with some improvement be admirably adapted to the modern class of boats, on the ground that these were not purely fishing harbours; and whether this policy would, in the light of such cases as Collieston, be still continued.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that it is not a fact, as stated by the hon. Member in the first paragraph of his question, that most of the fishermen of Collieston have deserted that village. The Fishery Board are assisting the fishermen and their proprietrix, at their most urgent request, to erect a harbour at Collieston, which is now approaching completion, and the fishermen appear satisfied that the harbour will be quite sufficient and suitable for their boats. The Secretary for Scotland sees no reason why the Fishery Board should alter their present policy, which is, to a large extent, guided by statute.

  ABERDEENSHIRE FISHERIES—OLD SLAINS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the entire population of the fishing village of Old Slains, Aberdeenshire, recently migrated to Tony, Aberdeen, in consequence of the difficulty which they have experienced in prosecuting their calling for the want of suitable harbour accommodation; and, in view of the fact that the fishermen of Avoch, Ross-shire, recently sustained loss from a like cause, and that demands for suitable harbour accommodation are continually made by fishermen on the coasts of the north of Scotland, will he consider the expediency of appointing a Committee to inquire into the question of harbour accommodation in Scotland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that my right hon. friend has answered a question on the subject matter of this
  808
  very fully.* With regard to the Committee asked for, I am afraid I can hold out no hope whatever of its appointment.

  SCOTTISH LUNACY BOARD.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that in the past there has been no difficulty in securing gentlemen in Scotland to undertake the duties of Chairman of the Scottish Lunacy Board without salary, fee, or remuneration beyond travelling expenses, will he state why it is proposed to pay the present chairman; does he propose that all public services in Scotland hitherto honorary shall in future be remunerated; and, seeing that the late chairman of the board gave his services gratuitously, will he say whether any efforts were made to secure the services of an honorary chairman prior to the appointment of the present chairman.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The assumption contained in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is not accurate. The Lunacy Board for Scotland remains as it was constituted in 1857, and consists of one unpaid commissioner who acts as chairman of the Board, two medical commissioners who are paid, and two legal commissioners who are unpaid. The duties are now far more onerous, and there is difficulty, of which the hon. Member appears to be unaware, in getting unpaid members. The proposal in the Bill presently before the House is to enable payment to be made to a limited extent to the members of the Commission hitherto unpaid, and is not confined to the chairman. The reply to the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the negative, and to the third, in the affirmative.

  RETURN OF SCOTTISH EDUCATION EXPENDITURE.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether there exists any Return showing the objects on which local authorities spend the sum of £100,000, granted under Section 2 (5) of the Education and Local Taxation (Scotland) Act, 1892; and, if not, whether he will grant such a Return.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The sum granted under the sub-section re-
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., p. 1191 (19th March, 1900).

  809
  ferred to by the hon. Member was in respect of the financial year ending 31st March, 1899, not £100,000, but £161,912, as shown in the summary Return presented to Parliament last year. No detailed Return of all the objects on which local authorities expend it has been obtained, but it appears from Returns made in this and previous years to the Education Department and the Scotch Office that about £100 is spent on technical education, from £1,000 to £2,000 on miscellaneous schemes of public utility, and the rest in relief of rates.

  BALINTORE HARBOUR LIGHT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Report of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, dated 27th February, 1899, shows that the light on Balintore Harbour has been so placed that it has been carried away by the sea, necessitating the use of a temporary light by the harbour authorities; and will he state whether arrangements have yet been made for the erection of a permanent light.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I should explain to the hon. Member that the Report to which he refers was made on 21st December, 1899, and not on 27th February, 1899, which latter date is a printer's error in the Parliamentary Paper, From the Report of the engineer to the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses it would appear that in December last the re-erection of the permanent light at Balintore Harbour was then under consideration by the local authority. I have no later information on the subject.

  CORK COUNTY—FORESHORE RIGHTS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have recently handed over to Lord Midleton a portion of the foreshore of the Midleton River at Ballinacurra, County Cork, and whether any communication was made to the Cork Harbour Board before this was done; whether it is the practice of the Board of Trade before alienating foreshore to first offer it to the harbour authority or to communicate with that authority, and why this practice was departed from in the present case; whether, as regards the portion of foreshore now
  810
  given up to Lord Midleton, the Cork Harbour Board had, in or about the year 1884, come to an arrangement with Lord Midleton (who then claimed it) to take a lease of it from him, but were prevented from doing so by the Board of Trade refusing its consent to the lease; whether the Board of Trade are aware that this foreshore has been commonly used by the public for many years, and that any value which it now has arises from the fact that it has been reclaimed by the Harbour Board by depositing rubbish on it; and why, in these circumstances, they handed over the foreshore to Lord Midleton.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade have recently sold to Lord Midleton the Crown right in a piece of land which was formerly foreshore of the Midleton River at Ballinacurra. No communication was addressed to or received from the Cork Harbour Commissioners in this matter prior to an offer to sell having been made to Lord Midleton. It is the usual practice of the Board to consult harbour authorities before dealing with land below high water mark within their jurisdiction, but in the present case the land was above the limit of tidal influence. In 1884 the Board declined to consent to the Harbour Commissioners taking a lease of certain foreshore in the vicinity from Lord Midleton, as it was prima facie the property of the Crown. The Board are aware that the land recently sold to Lord Midleton was formerly open to the public, but they have no information as to its having been reclaimed by the Harbour Commissioners, and the Board gave no permission to the Commissioners to deposit rubbish thereon. As Lord Midleton claimed the ownership of the land in question, and wished to utilise it for developing local trade, the Board of Trade decided to convey to him the rights of the Crown, thereby avoiding the risk of expensive litigation.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Did not the interference of the Board of Trade in this matter deprive the authorities of land which they would otherwise have acquired?
  MR. RITCHIE: I can only say we took what we believed to be the most beneficial course.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Why did not the Board of Trade communicate

  811
  with the local authorities in the usual manner?
  MR. RITCHIE: The practice of the Board of Trade is invariably to communicate with the local authorities when it is a question of land below high water mark. But this was above high water mark.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: So is all land that is any good.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not the fact that the Cork Harbour Commissioners protested against the sale more than twelve months ago? Did they not say that attempts to improve the land would be in vain while it was in private ownership?
  MR. FLYNN: Why was this preference given to Lord Midleton? Does the right hon. Gentleman know?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Aye, does he know?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I do know. Lord Midleton claimed that this land was his and not the Crown's; and after taking legal advice we came to the conclusion that, in order to prevent long, expensive, and probably fruitless litigation, we would give way.
  MR. HAYDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the land is claimed by the Cork Harbour Board——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is impossible to follow this matter further in question and answer.
  MR. FLYNN: This is a flagrant job; and we shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it intended to take any steps to protect the public interest?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  DEPORTATION OF IRISH PAUPERS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the proceedings at Blackburn on the 27th inst., at which a workhouse inmate named Edward Murray, who said he had spent 63 years in England, was ordered by the magistrates to be removed to Kilmana,
  812
  County Mayo; and will the Government take steps to prevent the deportation of paupers (who have spent the greater portion of their lives in England) to Ireland, and thus burdening the rates of Poor Law unions.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board have no information with regard to the case referred to in the question; but, as I have stated on a previous occasion, a Bill is in preparation on the subject of the deportation of paupers from England to Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Pending the introduction and passing of the Bill, could not cases like this stand over?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That is entirely a matter for the local boards of guardians. The Government has nothing whatever to do with it.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not the case this man was born on the same day as the Queen? Is that the reason for deporting him on the occasion of Her Majesty's visit to Ireland?
  [No answer was given.]

  CASTLEBLANEY UNION DISPENSARY DOCTOR.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Castleblaney Board of Guardians, at their meeting on the 7th instant, refused to pay the sub-stitute of a doctor of one of the dispensary districts of that union when absent at the assizes; and that this is considered a grievance by the Guardians of Castleblaney Union in having to pay the sub-stitute of a doctor who is getting his salary when absent and at the same time earning a fee of £2 2s. per day as well as travelling expenses; and whether he will direct the Local Government Board to order, when dispensary doctors are summoned by the Crown as witnesses, that these doctors will pay their substitutes in the future.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Local Government Board have been advised that a doctor

  813
  who is compelled under subpԓna to attend a Court of Justice is temporarily incapacitated from performing his duties within the meaning of the Relief Acts, and that the Board of Guardians were bound, therefore, to make provision for the care of the sick poor during his absence by employing and paying a temporary substitute. The doctor, if obliged to pay his substitute out of the expenses he receives as witness would, in many cases, be out of pocket by reason of his obedience to the subpœna. The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  IRISH POOR LAW DIETARY SCALES—CARRICKMACROSS WORKHOUSE.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the average cost per inmate per week in Carrickmacross Workhouse for the past year was 3s. 9¼d., while in Monaghan the average cost per inmate was only 2s. 8d. per week; whether he is aware that the same Local Government Board inspector inspects both workhouses, and if he can state why such a disparity was allowed by this inspector in the dietary of these workhouses; whether he is aware that, if the treatment to the paupers of Monaghan Workhouse be correct, the ratepayers of Carrickmacross Union are losing £250 per annum owing to the high average cost in that workhouse; and whether he can state what course he intends to take to relieve the ratepayers of Carrickmacross Union of this high average cost when compared with Monaghan.
  MR. ATKINSON: The figures are correctly stated in the first paragraph. The same inspector is in charge of the Unions of Carrickmacross and Monaghan. Differences in the average cost of maintenance in one workhouse as compared with another may obviously be due to several causes; for example, the relative consumption of stimulants, the terms upon which contracts for workhouse supplies have been accepted, the proportion of sick patients. These are not matters in which an inspector of the Local Government Board exercises any responsibility, nor has he power to enforce the adoption of a particular scale of dietary, though he may make recommendations in this last-mentioned respect for the consideration of the guardians. The fact that the cost of maintenance in Monaghan is relatively
  814
  low does not necessarily prove that there is a waste of £250 a year in Carrickmacross Workhouse, as the question assumes. In reply to the concluding paragraph, the Local Government Board do not propose to interfere with the guardians in the matter.

  CARRICKMACROSS URBAN AND RURAL BOUNDARIES.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians unanimously passed a resolution that the Local Government Board would reconsider the adjustment made by Colonel O'Hara between Carrickmacross Urban and Carrickmacross Rural Districts; whether he is aware that Carrickmacross Urban District, with a valuation of £3,010, has only to pay £40 4s. 5d., while Carrickmacross Rural District with a valuation of £5,500, has to bear £102; whether he is aware that, according to the statement of the Clerk of the Union of Carrickmacross, Colonel O'Hara only remained there half an hour to adjust the affairs of sixteen electoral divisions; and whether he will direct a further inquiry into the matters complained of.
  MR. ATKINSON: The resolution referred to in the first paragraph has been received. The figures are as stated in the second paragraph. It is to be observed, however, that there are many items chargeable wholly upon rural divisions, and others upon the urban division, which would affect an apportionment of the total debits based on valuation alone. I am unable to say how long Colonel O'Hara remained at Carrickmacross. A lengthened stay was apparently not required, inasmuch as the adjustment is made upon figures which were certified by the auditor at his audit for the half-year ended March, 1899, and all these figures were obtainable in the office of the Local Government Board. As no error in the figures has been shown, it is not intended to hold a further inquiry as suggested.

  MULLINGAR COUNTY COURT HOUSE.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN (Donegal, N.): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether the sub-sheriff of West-meath has an office in the county court house at Mullingar with a notice on the door marked "Private"; and, if so, is the

  815
  sheriff's office a private one or a public one; whether the Distributor of Stamps for the King's County District has his office in the county court house at Mullingar, with the sign "District Stamp Office" over the door; and, if so, does he pay a rent for such office; and, if not, by what right does he use the public building for his private business; and whether the Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the County Westmeath conducts part of his business as such clerk through the sub-sheriff; and, if so, whether it is in the interest of the public that the sub-sheriff should have access to and control of the Peace Office.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware whether the facts are as stated in this question. The allocation of the apartments in the court-house is entirely a matter for arrangement between the High Sheriff and the local authorities, and the Executive Government have no power to interfere.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: Then may he let lodgings if he chooses?
  [No answer was given.]

  CORK DISTRICT ASYLUM—CRIMINAL LUNATICS.
  MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since January 1897, criminal lunatics to the number of twenty-six have been transferred to the Cork District Lunatic Asylum; and whether it is legal to transfer criminal lunatics to district lunatic asylums; and, if so, should they be chargeable on the rates.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): Since January, 1897, twenty-eight criminal lunatics have been transferred to the Cork District Lunatic Asylum. They were nearly all cases of short sentence, and ceased to be criminal lunatics properly speaking within a very short time—usually not more than a few weeks—of their transfer. It is legal to transfer such lunatics to district asylums under the provisions of the Acts 1 Vic. cap. 27, and 38 and 39 Vic. cap. 67, s. 13. When so transferred, one-half the cost of their maintenance, approximately, is paid by the Imperial Exchequer; the balance only falls on the local rates.
  MR. CREAN: Will that be done in connection with the cases to which I have referred?
  MR. ATKINSON: Certainly.

  CORK COUNTY LAND HOLDINGS—SUB-LETTING.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of a holding purchased under the Land Purchase Acts situate in the County Cork, the Land Commission have recently permitted the tenant purchaser to permanently sublet the whole holding at a substantial rent as an ordinary agricultural holding, thereby recreating the relation of landlord and tenancy in the holding; whether the Land Commission intend as a general practice to waive the prohibition of sub-letting in the case of holdings purchased under the Land Purchase Acts, and to permit the purchasers at their pleasure to become landlord; what the reasons for allowing sub-letting in this particular case were; and whether the person to whom this holding was sub-let will himself be entitled to purchase the holding under the Land Purchase Acts.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): This question does not contain sufficient information to enable the Land Commissioners to identify the particular case to which reference is made. If the hon. Member will furnish me with the name of the tenant purchaser and the townland in which the holding is situate I will call for a further Report in the matter.

  FLAX GROWING IN IRELAND.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether he has taken any steps to instruct the people of Ireland in the growth of flax, or if he will see to this matter during the present season for sowing flax.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUN-KETT,): No steps have yet been taken in the direction indicated in the question, though inquiries have been made which will enable the Department, when fully constituted, to give early attention to this important matter.

  BALLYHEIGUE BAY—SUGGESTED BOATSLIP.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether he is aware that the late C. H. Smith, divisional officer at Ballyheigue, County Kerry, reported that large shoals of mackerel, herrings, and other fish appear in Ballyheigue Bay; and whether, with the view of developing the fishing industry in that poor district, a suitable pier or boatslip will be constructed, as suggested by the late Mr. Smith, so as to accommodate and give employment to the large number of fishermen in the district.
  MR. PLUNKETT: I am informed that in November, 1897, Mr. Smith, the divisional officer of coastguard, reported that small, not large, shoals of mackerel and herrings had been observed off Ballyheigue at different periods of the autumn season. The question of the construction of a pier or boatslip has on more than one occasion engaged the attention of the Congested Districts Board, who, however, have not seen their way to take any further action in the matter.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most suitable place for the pier? Will he not recommend the Board to undertake this small outlay?
  MR. PLUNKETT: I am afraid not. The matter has been fully considered, and the Board came to its decision after a full examination of the proposal.

  ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE FOR IRELAND.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in connection with the Royal Veterinary College for Ireland, owing to the fact that out of twenty-eight governors in that institution only four are veterinary surgeons, and also to the fact that of the four veterinary surgeons on the Board none are Roman Catholics; and whether, owing to the very large number of Roman Catholic students and veterinary surgeons in Ireland, steps will be taken to give representation on the Board by the appointment or otherwise of a reasonable number of Roman Catholic veterinary surgeons.
  MR. PLUNKETT: A desire has been expressed by some members of the veterinary profession to have a larger representation on the governing body of the Royal Veterinary College of Ireland, but I am not aware that any dissatisfaction exists as to the religious complexion of the existing representation. At present twelve governor's are Roman Catholics. Considerations of religion have not entered into the appointments referred to in the question, and it is to be hoped that they will not do so in any future appointments.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, with four veterinary surgeons on the Board, there is no Catholic amongst them?
  MR. PLUNKETT: I suppose through other qualifications.

  CLOSURE MOTIONS IN COMMITTEE.
  SIR HENRY HOWARTH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the occasional paralysis of proceedings when the House is in Committee, caused by the fact that in the absence of the Chairman of Committees it is not possible to invoke the closure; and whether he can see his way to cancelling the clause in the Standing Order which restricts the use of the closure to the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, instead of extending its use to any occupant of the Chair for the time being.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I recognise, as the House must recognise, that this is an important matter which may very well engage the attention of the House. I do not think that my hon. friend can ask me to propose an alteration of the Standing Order in the present session. At all events, as at present advised, I should be disinclined to follow any such course.

  THE POSTMASTER GENERALSHIP—SUCCESSOR TO THE DUKE OE NORFOLK.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that between the passing of the Reform Act of 1867 and 1895 no fewer than eleven gentlemen have held the office of Postmaster General, and of these ten had seats in the House of Commons, and only one, Lord Wolverton, who was Postmaster General for

  819
  six months in 1886, was a Member of the House of Lords; and whether, having regard to the duties appertaining to the office of Postmaster General and the constant supervision of the House of Commons over the Postal Department, the Government, in advising Her Majesty on the appointment of a successor to the Duke of Norfolk, will recommend a Member of the House of Commons.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that the hon. Gentleman's statistics in the first paragraph are accurate, but it does not rest with me to recommend to the Crown the person to fill the office, nor should the question be addressed to me.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The gentleman to whom the question ought to be addressed is not in this House. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his potent influence with that gentleman?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Who has been appointed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No official information!

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Can the right hon. Gentleman now state when the debate on the Education Code will be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that I can give no information with regard to public business beyond Tuesday next. The amount of business we got through yesterday was much less than I expected, and I shall have to reconsider the general amount of work to be got through before the holidays and the allocation of time most convenient to the House.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: In view of the lamentable loss of life and injuries through accidents to railway servants, and the recommendations of the Royal Commission thereon, cannot the right hon. Gentleman place the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill in such a position as will enable it to be effectively proceeded with—say, first on the Orders of the Day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have every hope and expectation that the Railways
  820
  (Prevention of Accidents) Bill will pass before the Easter holidays, whenever that may be.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Is it the intention of the Government, following the usual practice, to state the specific measures which must be got through before the House adjourns for Easter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I anticipate that on Monday the Leader of the Opposition, who I hope will then be able to be in his place, will put a question to me on that subject, when I will endeavour to the best of my ability to indicate the business to be got through before the recess.
  MR. DILLON: When is it proposed to take the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say.
  MR. DILLON: Will it be taken on Tuesday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If hon. Members desire, I will not press it on that day.

  ALIEN SEAMEN IN BRITISH SHIPS.
  [MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSONrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the imminent despatch by the Government of the steamship 'Caspian' and the steamship 'Sapphire,' with Government stores for Her Majesty's troops in South Africa, though manned in large part by alien seamen"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen—
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I venture to say, Sir, that this is a most important question. I have several times during the last three months called the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the fact that a large number of the vessels employed in the carrying of Government stores to the troops in South Africa have been manned almost entirely by alien sailors and firemen. Now, I want to be very clear upon this

  821
  point. I am making no complaint whatever with regard to the vessels that are carrying the troops, because the liners that have convoyed the bulk of the troops are the Union, the Castle, the Cunard, and the White Star line, which are always in ordinary times manned by British subjects. As a matter of fact on all the liners conveying troops there have been very few foreigners indeed. But the vessels I am complaining of are the steamers that have been employed in carrying guns, ammunition and stores for the troops, and if it is so important that the vessels carrying the troops should be manned by British subjects, then I venture to say it is also important that the vessels carrying ammunition and guns for those troops should also be manned by British seamen. Nor yet am I making any complaint of the employment of foreign seamen who have been long resident in this country, and who have earned their living in Great Britain for many years. That is not the kind of foreigner I am complaining of. The class of men I am complaining of are the crews that have been engaged at continental ports, because the wages at the continental ports are £1 or 30s. a month less than those paid at the ports in Great Britain. I was somewhat surprised at the answer which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty gave to the question with regard to the steamer "Caspian." If I understood him aright he said that this vessel was not chartered by the Government, but had been chartered through the Castle line.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): She was not chartered by the Government at all. She was chartered by the owners to the Union Steamship Company, and was taken up by the Government from them.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I do not see any difference between a vessel being engaged in that way and one engaged direct by the Government. The Government will have to pay for it, and should, therefore, have control over it. Consequently the responsibility for manning it rests entirely with the Admiralty, and if the Admiralty had cared to give definite instructions to those who chartered the vessel that she should be manned by British subjects, I venture to say that the
  822
  charterers would have seen that that was done. Now, how was this vessel manned? I find that she engaged her crew at Antwerp on the 9th March. There were twenty-six men signed on, and of these twenty-five were foreigners composed of nine different nationalities. There is a German carpenter, a Belgian steward, a Greek mess-room steward, a Greek cook, and a German boatswain. Among the able-bodied seamen are an Italian, a Greek, an American, an Austrian, and a Boer Dutchman. Among the ordinary seamen I find a Belgian, and men of four or five other nationalities, the list ending up with a Spanish cook. I say that the idea of a vessel carrying Government stores being manned by natives of countries which have shown marked hostility to this country during the war in South Africa, is a bad one. Apart from that I think it is a most dangerous practice, and one which the Admiralty ought to stop at once. How do we know that Dr. Leyds may not have one of his emissaries on board the ship? During the progress of the voyage out it would be quite possible for such a man when steering the vessel into one of the ports, to make a mistake and run her on to the rocks, with the consequent loss of valuable stores, which it would not be very easy to replace by the time they were required. With regard to the "Sapphire," I believe she was chartered direct to carry stores. I put a question with respect to her yesterday,* and postponed it by request, but by mistake it appears to have disappeared from the Orders of the Day altogether. With regard to this vessel, she was lying in the Tyne. There are a large number of seamen out of employment there at the present time—close upon one thousand British seamen. Yet the owners of this vessel in order to get cheaper labour took her round to Cardiff and got Spaniards and other foreigners to take the place of British seamen. These are not the only vessels I have complained of. I have sent several communications to the Admiralty.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Two others.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I think more than two, and the hon. Gentleman has on several occasions promised me that the matter should be inquired into. With regard to the "Anglo-Germanic"——
  * See page 680 of this volume.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the cases of the two vessels named in his motion.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I think I have explained sufficiently how the "Caspian" and the "Sapphire" were manned, and now, with the permission of the House, I would just like to say that this is a practice which ought to be stopped at once. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman may say in reply to me. Perhaps he may tell me that foreigners have been engaged because they are more sober and steady, and that consequently discipline can be better maintained among them. If he does say that, I am in a position to answer him. I have had a look at the log-book for the last voyage of the "Caspian." For that voyage she was chartered by the Government to carry mules to the Cape. I find that the crew then engaged also consisted of foreigners, as now. During the progress of that voyage six of the foreigners seemed to have been put in prison for being drunk and disorderly. There are numerous entries in the official log of members of the crew being drunk and refusing to do duty, and I observe one entry on the 14th of the first month of a foreigner being drunk and disorderly, of his using disgusting language to his officers, and of his having to be given over to the police. It is perfectly true that the crew of which I am complaining is not the crew on board the ship at the present time, but I am only using the composition of that crew and their conduct to illustrate that they do not give better service than British seamen. I say that the log of this vessel, while she has been in the service of the Government, goes to prove that they cannot get better service from foreigners than from British seamen, and it is only in that sense that I am using it. The right hon. Gentleman may look on this as a very light matter. I hope he will not; for I can see very clearly that if we were in conflict with a great European Power, and if the vessels conveying our war stores to distant parts of the world were manned in this way, it would be a very serious matter indeed. It would be quite possible for any of those Powers with which we were at war to put their emissaries on board the ships we have chartered
  824
  and do considerable damage to them. One case has already occurred where one of the friends of the Boers was engaged as a deck hand, and the circumstances connected with that are very suspicious. A vessel chartered by the Government was leaving one of our ports, and one of the sailors who was born a German said he was a citizen of the Transvaal. Two or three days before he was engaged he was boasting amongst a large number of seamen how he would like to see the British defeated in the present war. Well, the vessel was sent to sea, and as she was passing out of port this very man was called to the wheel. He had not been one minute at the wheel when the vessel ran ashore and became a total wreck. I do not say that the man did it deliberately, because I cannot prove it. But there is a good deal of suspicion attached to the whole affair, considering that he should have been speaking so strongly against the British in the present conflict, and that he should have been the man to run the vessel on shore. The unfortunate pilot's certificate was suspended in consequence, and I venture to say that the pilot was not responsible for the loss of that vessel. If Dr. Leyds had been half as smart as he is considered to be he would have had a number of his emissaries on board all our ships carrying guns and stores to South Africa; and had anything happened there would have been consternation at once at the Admiralty, and there would have been general orders issued at once that these aliens were not to be engaged on our transports. We have a special claim to ask Her Majesty's Government to stop this practice of employing foreign seamen on board our ships carrying stores and war material. One of the items on their programme at the General Election was to prevent alien immigration into this country; and that is one of the planks of their platform still. Surely, then, they ought, of all Governments, to put their foot down and say that every vessel carrying Government property shall be manned by British subjects or by foreigners who have been long resident in this country. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say that there is some difficulty in getting the men, but if he puts that forward as a defence, I want to tell him that we inserted an advertisement in the Cardiff,

  825
  Newcastle, and several other papers, and inside twelve hours we had no fewer than 2,000 British seamen registered for employment in transport ships. They were ready and willing to take employment, but could not get it, because the owners thought they could get foreigners on the cheap. It is the duty of the Government to enforce the fair wage resolution of this House; and I do not think it is right to allow owners who charter ships for British service to engage men on the Continent on the cheap. I do not think I need labour the question more fully. I trust we shall have a straightforward answer from the Admiralty; but I want more. I want the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole subject, and as to whether it is possible, in the event of a conflict with a great European Power, that we should have all our ships manned with British seamen.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Havelock Wilson.)
  MR. MACARTNEY: The hon. Gentleman must not assume that the Admiralty look upon the manning of the ships of the mercantile marine in a light or casual manner. It is a matter, from every point of view, which has given the Admiralty considerable anxiety. No Department in the State could feel more the importance of the manning of the mercantile marine to a large extent by foreigners than the Department on behalf of which I am now replying. The hon. Gentleman, I am sure, did not intend to lead the House to suppose that in the communications which passed between him and myself anything I have said suggested that I personally have looked upon this as a matter which ought not to be remedied. Now, the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is the employment of foreigners on our ships. That is a matter which has been felt, at least so far as the mercantile marine is concerned, for many years. Parliament has not laid it down that owners of ships in the mercantile marine should not, if they chose, employ foreigners, and the Admiralty have therefore dealt with the question as it exists. There is no question raised here of unseaworthiness or undermanning.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I might have raised that question.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Now, what is the duty which the Admiralty have to carry out at the present moment? It is the extremely important duty of conveying, with the utmost precision and despatch, stores of all sorts to the troops, and to the transports conveying these troops to South Africa, and to Her Majesty's ships in these distant waters. I think that the House will agree that the utmost despatch is the first duty which lies on the Admiralty, and that they should not from any other motive which may operate on their minds be diverted from that necessary and primary duty. Take the case of the "Caspian." She was taken up by the Admiralty on the 26th February, but she was not chartered by the Admiralty, and, therefore, the Admiralty have no direct relations to the owners. Her owners chartered her on a time charter to the Union Steamship Company, and under that charter the owners are responsible to the Union Steamship Company for the crew, and for the manning of the vessel. Our relations did not bring us into contact with the owners, and, therefore, we had no knowledge of what her crew was composed. It was a matter of imperative urgency with us to get the tonnage required at that moment. The "Caspian," as I have said, was taken up on agreement on 26th February. She arrived at Antwerp on the 1st or 2nd of March. She received orders to proceed to London for the Cape, and I understand, having received these orders, she engaged a fresh crew, the former crew having been discharged at Antwerp according to the articles of the ship. Under these circumstances, everything being legal, and there being no reason to suppose on the part of the Admiralty that the Union Steamship Company, which the hon. Gentleman says is a company of the highest repute, would have offered to us a ship for Government service which was not perfectly capable of carrying out the services required, I submit to the House that in asking the Admiralty at this moment to put into operation a system of administration in regard to the manning of ships of the mercantile marine which Parliament has not yet attempted to enforce in ordinary times, the hon. Gentleman is asking a thing which is utterly impracticable and impossible.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Might I ask if it is not the fact that the Admiralty are putting that principle in operation in regard to ships which are carrying troops?
  MR. MACARTNEY: No, sir. We have made certain stipulations with regard to the transports taken up for the conveyance of troops. These vessels are taken up on time charter, and there is all the difference in the world between the conditions of a time charter and the agreement which was made in regard to the "Caspian" and other ships on tonnage or freight. During the period that is run on a time charter the persons employed on the chartered ships are fully protected by the Government, and during that time the remuneration is that which comes from Government employment. But if we take up a freight or tonnage charter we may only take up two, fifty, a hundred, or a thousand tons—only a small part of the tonnage of the ship.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: This vessel was fully loaded.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Quite true; but she was not taken up on time conditions. The "adventure" was not "terminated" at a port in South Africa, but the vessel might go on to any other part of the world. The hon. Gentleman asks whether this is a question to which our attention has been directed. It is; and we have been most anxious to make conditions which would carry into effect the views of the hon. Gentleman, views with which every Member of the House sympathises. But the hon. Gentleman knows that probably there never was a time when it was more difficult to get freight ships, not only for Admiralty purposes, but for the contractors also. Contractors have found the greatest difficulty in getting freights to carry materials to carry on their work, and I am informed by those who are acting for the Admiralty in taking up freight ships for stores and coals that it would be absolutely impossible to obtain them as speedily as is necessary if strict regulations were put in the agreements. We have to buy coal in reply to telegraphic instructions from the Cape, St. Vincent, and elsewhere, and we have to get freight for it at the earliest moment, and in relation to stores we have received urgent
  828
  recommendations from the War Office. In these circumstances, however desirable it might be to introduce restrictions of the character advocated by the hon. Gentleman, I am bound to tell the House that it would be absolutely impossible to carry on with any efficiency the great national work the Admiralty now has on hand, if it were insisted on. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be content with the assurance I have given him that the Admiralty does not look on this matter in a light or negligent spirit. If they saw the opportunity they would be only too glad to encourage by their own action the larger employment of British sailors by the mercantile marine.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid it was not for the purpose of unduly prolonging the debate that he rose, but for the purpose of asking for a little further information. The hon. Gentleman opposite had informed the House that if the Admiralty were chartering a ship for the conveyance of troops certain conditions would be imposed, including some as to the constitution of the crews. But in this case, though the whole ship was needed for Government stores, no conditions of this kind were imposed. And the crew of the "Caspian," as explained by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, was composed of men of the most diverse nationalities, so that they would be unable to speak to each other.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The crews understand English.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman; they do not.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid that unless the men did understand English they would be unable to communicate with each other and with those in authority. There might also be among them some who were hostile to this country, who might take a favourable opportunity to do an ill turn, by which the stores and ship might be lost. He did not think sufficient information had been given to the House as to the precautions that were taken, having regard to the fact that in the particular case to which the motion referred the cargo consisted wholly of stores of Her Majesty's

  829
  Government. In a case of this kind where it was of vital importance that the troops should receive whatever was sent out in perfect safety, he thought the House would desire that some special precautions should be taken by the Transport Department. In saying this he wished to guard himself from the suspicion of casting any reflection on that department. He had already spoken this session of the remarkable regularity and despatch with which the Admiralty had performed transport work on an unprecedented scale; but, as this matter had been brought forward, he thought the House should be placed in possession of fuller information upon it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I may frankly admit that I was startled when I saw the composition of the crews of these two ships, and I regret their composition as much as anybody can. My right hon. friend asked what precautions were taken. In these particular cases the Admiralty relied upon the high character of the persons with whom they were contracting, the Union Steamship Company, and did not ask what was the composition of the crews. In the case of transports, the ships are under the control of the Admiralty, but it is impossible, in the case of the despatch of stores in response to telegraphed requisitions, to inquire into the composition of the crews of the vessels in which they are sent. We are bound to weigh the rapidity of our transactions against any possible risks. We have been conducting this business now for nearly six months, and hundreds of ships have been chartered without any accident having occurred. The owners are responsible, and I hope there are no ship-owners in this country conducting business of this kind who are not careful to see that their ships are properly found. In this case all the officers were British, and we were given to understand that the majority of the crew were.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the officers were disgusted with the crew.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Admiralty cannot in a moment of emergency enter into the composition of the crew of a vessel. I can only express my regret at the state of
  830
  things that has been pointed out, and I hope that all owners with whom the Admiralty have to deal in the future will avoid the necessity of a case like this being brought before the House. I cannot go beyond that, but I hope I have convinced the House that the Admiralty by no means minimises the importance of the matter.
  COMMANDER BETHELLexpressed the hope that the Government would take into consideration generally the practice of employing foreign seamen on British ships.
  Question put and negatived.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Power, Sir Reginald Hanson, and Sir Elliott Lees; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Macaleese, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, and Mr. Giles.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  SHOP HOURS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend The Shop Hours Act, 1892, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Steadman, Mr. John Burns, Sir Charles Dilke, and Mr. Woods.
  SHOP HOURS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Shop Hours Act, 1892," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
  Bill to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Richards, Sir Albert Rollit, and Mr. Woods.

  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  "To establish a Court of Criminal Appeal," presented, and read the first

  831
  time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

  VACCINATION.
  Bill to declare the Law that no prosecution shall be commenced without the authority of the Guardians, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Broad-hurst, Mr. Charming, Sir Charles Dilke, and Mr. Steadman.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  "To declare the Law that no prosecution shall be commenced without the authority of the Guardians," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]
SUPPLY.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [23rd March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question again proposed.

  PHYSICAL AND MILITARY INSTRUCTION IN STATE-AIDED SCHOOLS.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONwho had on the Paper the following notice—
  "To call attention to the importance of instituting physical and military drill for boys in all State-aided or rate-aided schools; and to move, That it is highly expedient for the physical and moral development of the youth of the country, and that it would conduce to national defence, that boys of school age should be regularly instructed in physical and military drill; that this House is of opinion that such instruction should be an obligatory part of the curriculum in all schools aided by public grants, except in cases of physical disability; and that suitable provisions should be inserted in the Code for carrying out this object"—
  said that attention had been directed in an increasing degree to this matter in recent years. All through the country there were organisations for strengthening the physique of the young by drill more or less advanced according to their age, and in many cases with very happy results. There were exercises for boys which had a distinctly military character, and it might be that these organisations
  832
  conduced towards a greater inclination for the military profession. He knew that many who had passed through church brigades and boys' brigades had proved very useful soldiers and sailors, but he did not propose to enter into that branch of the subject that night. His object was to obtain a more regular and general system of physical instruction in the primary schools. Great attention had been called to this matter by the Earl of Meath, a nobleman who was well known for his philanthropic work, and it was chiefly owing to him in 1895 that there was introduced into the Education Code of that year a direct reference to the giving of instruction in physical and military drill in schools, and it had continued in the Code up to the present time. In the course of last autumn a correspondence was published between the War Office and the Education Department in regard to the giving of improved instruction in military drill in schools. In answer to a letter from the Education Department, the Secretary of State for War indicated that he was ready to provide instructors and appliances for drill in schools if the Education Council was prepared to meet the expense of so doing. The Education Department gave a cold answer to the communication of the War Office, and indicated that already there was a considerable amount of physical instruction given in the schools, and that they could not give additional funds for that purpose. There was published at the same time in the newspapers a paragraph in regard to the revised instructions given to Her Majesty's Inspectors applicable to the Code. He called attention to this because it indicated a retrograde policy of the Department, which justified him in bringing it before the House. In paragraph 29 of the Revised Instructions issued to Her Majesty's Inspectors and applicable to the Code of 1899 he found these words—
  "Instruction in Swedish or other drill, or in suitable physical exercises is a condition of the higher grant for discipline and organisation. Military drill for boys has been found very attractive in some districts, and deserves encouragement. A healthy game, which is one of the best forms of physical exercise, will satisfy the conditions of the Code. In country schools such games are almost always possible, and if played during an attendance should be supervised by some member of the staff who should teach the most skilful method of play,

  833
  and should encourage orderly behaviour and stop quarrelling."
  Of course that was all very well, but it was a curious thing that in the new Education Code for 1900 a provision was omitted which was contained in Article 100(b) of the Code last year, and in the previous Codes since 1895. The provision was as follows—
  "The higher grant for discipline and organisation will not be paid to any school in which provision has not been made in the approved time-table for instruction in Swedish or other drill, or in suitable physical exercises, but children employed in labour and attending school half-time, and children for whom such instruction is unsuitable, may be exempted."
  The only reference that could be at all connected with the subject of drill was expressed in these words—
  "Grants are also made for the further instruction of certificated teachers and assistant teachers (Art. 79) in drawing, experimental science, modern languages, cookery, woodwork, school gymnastics, or military drill, or such other subjects approved by the Department as may form part of the curriculum of a public school in receipt of Parliamentary grants or of a higher grade school."
  The provision expressly indicated, he believed, that military drill as a course of instruction had been omitted from the present Code. The Scotch Education Department had taken an altogether different direction by encouraging the introduction of military drill in schools. The Secretary of the Scotch Education Department recently issued a circular to school boards which contained the following—
  "I am directed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh to bring under the attention of school boards and managers of schools a subject which is one of great public importance, and which, in his Lordship's opinion, concerns not less the interests of the pupils of State-aided schools than the welfare and security of the Empire. It is that of physical exercise, and particularly of those forms of military drill which most effectively develop the physical capacities of the pupils, and train them in the habit of the combined and dexterous employment of these capacities. Lord Balfour is convinced that such exercises, apart from any other consideration, would be a most important aid in attaining some substantial objects at which all education must aim. Not only do they tend to improve manual dexterity and to render more alert the faculties of observation, but they are also pre-eminently useful in developing those habits of comradeship, of responsibility, and of individual resource, which are of supreme importance, not only to the nation as a whole, but to the individual pupil. Indirectly they bring the individual into contact with the principles which lie at
  834
  the foundation of national defence, and they bring home to him his duties and responsibilities as a citizen of the Empire, while at the same time giving him an opportunity of strengthening and developing his physical powers and rendering him more fit for his ordinary employment. Whatever form the military service of our country may hereafter assume, it is evident that the strength and security of the Empire as a whole, as well as that of every individual citizen, must depend upon the extent to which the moral elements of responsibility, duty, and readiness of judgment, along with the physical capacities, may be developed. Success in this can only be achieved by careful consideration of the best methods, and by employing these strenuously and zealously during school life. Attention to physical training becomes all the more urgent owing to the tendency of population to gather to the larger towns, where the opportunities for physical exercises are necessarily restricted. … The grant (the amount of which in proportion to the local effort must be based on general considerations) is paid on the general efficiency of the school, and that efficiency is tested by the adequacy of the training it supplies. Lord Balfour is of opinion that the thoroughness of the physical training must form a very important element in that test. He will direct the particular attention of the inspectors of schools to this subject; and it will probably be felt that fitness to judge of it ought to form an important qualification in those who aspire in future to fill such posts, and will not be found to be incompatible with the highest efficiency in other respects."
  With regard to the question whether military drill had been given up in favour of physical exercises, he had been in communication with the superintendent of physical training under the London School Board, who had written as follows—
  "Prior to my appointment under the London School Board in 1889, military drill and the old extension motions were taught in all boys' departments, but on taking up my duties I introduced a system of military exercises and as much military drill as was laid down in the Red-book from Section 1 to Section 26, exclusive of Section 8 (extension motions). This system is now taught in all schools under the School Board. The system of physical exercises is that sanctioned and adopted by the inspector of gymnasia at Aldershot, and taught in all Army schools."
  This gentleman also distinctly denied that there had been any retrogression with regard to military drill. Nobody desired to have the boys treated as soldiers, or to see militarism introduced into the schools, but it was desirable that there should be such physical training as was best secured by simple military methods of drill. By this means the scholars would be physically developed

  835
  and their intelligence awakened. This system had been carried out in the district of East Hants and West Sussex, where the inspector, Mr. Burrows, was an enthusiast. If those who were opposed to this system could only see the smartness and general appearance of the scholars in the schools in that district they would be converted. Mr. Burrows had written as follows:—
  "The Portsmouth district under my charge embraces East Hants and West Sussex, extends along the coast from Gosport and Portsmouth to Bognor, includes Jersey, and is bounded on the north by the Southdowns from the outskirts of Arundel to a line about ten miles west of Petersfield. Within these districts strong contrasts exist, such as that between schools in the midst of Portsmouth and those in the remote villages of the downs and of the forest country round Wolmer. In spite of these varied conditions I am able to say that in all boys' schools or departments throughout my district some approved form of military or physical drill, with or without arms, accompanied by music, is regularly practised, and that in all girls' and infants' schools; or departments and in all mixed schools some kind of physical or Swedish drill with music is the rule. This has been the case for some years, long before public interest was aroused in the matter. In a considerable number of boys' schools the drill is purely military, including extension motions and company drill. In other schools physical drill, based more or less on military methods, is adopted, I have never proposed a uniform scheme, as it seems best that each school should take its own line within due limits, so long as the result arrived at is genuine physical and moral training. There is no subject so popular with children as drill which is taught during the ordinary school hours. The teachers are unanimous in stating that this training not only produces steadiness, obedience, smartness, and concentration, but certainly strengthens and brightens the intellectual power of the scholars. Throughout the whole of my district it is now clearly understood that drill forms one of the most important parts of elementary education. For much of the merely mental instruction is forgotten when the short school days end, but physical and moral training, inseparable if taught aright, will abide, and will form the sturdy stuff sorely needed by England and the Empire. A display of drill always forms a prominent feature of my annual inspection of all schools, whether large or small, whether in town or country. To this custom and to the unfailing readiness and enthusiasm with which the subject has been taken up by managers and teachers I attribute the remarkable progress made since their attention was drawn to it four years ago. Portsmouth set such a zealous and successful example, as was to be expected from the schools of the first naval port of the kingdom. Much of this progress is also due to the energetic formation of school bands to lead the exercises and marching. All large schools and many smaller ones now possess bands of six to thirty performers, using
  836
  drums and fifes in the boys' and violins in the girls' schools. These bands are composed of teachers of all grades and of elder scholars. The use of these instruments does away with the necessity of costly pianos, and enables the band to be maintained at a trifling expense, and to be moved into the playground to lead open-air drill in fine weather."
  A very important point was that in this district, in which the system was such a great success, the teachers themselves were enthusiastic in the matter. Many of the teachers had learned their drill in the local Volunteer corps attached to the training colleges. Instead, therefore, of employing military instructors these teachers taught the children the drill. It was always an advantage that both the physical and the educational teaching should be in the same hands; at any rate it had been extremely successful in the East Hants and West Sussex district. Moreover, the drill formed a part of the regular curriculum. In some cases there was a certain time devoted to the subject every day, while in others the instruction was given on alternate days. It was a noticeable fact that the attendance on the days on which the drill instruction was given was larger than on the others, and nothing was a greater punishment for the children than that they should be deprived of their drill. On this subject of school drill, Mr. Clancy, head master of the Roman Catholic school at Portsmouth, and President of the National Union of Teachers, had reported as follows—
  "During the past four years I have included military drill in my school time-table. I state unhesitatingly that the results have been highly satisfactory in every respect. One of the greatest obstacles to true educational progress has been the early age at which pupils leave school. I have found that school drill is a great inducement to the boys to remain longer under my charge and so to extend their school career. Our ordinary lessons are apt to tire the lads and cause them to long for the day when school life should cease. No sooner did we start our school drill than it was evident we hail infused a new educational spirit into the pupils, so that their regularity and punctuality showed a marked improvement. As an aid to discipline I can speak with no uncertain voice of its marvellous results. The lads are taught obedience, and that, in my opinion, is absolutely essential if the teacher is to succeed at all. Boys love order and will respect those who insist upon it. Therefore every lesson benefits by the teaching of drill. What is more offensive than an ill-mannered, uncouth youth? Drill teaches us to be orderly, polite and prompt, hence its great value as an essential part of the Code. The general bearing of the pupils is greatly benefited by a course of physical exercises, and their ordinary appear-

  837
  ance is vastly improved at a most important period of their careers. The spirit of true patriotism is developed and a love of all that lends to make a great nation is inculcated at the proper moment. The good results of a regular course of military drill are so patent that one hesitates to specify them. I know of nothing more likely to reach the ideal of a 'sound mind in a sound body' than the carrying out of a judiciously arranged programme of physical exercises. If carried out in moderation during school hours by a willing and enthusiastic body of teachers the future citizens of this empire will largely benefit thereby. I wish the movement every success, and trust that we may be able to carry out the experiment in every school in the country."
  Similar testimonies as to the success of the system and the benefit derived therefrom came from Manchester, the West of England, and many other parts of the country. He had said it was desirable that some consideration should be given to encourage the teachers to adopt this subject, and his attention had been called to Article 83 (d) in the Code for 1900, which said—
  "Grants are also made for the further instruction of certificated teachers and assistant teachers (Article 79) in drawing, experimental science, modern languages, cookery, woodwork, school gymnastics, or military drill, or such other subject approved by the Department as may form part of the curriculum of the public school in receipt of Parliamentary grants or of a higher grade school."
  Also to Article 91 (d), which was in the following terms—
  "Where courses are established by the county council or other local authorities, either within their own area or at an approved technical college or other central institution, for the further instruction of teachers as in Article 83 (d), according to a scheme approved by the Department, and under instructors whose competency for this special work is proved to the satisfaction of the Department, there shall be paid a grant amounting to not more than three-fourths of the actual expenditure upon the class, after deduction of the income from the fees, provided that such expenditure is duly set forth in properly audited accounts and is approved by the Department."
  It might be asked what was to be done with a small country school taught by an old woman, but a system was not to be condemned because it could only be carried out in a limited way. On Friday last week detachments from various schools gave a display before a large audience at Portsmouth, and it was delightful to see the smartness and intelligence shown by the children. The ordinary teachers conducted, and nothing could be prettier than the fixed attention and smartness with which little girls
  838
  followed the orders of their teachers. It was better that the drilling should be carried out by the ordinary teachers because the habits of steadiness, concentration, and ready obedience were effective through all branches of study. The results were highly satisfactory wherever the system had been adopted. When the national defence of the country was being considered it was important there should be a scheme by which the courage, the bravery, and aptitude for home defence which existed among so many branches of the population should be utilised more. Advanced drill would be much more easily learnt if elementary drill was mastered in early life. In Switzerland military drill was compulsory in every school, yet it was as free a country as existed, and was conspicuous for the industry and frugality of its people. Orderly habits and ideas of discipline and obedience, which were gained by military drill, were an unmixed benefit. The whole manhood of the country would be improved by such a scheme, and he thought it would be a valuable addition to the education of the country. In this regard Scotland was far in advance of England, and he thought, looking at the importance of the question, the right hon. Gentleman need not disdain to take a lead from the Scotch Education Department. Under the circumstances, he did not regret that he could not move the Amendment he had intended, and he could only say that he did not desire to divide the House upon the question.
  MR. YOXALLsaid the matter which had been brought to the attention of the House by the right hon. Baronet was one of great importance. Upon the general question of the advantage of some kind of drill to the boys and girls at any public elementary school there could not be two opinions. But at all the public elementary schools the children, from the youngest age up to the age of ten or twelve, two or three times a week, went through a course of drill in their own schoolrooms, as part of the curriculum. In the case of boys it was more military in its nature, they, in many cases, being instructed by men who had been in the Army; but where it did not take place so systematically the drill was given under the instruction of the teachers themselves,

  839
  who, in many cases, held certificates from drill instructors at the training colleges of their capacity to undertake such instruction. At the present time there were in all or most of the elementary schools playground drill, class-room drill, fire drill, and discipline drill, and the only question was how far the drilling of the children should proceed. It ought to proceed just as far as the health of the children and the economy of noise in the class rooms warranted. There was some danger in going beyond that. Volunteer brigades existed in connection with some of the teachers' training colleges, and there were boys' brigades in connection with many of the schools. Some of those brigades had ceased to exist because the military spirit had been thought to have been carried too far. Then, again, enthusiasts who had been to Scandinavia pressed on the Department the idea that Swedish drill was far superior to military drill, and after sufficient pressure the Department yielded, and Swedish drill became an alternative to military drill. Then another body of enthusiasts pointed out that drill was not the best form of physical exercise, and that gymnastics ought to be carried out systematically on every playground by means of a trapeze and parallel bars, and as a result the Code admitted that as suitable physical exercise. The present Code stated that as a condition of a school being efficient it must provide physical exercise for the children. A good deal of physical exercise was provided and would go on irrespective of the result of that debate, but he hoped there would be no attempt to press upon the schools and the children too much the idea of spending time in military drill. He was not quite sure that the older forms of military drill would be useful—he spoke under correction—in actual warfare. The great thing in future would be not company drill and squad drill, close order, forming fours, and marching by rank and file, but skirmishing and sharpshooting, and he did not see how in public elementary playgrounds skirmishing or sharpshooting could be practised. He thought the great want still was a higher degree of intelligent education for the children. It was not only necessary for a soldier nowadays to hear and obey the word of command; he must have an intelligent understanding of the word of command and its adaptation to circumstances; and there was some risk
  840
  if the precious time—the far too short time—children spent at school were spent in mechanical drill that it would draw their minds from any chance of gaining more and more intelligence. He did not intend to meet the proposal of the right hon. Baronet in any antagonistic manner. We quite agree that in garrison towns the school teachers ought to be free, as they were free now, to carry military drill in schools to a high degree of perfection, but not in rural schools where perhaps thirty boys were taught by a mistress. In seaport towns the instruction ought to be of a maritime and not of a military character, and there ought to be elasticity allowed to the local managers and teachers. Any proposal to make military drill compulsory could not be in harmony with existing conditions in thousands of schools. He gathered that the chief object of the right hon. Baronet was to call the attention of the House and the Department to the subject, and not to press for any general compulsory provision. He believed that the Department was thoroughly in sympathy with the idea. He would suggest that the right hon. Baronet could not serve his case better than by leaving it where it was after having ventilated it. The proper course, if the right hon. Baronet wished to do more, would be to approach individual bodies of managers and school boards on the subject. They would be much more likely to act enthusiastically if approached individually than if there was an article in the Code compelling military drill. He was quite sure if military drill were made compulsory for securing the higher grant, there would be an outcry against it on behalf of the schools, and that the best interests of the cause which the right hon. Baronet had at heart would be served by his not pressing the case further. So far as it had gone he felt himself very much in sympathy with the proposal.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I think the House is very much indebted to my right hon. friend for having brought this important question under its consideration at this particular time. I was entirely in sympathy with nearly everything the right hon. Baronet said in his speech, and I only

  841
  differed from him where he rather suggested that the Education Department was less zealous in this particular matter than it ought to be. There are two questions to be considered by the House, and they seem to have been rather confused. One is the question of physical training, and the other is how far that physical training should have a military character. With reference to the question of physical training, the Education Department has practically made it compulsory in all schools, because it is a condition without which the higher grant cannot be obtained, and suitable physical exercise is to be taught in every school. Although the right hon. Baronet criticises the language of the Code, there is, as I shall show presently, nothing whatever in the new Code to alter the practice which has prevailed for many years past. Of course the very best kind of physical exercise and the best way to develop the physical powers of children is by games, and in country districts and in schools where the playgrounds permit of games, no drill in the world can develop the muscles and limbs of children like a good healthy game. But where the conditions are not favourable for games the Education Code provides that in the school itself, under a roof and within doors, the children shall be given Swedish drill, gymnastics, military drill, or something by which their physical powers may be developed.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: May I ask my right hon. friend why the only Article in which physical and military drill was mentioned has been dropped out of the Code?
  SIR J. GORST: The Code of the present year, more than the Codes of previous years, has left everything to the local managers of schools. The principle of the Department is to allow the local managers, or the teachers of the schools, to decide what is the best course of instruction for the pupils to be taught, and it is not only military and physical drill that has disappeared, but everything else has disappeared from the Code which is calculated to dictate to the local managers the particular course of instruction which they are to observe. But the curriculum practised in the schools must be one which the inspectors approve of, and the language of the instructions to inspectors
  842
  which the right hon. Baronet read, and to which I will also venture to call attention, is very precise on this subject. These instructions state that instruction in Swedish drill or any suitable physical exercise is a condition for obtaining the higher grant; that military drill for boys has been found very attractive in some districts and deserves encouragement, and that a healthy game, which was one of the best forms of physical exercise, would satisfy the conditions of the Code. The instructions also state that in town schools such games are impossible or only possible in a few schools, but that it is incumbent on teachers to provide for the physical development of growing boys and girls by some form of drill or gymnastics. It is also laid down that half time children should not be made to drill, and that children who have walked long distances should also he excused. These instructions practically compel every school to have such drill or other physical exercise as is suitable to the conditions of the school and practicable under the circumstances. Now, I come to a further question. Should we or can we give that drill a military character? In that matter the Education Department has left, and intend to leave, the local managers to their own discretion. In the first place, military drill is absolutely impossible in a great number of schools. How is it possible in a village school where there are thirty or forty children under one woman teacher, with a girl monitress, to have military drill, unless the lady were an Amazon? I took up at random the other day in the Education Department a list of ninety-one schools, in fifteen of which military drill was taught. Of the seventy-six in which military drill was not taught there were only twenty-four which had more than one hundred boys or girls in the school, and a very small proportion of these boys were over ten years of age. How could it be possible in those schools, where there are less than one hundred children, and where very few of the boys are above ten years of age, to have any kind of military drill? In Portsmouth, in London, and in the great towns military drill is very common, where the local managers think it suitable, but it is quite clear that it would be impossible for the Education Department to make the system compulsory. It would probably defeat its own end, because when

  843
  they try to compel teachers to take a course which they had been accustomed to adopt on their own discretion, they rather resent it, and are less inclined to have military drill. All I can say in answer to my right hon. friend is that this is a subject which has occupied, and will always occupy, the careful attention of the Education Department; but as a matter of fact there is suitable physical drill, better or worse, in every school in England and Wales. A very large proportion of those schools have of their own accord made that physical exercise military, and, having the power to exercise their own discretion, have produced the results which my right hon. friend has referred to as obtaining at Portsmouth, and with which he is so pleased. I do not think there is anything more that can be done to show the strong feeling which the Educational Department has in favour of physical exercise as an absolutely essential part of the training of the child, quite as beneficial to them as reading, writing, and arithmetic, and quite as necessary for them. But I think the system as established is satisfactory. I believe that every school and every set of school managers are quite alive to the importance of this matter, but, as far as the military character of the drill is concerned, that must be left, and can only be left, to the discretion of the local managers.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Vice-President and the Government are to be congratulated on the practical and reasonable reply which has been given to the right hon. Gentleman who opened this debate. I am indeed pleased, as one who is known to take an active part in athletic exercises, and to encourage gymnasiums in my own district, that the Vice-President has decided to leave the question of military drill, or physical exercises to the local authorities who educate our children. It is wise that the duty of educating our children in physical exercises should be left to the discretion of the school boards, and to the free choice of the school managers and their masters and mistresses, who can best adapt the form of physical exercise to the physique of the children and to local circumstances. I was also glad to hear the Vice-President saying that it would be defeating the end the right hon. Gentleman has in view in making what is now optional compulsory. I agree with him. If the right
  844
  hon. Gentleman wants to see the difference between voluntary physical exercise and compulsory drill, let him go to a French school, where military drill is compulsory, and contrast the effect on, say 100 boys, with a similar number of boys of the same age in one of our schools where physical exercises and old English games are taught. The French boys do not know how to box, or play football, or cricket, and they do not compare even in physical smartness with our boys who are taught gymnastic exercises.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: May I say that the physical drill is military drill.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: No, no. I have known good soldiers made better warriors by the physical exercises adapted from civilian life and now practised at Aldershot. The right hon. Gentleman wants to institute these mechanical, automatic movements, which the South African War shows are of little use, instead of the physical exercises which we are giving in the elementary schools throughout the country. If the right hon. Gentleman had confined himself to the first portion of his speech, I should not have complained; but, like a lady's letter, the sting of the speech was in the postscript. He said that this question of physical drill or military exercises is a serious matter when national defence is before the country. I want the House to follow this argument to its logical conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman declares that the military drill which he advocates in the schools would be an easy transition to cadet corps; from these to the Volunteers; and then into the Army. His real objective is not gymnastics, but militarism. His desire is recruiting, and not the expansion of the chest measurement or the improvement of the physique of the children for its own sake. What I want to point out is that we should not discuss this question when we have a war going on and a demand for the remission of the death duties in the case of officers, when we have an atmosphere in this House of military feeling, and when feather-headed patriots are clamouring to go to war with everybody, provided they do not do the fighting. I prefer that we should discuss it in times of peace and on rational lines. I have another objection to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He says he wants

  845
  our elementary schools as a source from which Tommy Atkins is to be recruited; but why not all schools—intermediate, secondary, and higher schools?
  SIR J. FEEGUSSON: Hear, hear!
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The right hon. and gallant Baronet says "Hear, hear!" Does he know to what extent gymnastic exercises and physical drill prevail in London, our largest recruiting centre? I should be delighted to take him round my own district, where he would see the children instructed in formation in line, marching, forming fours, and in all the elements of physical drill so far as they are not automatic and purely military. But if you extend that part of the instruction you will cause many fathers and mothers to withdraw their children from that form of military exercise. I maintain that everything we want in the way of physical exercise and gymnastics, short of military drill, we have in the elementary board schools at the present time. There is not the same reason for this demand that there was ten or fifteen years ago. Take my own parish. We have twenty-five board schools, and ten years ago every one of these board school playgrounds was locked up before the schools were open, and after school teaching was finished. Now I am glad to say the playgrounds are open from early morning to dark, and the children may go there in all kinds of weather to practise all kinds of games. That in itself is good, but many of the board schools have elementary gymnastic appliances, in the practice of which the children may indulge when they are not in school. Let us remember what Lord Meath has done in the direction of providing open spaces in London. There is hardly a district in London where there are not good recreation grounds, giant strides, and all the appliances of a good gymnasium, while ten years ago these many advantages were denied to the children. Then we have the enormous popularity of cricket, which is better than any barrack-yard drill, tennis, football, and all the other sports that have really worked a revolution in the physique of our town lads, and especially the girls of the middle classes. Nothing is more pleasing to see than the way in which this growth of athleticism, without military drill, has improved the physique
  846
  of the girls of the middle classes; and I am positively convinced that a great deal of good will result if allowed to develop on rational but non-military lines. I want to put this point to the right hon. Baronet as a soldier. He made the curious admission that nothing was more repugnant to the soldier than extra drill punishment. And why? Because you are making him an automaton; yet he wants to carry that system into school life. What we want is that a man should have less of barrack-yard drill; that their heads should be educated rather than their feet; that they should have individual resource and adaptability. Our soldiers, in fact, should have the Boer adaptability with the quality of fighting at close quarters which they now possess rather more from games than by drill. What the speech of the right hon. Baronet really amounts to is that the option of school boards to give either military or physical drill to the scholars should be abolished, and the instruction confined to military drill. He says that a military training begets obedience. I do not think so. It does not always beget obedience or discipline in the sense I understand discipline. I can remember when I went through the streets of London at the head of forty thousand or fifty thousand unemployed, and the men most disobedient, most riotous, and most ready to enter into conflict with the police, were the Army Reservists whom your methods of military drill had not made obedient, loyal, or patient. That is an interesting fact and worth pounds of theory. Ask the Commissioner of Police what is the effect of barrack-yard training on the recruits who go through the Army into the police. If a dispute occurs, say, between a cabman and a 'busman, the civilian policeman, who has not been automatised by barrack-yard drill, takes out his book quietly, becomes a peripatetic magistrate in a blue uniform, and, adapting himself to the situation, carefully puts down all the particulars. But the ex-Army man looks helplessly around for some one to instruct him what to do, while the cabby accuses the 'busman and the 'busman the cabby, and probably both meanwhile escape. Barrack-yard drill does not beget real obedience or real discipline, is opposed to initiative, resource, and promptitude, and has not the bracing influence of physical exercise. I come to my last point. The effect of all this

  847
  military drill means that you want to make the working class a recruiting ground for soldiers more than it is. I believe this is one of the best countries in the world. I know of no country for which men ought to sacrifice more of their health and their wealth than for this, our country. But if you want to stimulate patriotism you are not going to make generals by giving men gaudy uniforms, or make patriots by teaching children barrackyard drill. If the Army wants recruits you have got two great recruiting sergeants—one is poverty, which procures you 95 per cent., and the other is patriotism, which gets you 5 per cent. What is now being proposed, it seems to me, is to increase by fictitious and adventitious aids, by military drill in the playground, that 95 per cent. The working classes do not want these, and, what is more, they won't have it. If you force upon them the drill sergeant, as against the schoolmaster, in the board schools, the working people will withdraw their children, and send them to schools where only physical exercises are taught. It has been declared that the Duke of Wellington said—I do not think he said it, but I accept it as if he said it—that the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. That is a testimony that a good athlete makes a good soldier; and I believe that is the case. We have seen in this war good cricketers distinguish themselves at the front, and we all deplore the loss of that excellent golfer, Lieutenant Tait, who met his death in discharging a soldier's duty. We all regret it, and none more than I, who had the happiness of his personal acquaintance. But if we are going to fill our Army with athletic men, do not let us discourage them in early life with pipe-clay military drill. I have a chest measurement of 43 inches, and 33 inches round the waist, without all this nonsense of military drill; and it is because the average Labour Member has not had this automatic military drill, that he can give nearly all the soldiers in this House five inches of chest measurement, and then beat him by one or two. It is because we have had our industrial training and boxing in our gymnasiums that we have the physique we now have. I am extremely anxious that the working classes shall retain these advantages without military drill, and it is because
  848
  the Vice-President says we want discrimination, and adaptability to circumstances, and therefore rejects the proposal of the right hon. Baronet, that I have stood up to take the side of the Government as against their two military supporters.
  SIR MARK STEWARTsaid he rose to dispute the accuracy of what the hon. Member who last spoke had stated against the military profession. His experience was that parents liked their children to be properly and well drilled, and that they would far rather see them drilled by a drill sergeant than by the teachers. From his personal observation he found the great advantage which followed this military drill at school. Not only were the children far better set up, but it taught them habits of obedience, the use of their limbs, the habitude to obey words of command, to be more quick in perception, and better adapted to go into life after they left school. It did not follow that the school was, because of this drill, to be a recruiting ground for the Army and Reserve forces. He was glad to think that in this respect Scotland was so much in advance of England. He would not urge that the word "military" should be inserted in the Code, but that a better grant should be given to those schools which had good drill and military training established in them. It stood to reason that if children were taught those exercises it would fit them to be better soldiers if called upon in a sudden emergency to serve in the Army, Militia, or Volunteers. They would not go as mere novices into the defensive force, but would be in great measure qualified to prove themselves good and loyal soldiers. No one could over-estimate the good cadet corps were doing in Scotland and England. It took away young lads, up to eighteen years of age, from the public-houses, and fostered good comradeship and good feeling. He was satisfied that if good drill were encouraged the boys would take a far greater interest and pride in their school, and that schools would vie with one another, not only in good teaching, but in military drill.

  BRITISH COMMERCIAL AND POLITICAL INTERESTS IN CHINA.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Mr. Speaker, I desire

  849
  to call the attention of the House to the failure of Her Majesty's Government to uphold British commercial and political interests in China. Though I have recently made extensive journeys in that country, I do not claim to pose as an authority on Chinese affairs, but I rather propose to make a statement as to the present situation, based on information obtained from the best-informed men upon the spot. I make no apology for recalling the attention of the House to the necessity for the initiation by Her Majesty's Government of a more definite and vigorous policy in the Far East, if our commercial and political interests are to be maintained. I am aware how entirely absorbed the public mind is by what has been transpiring in South Africa for some time past, but I venture to submit that we would be unworthy of the great Imperial responsibilities which rest upon our shoulders were we to allow the affairs, however important, of any one part of our Empire to monopolise our attention to the serious neglect of vital interests in other parts of the world. Nor is it unsuitable, Mr. Speaker, to review the situation in China, because of the agreeable way in which public attention has again been directed to the affairs of that Empire by the signal success of American diplomacy, which has resulted in the assent of England, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, and Italy to the principle of equality of customs tariff and of harbour dues and equality of railway rates being maintained in China. The advantages conferred by this undertaking are to be common to all States and all peoples, and our kinsmen across the Atlantic are to be warmly congratulated on the success which has attended their efforts. The commercial community in this country are deeply indebted to the United States Government for having thus ensured equality of opportunity for British trade as well as their own. How far Her Majesty's Government ought to be congratulated on the part they have played in this matter has not yet been fully disclosed, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to tell us to-night that not only was Her Majesty's Government the first to give assent to the proposals, but they, so far as it was judicious, gave their active co-operation in the endeavour to secure the carrying through of the arrangement. I
  850
  am aware that, in view of the jealousy recently exhibited towards us by foreign Powers, the United States Government were probably able to succeed where we would have failed; and, indeed, any interference on our part might have defeated our object. It is with great satisfaction I notice that not only is there to be equality in the matter of customs tariff and harbour dues, but equality also of railway rates. The assurance in regard to the latter is of the utmost value, and it was one which the British Government failed to secure in the Anglo-Russian Agreement. I will now turn to what I found to be the position of affairs in North China. The seizure of Port Arthur by Russia is somewhat ancient history, and I will not refer further to that subject than to say that the people in the East most likely to know unanimously state that no one was so much surprised as were the Russians themselves at their being allowed to take Port Arthur. Russia has already made Port Arthur impregnable by new forts practically encircling it, and in August last she had no fewer than 40,000 troops at Port Arthur and Talienwan. There were also Russian soldiers at the railway stations on her Manchurian lines. She is in military occupation of that huge country of Manchuria, rich agriculturally, in minerals, and fisheries, with emphatically a white man's climate. Even at Niuchwang, the only treaty port through which we can now trade, Russian cossacks had been policing the town on the invitation, forsooth, of the British Consul. On the north bank of the river at Niuchwang there is a Russian concession of several square miles, on which one terminus of her railway is being built, and over which she enjoys sovereign rights. Not content with this acquisition, Russia is negotiating for a further concession on the south side of the river, opposite Niuchwang and adjacent to the terminus of the Niuchwang Extension Line from Shanghaikwan, obviously with the intention of bridging the river and linking up her Manchurian railways, including that from Port Arthur, where her troops are concentrated, with the line leading viâ Tien-tsin to Pekin, which no doubt she will ultimately acquire by advancing to the Chinese Government the money to pay off the British bondholders, unless much greater determination be shown by the

  851
  British Government in resisting aggressions certain to strangle British trade in the future. On this Niuchwang Extension Line is the treaty port of Chinwangtao, the opening of which was announced by Her Majesty's Government as a diplomatic triumph. This port I visited, and to my surprise I found there was no natural harbour, but only an open bay surrounded by sand hills; no sign of population, except a few fishermen's cottages, and no trade. All the best-informed commercial men agree that it is an act of folly to spend money on Chinwangtao, and that the improvement of the approaches to the ports of Tien-tsin and Niuchwang at each end of the line ought rather to have been sought. Perhaps the most unaccountable action on the part of the British Government, so far as Russia is concerned, was the conclusion of the Anglo-Russian Agreement in the form in which it was finally signed. The negotiations for months proceeded with the expressed intention that what was to be conceded to Russia was the exclusive right of railway construction in Manchuria, we having been conceded a similiar right in the Yang-tsze basin. But, as far as Russia was concerned, being at the back of the Pekin and Hankow Railway, as she undoubtedly is, through the medium of the Russo-Chinese Bank—which Lord Salisbury has told us is a Russian State bank—the Agreement with Russia as to our exclusive rights in the Yang-tsze basin was broken before the Agreement itself was signed; whilst on our part, without a word of explanation, not only did we concede to Russia exclusive rights in Manchuria, but north of the Great Wall of China, which will in the long run be found also to embrace a large slice of the province of Chi-li, the whole of the great horse-breeding country of Mongolia and the province of Sin Kiang. I have had a large map prepared, which I should have liked to have seen hung in this House in order that our remarks on this subject might be made more intelligible. That map shows exactly what it is that Russia obtains under this Anglo-Russian agreement, and gives other information which may be interesting to Members. If desired, I propose to place this map in the Tea Room for a short time. The fact is that, so far as the Blue-books disclose it, Russia has the whole of these enormous territories in North China and
  852
  stretching westward across Asia to territories previously in the possession of Russia, and giving to her just what she requires to enable her to take possession, not only of North China but also of Central China. Without a map it is, perhaps, difficult to make clear to the House the exact position of affairs, but hon. Members may be able to follow me if I say that, stopping for the time being the construction of the Russian Siberian Railway to Vladivostock, she has already commenced the laying of a line branching off from her Siberian Railway right down through Mongolia direct to Pekin. A further concession in connection with the Pekin-Hankow Railway has been got for a branch from Kai-feng-fu to Honan-fu, with the option of extending to Singan-fu, a place within only two hundred miles north of the Yang-tsze River, and from which the immemorial trade route into Central Asia runs. But this is only part of the Russian programme for the conquest of Asia by railways. There is another Russian main line rapidly advancing through Central Asia which seems to have escaped public notice. I mean the Russian Trans-Caspian Railway, which, proceeding north-east from Merv, is already constructed to Adijan, on the borders of the Chinese province of Sin Kiang, which has recently been accorded by us to Russia, and is, as a matter of fact, under Russian domination. From the point to which this Russian Trans-Caspian line has already been constructed there is a perfectly practicable route turning the flank of the mountainous country of Thibet for a railway down through Sin Kiang to Singan-fu. Hon. Members will see that with the completion of this line Russia not only has her Siberian railway tapping North China, but she will have her Trans-Caspian line penetrating into the very heart of Central China and dominating the Yang-tsze valley. The Government do not appear to have even sought from Russia the recognition of similar preferential rights in our favour in Thibet, the only territory now left between India and the Russian sphere. While a comparatively poor country like Russia is not hesitating to spend over £100,000,000 sterling on these projects, which will enable her finally to reap a rich harvest as regards both her commercial and political interests, what, I ask, is England doing? The British Government, so far, appear to have lost those qualities of enterprise,

  853
  courage, and foresight which characterised our forefathers, and by virtue of which our world-wide British Empire has been built up. Not only have they refused, as a matter of high imperial policy, to give any encouragement or guarantee to a railway from British Burma to the Upper Yang-tsze as a counterpoise to the Russian railways, but they have actually stopped the construction of the railway to Kunlon Ferry, in British Burma; and this at a time when France is vigorously pushing on with the construction of her railway from Tonkin through Hunan to Szechuan, by which she will draw the trade of south-west China through French territories with the aid of protective tariffs, instead of our being able to carry on a free and unrestricted trade through British Burma. British capitalists at Tien-tsin were perfectly prepared to construct a railway from Tien-tsin to Kalgan, which is the trade route into Mongolia, but were informed by the Foreign Office that they could not support such an application, as Kalgan was in the sphere conceded to Russia under the Anglo-Russian Agreement, though it is far away from Manchuria. This line of railway, being an extension of the Pekin-Tien-tsin line to Kalgan, would have been the most powerful barrier against Russian advance southwards. An important factor in considering the course of events in north China, and an important and powerful influence in the direction of keeping it open to trade is the fact that the interests of Japan are identical with our own, and that Japan is prepared to resolutely uphold her rights when assailed by Russia. Japan having a population increasing at the rate of half a million a year, and her cultivable area being comparatively small, it is absolutely essential that she should have room for expansion. The natural expansion of Japan, whether as regards climate, fertility of soil, fisheries or mineral wealth, is into Corea. From my interviews with Japanese statesmen, I gathered that, even at the risk of war, they would prevent any Russian interference with what they consider their priority of right in Corea. Moreover, the active co-operation of Japan could be counted on in any effort to uphold throughout China the treaty rights of all nations. With regard to Kiau-chau, the Germans know their own minds, and I saw not fewer than ten thousand Chinamen at work constructing the harbour works and
  854
  building the railway into the interior of Shantung, whilst palatial buildings were springing up on all sides. The contrast between the activity of the Russians at Port Arthur and of the Germans at Kiau-chau and our do-nothing policy at Wei-hai-wei, after our having somewhat ostentatiously announced to the world that we had taken that place as a counterpoise to Port Arthur, is most humiliating. At Wei-hai-wei not a single fort has been constructed, not one gun mounted; practically no buildings have been erected, and even the pier, with 30 feet of water at the end, which had been damaged by the blowing-up of a Chinese man-of-war, has not yet been repaired, though the uprights were ready to receive the superstructure. Beyond a little dredging, the construction of water-condensing apparatus and the drilling of a few Chinese soldiers, nothing seems to have been done. When I went to the top of the island at Wei-hai-wei, I wished the First Lord of the Treasury had been there with me, for when I condemned the right hon. Gentleman's action in having, unasked by Germany, precluded us from connecting Wei-hai-wei with the interior of Shangtung by railway, he interposed the remark that it was physically impossible. I could look across the country towards Chefoo without being able to see a hill a hundred feet high. And when again, from the top of the pinnacle at Chefoo, I looked across towards Wei-hai-wei, the experience was the same. The fact is that few railways in the world would be so easy of construction as one from Wei-hai-wei to Chefoo, and in at least two other directions leading from the territory appertaining to Wei-hai-wei through rich valleys into the interior of Shangtung, the same is true. Wei-hai-wei might have been made a great success as a commercial port, had we not thus tied our hands. The roadstead at Chefoo is most exposed, and for days together in the winter ships can neither land nor discharge. With proper facilities a large portion of the trade done through Chefoo would have been transferred to Wei-hai-wei. As, however, the situation is to-day, Russia having succeeded in converting the question in North China from a sea to a land question, it is very doubtful whether money ought to be spent on Wei-hai-wei. In all probability the best course would be to hand Wei-hai-wei over to Germany, if

  855
  she, in return, would support our taking another naval base at or near the mouth of the Yang-tsze River. The Government announced in this House that concessions had been got for British subjects for 2,800 miles of railways in China. But terms and conditions enabling the carrying out of the projects have not yet been arranged in connection with a single concession. The Shanghai to Nankin, and several other concessions, were given as reparation for the breach of faith on the part of the Chinese Government in giving the Pekin-Hankow concession to foreign Powers over our heads. Therefore, in regard to these our Government should stand no nonsense as to the terms and conditions upon which they should be built. Under the Treaty of Tien-tsin we are entitled to equally favourable terms and conditions to those granted by the Chinese Government to Russia, France, and Germany; but we find that the Chinese Government are insisting upon a mixed Chinese and European control, which has proved, in the case of the Niuchwang Extension Railway, to be surrounded by difficulties. Our Government should insist on the British concessionnaires having complete control of the security, that is, to pay interest and repay principal, with a guarantee of non-interference and the maintenance of our rights, giving only the Chinese Government an option of taking over the railways on certain terms and conditions. The Russians, Germans, and French will enjoy this control; why not the British? The confidence of the British investor was disturbed by the way in which the Government allowed Russia to dictate the terms and conditions upon which the Niuchwang Extension Loan should be concluded, and by the unsatisfactory way in which the mixed control has since operated; for though they offered £12,000,000 sterling against £2,300,000 required when that loan was floated, it is questionable whether the money would now be forthcoming for even the cream of the railway concessions, unless obtained on the terms and conditions I have mentioned. With regard to the terms and conditions upon which the concessions for these—what we may term—reparation railways, I find that on the 4th of September, 1898, Sir Claude MacDonald stated in a dispatch that the terms accorded for the construction of these lines will not be in-
  856
  ferior to the terms granted for the construction of any railways in China proper, and that they had agreed to send him a confidential note to that effect. This would have secured terms and conditions equal to those granted to Germany for the railways she is constructing in Shantung; but, within a few days, under instructions from the First Lord of the Treasury, Sir Claude MacDonald accepted these concessions on not less favourable conditions than those granted to the concessionnaires for the Pekin and Hankow Railway. Those terms and conditions are workable when in the hands of concessionnaires having at their back the Governments of Russia and France, but are useless to British concessionnaires so long as they do not receive the proper support from the British Government. An American syndicate entered into a preliminary contract with the Chinese Government for the building of a railway from Hankow to Canton, and also made a provisional agreement with an English syndicate, with the object of having this railway constructed jointly by an Anglo-American company. The Chinese Government, however, have thrown every obstacle in the way of the ratification of this concession on terms and conditions not less favourable to those granted to other Powers, whilst the French Government have actively intervened to prevent the carrying through of the concession, and claimed that unless the American syndicate is prepared to construct the line on the terms and conditions of the Pekin and Hankow Concession, the right to construct the railway falls into their hands. The question of by whom this important railway is to be constructed is one vitally affecting the future of the Chinese Empire; for, if the concessionnaires of the Pekin and Hankow Railway are allowed to secure this concession, it will give to Russia and France a railway system through the heart of the Chinese Empire from the extreme north to the extreme south, and will place them practically in military occupation of it. I hope, therefore, to hear from the Under Secretary that Her Majesty's Government are vigorously supporting the United States Government in insisting that this railway, penetrating as it does from the south right into the heart of our supposed sphere of interest, the Yang-tsze basin, shall not be given to foreign Powers.

  857
  To show how absolutely Her Majesty's Government appears to fail to sustain British rights in China, I may instance the Pekin Syndicate. This corporation was promised a concession for a railway to connect its mineral properties in Shan-si with the navigable limits of the Yang-tsze river. But, whilst the application for such communication has been flatly refused to the British company, there has been secured by the concessionnaires of the Pekin-Hankow Railway the right to construct a railway from Kai-feng-fu to Honan-fu, with the option of extending it to Singan-fu; thus barring the road for the construction of the railway promised to the Pekin syndicate. Another great achievement of Her Majesty's Government was the Yang-tsze Valley Agreement, which, even now, many people in this country imagine secures to us the Yang-tsze basin as a special sphere of influence, in which we have priority of rights. This, however, is an absolute myth. Russia, France, Germany, and Japan are all to-day more actively engaged in advancing their commercial and political interests in the rich Yang-tsze basin than we are ours. They have sovereign rights over various areas at Shanghai, Hankow and elsewhere, whilst we have none. A further surrender on the part of Her Majesty's Government is in regard to the extension of the French settlement at Shanghai. A firm stand was originally taken against this demand by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and backed up as it was at the time by the United States of America, it was understood that the demand would not be granted. How little needed such a concession was will be made very clear when I state that in the French concession already in existence there are only seventeen Frenchmen resident; and yet, notwithstanding this, our diplomatists have again given way. France has got the extension of her concession, and British prestige has once more been lowered in the eyes of the Chinese Government. In one debate in this House we heard with great satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government had at length determined to do something to uphold British commercial interests by the placing of gunboats on the inland waterways of China for the protection of British trade. Two gunboats were sent out to patrol the Upper Yang-tsze more than twelve
  858
  months ago; but, though their crews have been paid by the British taxpayer and they have been on the spot all this time, they have yet to make the first ascent of that portion of the river which they were intended to patrol; and the Under Secretary informed us the other day that they were going to attempt this next month. The fact is that these two boats, the "Woodcock" and the "Woodlark," are unsuitable for the purpose, both as regards construction and steaming power. As they have to go up rapids sometimes running thirteen and fourteen knots an hour and steam only twelve knots, it is obvious they can only mount the rapids with assistance from shore, and they would be useless, therefore, if a hostile attitude were assumed by the inhabitants of the district. The whirlpools and cross-currents of the river are in places so strong that the gunboats ought to have paddle-wheels instead of screws, and it is ridiculous to send out boats constructed of plates under one-eighth of an inch thick instead of being at least three-sixteenths for a river of the character of the Upper Yang-tsze. Apparently without any inquiry whatever, when gunboats were needed for the Upper Yang-tsze, the Admiralty decided to send out two Nile gunboats. This is a serious matter, so far as the commercial interests of this country are concerned, because a British cargo-steamer is expected to be plying on the Upper Yang-tsze within the next month or two; and in all probability the half million Chinamen now carrying on the trade on the river will regard this innovation as a menace to their livelihood, trouble will arise. It is imperative that gunboats, capable of going wherever they may be required, without shore assistance and without regard to the state of the river, should be placed on the Upper Yang-tsze immediately. The "Woodcock" and "Woodlark" now there should be transferred to the West River, as on that river the old "Tweed" can steam only two knots against the current and the "Sandpiper" four knots, which, all will agree, renders them quite unable to cope effectually with the pirates who infest that district. The pirates on the West River have more than once seized British-owned steamers, ransacked them, and then used them for capturing richly-laden native junks. But up to the present time no punishment

  859
  whatever has been inflicted on the perpetrators of these outrages. It is true we are told that the Admiral is now considering the question of how best to repress the piracy. But why now? Why not twelve months ago? Why were the gunboats in the district prevented for so long a time from taking any effective measures for the repression of the piracy which has been so rife? Then with regard to the opening up of all the inland waterways of China, the agreement with the Chinese Government was announced in this House as one which would make it possible to take British merchandise in British ships, not merely to the ports recognised by treaty, but to every riverside town and station in the whole interior of China. On the strength of this agreement leading British shipping firms in China expended £60,000 in building steamers to trade from Hong Kong and Canton up the West River. So far, however, from these steamers being allowed to take British goods to every riverside town and station, they have not been permitted to load or discharge cargo at intervening places between the treaty ports. They have consequently been working at a considerable loss, and several have been taken off altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in answer to a question I put to him the other day* on this subject, said this was not within the knowledge of the Foreign Office. In view, however, of the lengthy correspondence between the shipping firms in China and the British Legation in Pekin on this question, it seems extraordinary that the Foreign Office should not have received this important information. In reply to a further question, the right hon. Gentleman said the agreement with the Chinese Government permitted foreigners to trade in steamers where native boats had been permitted, but this did not include every riverside town and station. I must, however, refer the right hon. Gentleman to the express declaration made in this House by his predecessor, Mr. Curzon, to which I have already alluded. I am informed by those engaged in trading on the Chinese inland waterways that native boats are permitted to trade with every riverside town and station and also escape with lower duties. This being so,
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., page 1180.
  860
  it is obviously impossible for British steamers to compete, when they are required to have one steamer to trade between treaty ports and a second with the other riverside towns and stations, both boats running probably half empty; whereas, if, according to the agreement, they were allowed to load and discharge cargo at every riverside town and station, whether treaty ports or otherwise, one steamer would do where two are now employed, and a profitable trade would be carried on. I have repeatedly pressed the Government to insist upon the carrying out in its entirety of this agreement with the Chinese Government, and I should be glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman to-night that the Government are determined to insist on this. With regard to South China and Western China, in the course of my journey I penetrated through the Yang-tsze gorges 1,600 miles up the Yang-tsze river. I travelled some distance into the rich province of Szechuan, with its 50,000,000 of industrious and prosperous inhabitants. I found this province covered by French Jesuit priests, who, in addition to the work of a religious propaganda, gather and transmit to the French Government information as to the mineral wealth and the commercial possibilities of the country. They have practically completed a geological survey of the great province, and now the French are pressing for exclusive rights to work minerals in six districts which they believe to be rich in mineral wealth. They have also prepared a chart of the Yang-tsze river, which was to me of invaluable service. As in South Africa it has been found that we actually had no knowledge of the country around Ladysmith, though it had been our military headquarters for years, so in China our charts are out of date, and therefore useless. An Admiralty chart of the Yang-tsze was prepared in 1861, and some slight corrections have been made since, but it is at the present time no guide to the navigation of a river of the changing character of the Yang-tsze. I have again and again drawn the attention of the Government to the agreement of January, 1896, between the British Government and the French Government, under which each nation bound itself to the other to use its best offices with the Chinese Government to secure each for the other similar and increased opportunities and facilities for trading with

  861
  Yunnan and Szechuan. This agreement has been entirely disregarded by the French Government without calling forth any remonstrance from Her Majesty's Government. Nanning-fu, the treaty port on the West River, which was declared to be open more than a year ago (as was admitted the other night by the right hon. Gentleman) still remains unopened. And remembering the violent opposition on the part of the French to the opening of Nanning-fu, one cannot but feel that in all probability the delay in the opening is due to French influence. I hope to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government will not allow further delay, as we have a right to expect that the state of affairs under which British goods have to be transhipped from Hong Kong, sent through Tonkin up to South-West China, and are subjected to a differential duty of 10 per cent. when passing through French territory, shall be ended without delay. The French are busily engaged in constructing a railway from Tonkin towards Yunnan, with the intention of ultimately carrying it forward into Szechuan, and of drawing the trade of South-West China down to the sea through French Indo-China, and with the declared expectation that sooner or later France will be able to annex Szechuan, Yunnan, Kwang-si, and Kwang-tung—the four great Chinese provinces to the north of her Indo-China possessions. When we have regard to the fact that seven-eighths of the imports into French Indo-China in 1885 went from England, Germany, and Switzerland, and that to-day, owing to differential duties in favour of French goods, amounting in some cases to 50 per cent., that three-fourths of the imports go from France, and only one-fourth from the rest of the world, we have an object lesson of the vital importance of resolutely upholding our just commercial rights in South and South-west China, if in the future we are not to see British trade strangled by differential tariffs in those regions also. Her Majesty's Government took great credit for the Kau-lung extension opposite Hong Kong. But I find that the value of the extension was very much reduced by the obstinacy with which the home authorities, contrary to the strongly expressed opinion of both civil and military authorities out there, in accepting the present boundary, which forms no natural defence, as the river is easily fordable
  862
  in many places, and which is considerably south of the head of Mirs Bay, included in the concession, and besides contains no healthy camping ground, whereas they ought to have insisted that the boundary should be a natural line of mountains running slightly north of the head of Mirs Bay, and which would have given a healthy camping ground and a strong natural frontier. It will be in the recollection of the House that, owing to the opposition to the British when taking possession, we occupied Sam Chun, outside the boundary, where we had a most healthy camp. However, while I was at Hong Kong, instructions came from home that, under arrangements made with the Chinese Government, Sam Chun was to be evacuated. This, it was believed, had been done because the French had pointed out to the Chinese Government that we had been allowed to occupy a territory beyond the concession agreed upon, and that they were in consequence claiming further concessions around their newly acquired treaty port in the South. If this is so, the result at any rate was not creditable to British diplomacy, for within a week of our evacuation of Sam Chun the French demands were conceded in full by the Chinese Government. Again and again in this House declarations of policy have been made by Her Majesty's Government which, if carried out, would have given the greatest satisfaction to everybody interested in the upholding and the extending of our commercial interests in the Far East. But, unfortunately, whether in regard to Agreements such as the Anglo-Russian Agreement in the matter of railway concessions, the opening of the inland waterways, the patrolling by gunboats of the Yang-tsze and the West River, or the terms and conditions upon which the acquisition of Wei-hai-Wei and Kau-lung have been secured, all alike have proved delusive and unsatisfactory. And I do not hesitate to say that in China our prestige and influence, which were predominant five years ago, are non-existent to-day. The Blue-book issued yesterday is unfortunately largely a further record of failure, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to deal successfully with the Tsung-li-Yamen. This voluminous paper hardly contains one instance where a distinct diplomatic success has been achieved. What, then, ought Her Majesty's Govern-

  863
  ment to do, in view of accomplished facts in the Far East, in order to retrieve as far as possible the disastrous results of their neglect to pursue a firm and definite policy? The understanding arrived at between the United States Government and the other nations interested in the trade of China, securing, if faithfully observed, the maintenance of the open door, appears to afford another golden opportunity for seeking the further friendly co-operation of the great Powers in the promotion of administrative reforms, so greatly needed for the strengthening of the Imperial Government and for maintaining the integrity of China, the necessity for which the United States Government so fully recognise. All authorities in China agree that a serious mistake was made in allowing the deposition of the Emperor last year, and the assumption of the control of China by the reactionary Dowager Empress, who is a usurper and has no title whatever to occupy her present position. In view of the somewhat alarming news as to the disturbed condition and anti-foreign feeling in various parts of China, joint action ought, in my opinion, to be taken by the Powers to replace the Emperor on the throne; for it is undoubted that his sympathies are genuinely in favour of reform and the opening up of his country to trade. But, in addition to this, I would draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that the Chinese Government would be powerless to resist the aggression, territorially and otherwise, of other Powers, unless she is enabled to have her naval and military forces re-organised. This she cannot do, unless her revenues are considerably increased. I would, therefore, strongly urge that the time has come for a revision of the customs tariff in China, and that at present the maritime customs import duty of 5 per cent., which is a maximum of 5 per cent., and in many cases really much less, should be substantially increased, on the condition that not only every riverside town and station, but also the interior of China is freely thrown open to foreign trade, and that some satisfactory rearrangement to secure the equitable levying of lik in would be included in the agreement. The proportion should be fixed that is to be paid into the provincial and imperial treasuries respectively. Some system of paying officials, so as to render it possible for them
  864
  to live without corruptly applying any portion of the revenues which pass through their hands, is essential. It would appear desirable that the increased revenues thus obtained by China should be allocated to specific purposes and should be given only on condition that an agreed amount be expended on the reorganisation of the military and naval forces of China, under officers to be jointly provided by those Powers who do not desire the partition of the country; that a further sum be applied to river conservancy with a view of improving the navigation of such great commercial arteries of the Chinese Empire as the Yang-tsze and West Rivers, under the control of international conservancy boards; and that there be a previous ratification, on satisfactory terms and conditions, of railway concessions promised to British con-cessionnaires. If joint action were taken by the United States of America, England, Japan, and Germany in support of the policy I have indicated, it would be difficult for Russia and France to hold aloof. I have always recognised the vast importance to British trade of the development of our Indian Empire. But the great Empire of China, with its four hundred millions of industrious trading people, its greater fertility of soil, and its enormous mineral resources, is in my opinion of still greater importance to the British nation, considered from a commercial point of view. I, therefore, earnestly hope that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs may be able to assure the House to-night that this policy of preserving China for the Chinese, and developing her resources in the interests alike of the population of that country and of all nations, will receive the vigorous and determined support of Her Majesty's Government; for in this way, and in this way alone, can the just influence and commercial rights of the British nation be preserved in the Far East.
  LORD BALCARRES: The hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to the policy of the British Government, and he wishes us to infer that in every department, geographical and political, in China we ought to exercise exclusive control. There can be no greater mistake than to imagine that this country is capable of doing any such thing.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Excuse me; I did not say so. What I said was that we should act in concert with the other Powers in regard to the open door. I say that, starting from that, we should seek in concert with the other Powers to bring about administrative reforms.
  LORD BALCARRES: I do not think that we can act in concert with the other Powers, because I am quite convinced that the key of our position in China lies exclusively in the south. Russia holds control over China, and nothing we can do in concert with the other Powers can shake the power Russia has already grasped. I do not think the Foreign Office has been successful in combating the advance of Russia. I am sorry to say so, but that, I am convinced, is the present position. Russia from every point of view dominates everything north of the Yang-tsze valley. We hold a miserable little station at Wei-hai-wei which is perfectly worthless strategically, economically, politically, socially, and commercially. I really think that the position has become so acute that by far the most statesmanlike thing we can do is to abandon our position in the north, and make an agreement by which we shall have exclusive control, at any rate without the interference of Russia, in the Yang-tsze valley. What is the exact position of Russia in this matter? The hon. Member said Russia has the Pekin railway from the centre of Siberia across the Mongolian desert to Pekin. At the present moment you can do that journey in eleven days by camels. After about 100 miles of hills and mountains the country is perfectly flat. A railway along that route would undoubtedly enable travellers to reach Pekin in an extraordinarily short time. Plans have not yet been drawn out, and I do not believe the Russian Government has got the money or the engineering skill to make the railway. The hon. Member spoke of the Russian railway as a magnificent railway. I think the hon Member for North Paddington will agree with me in saying that it is not a magnificent railway. They have no engineering skill in Russia. There is only one railway tunnel in Russia, and it was made by a Frenchman. If they have to get over a mountain they climb over it, whereas our engineers would penetrate the mountain, at a saving of thirty, forty, or fifty miles. They
  866
  refuse to put a station between two points which would naturally be served by the railway. The reason for that is that the Siberian, not appreciating anything emanating from Russia, refuses to pay blackmail to the engineers of the line, who consequently say, "If you don't pay us you will not have a railway station." The line is single. The engines only burn wood, and the tenders of the engines get on fire about once in three days. The ballasting of the line is extremely bad. Where the railway has to cross a gully a great fall of rain or a flood carries away the line. Of course the trains stop at all the stations, and the result is that about nine miles is about the average distance you can cover in an hour. I was told by the Government Prosecutor that the object of his journey was to prosecute certain unknown individuals for stealing a train. These men stopped a train by the use of false lights; they unhooked nine wagons, and then removed the light. The train proceeded and the wagons were left. In order to prevent a subsequent accident the wagons were rolled over an embankment. This is not a line which is going to have the great commercial importance attributed to it by the hon. Member. The line must be substantially reformed if it is to be of much value. But there is one point connected with the line, slow and bad as it is, which must receive the attention of the Government. I frankly admit that I think the Government has not been successful in combating the influence, not of Russia in Russia, but of Russia engaged in the north of China. What is the position on the Pacific Ocean? There is Vladivostok, with at least 35,000 troops in it. I remember counting fifty-six military buildings in process of construction during last October, varying from 50 to 350 feet in frontage. There is Port Arthur, where the hon. Member has been, but where I was not allowed by the police to go. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman possesses a better reputation than I do in the Far East. At Port Arthur there are from 30,000 to 35,000 men. Most people would say that 70,000 men to guard an Empire of that size is not an unreasonable number, especially in view of the very threatening attitude adopted by Japan. But these two places do not represent in the smallest degree the

  867
  military enterprise of Russia. The most striking thing that one notices when travelling through Eastern Siberia is the fact that everywhere you see new towns occupied exclusively by the military. I remember going through one place which, five years ago, was a little town with one little wooden church, and perhaps three or four hundred inhabitants. It is now a town with a magnificent cathedral and at least 10,000 troops. These towns are built by the soldiers. There are thousands and thousands of soldiers in the Far East who have never had a rifle in their hands. There is a little stretch of line leading down to the Pacific from Vladivostok, about 500 versts in length. That line is managed exclusively by soldiers. The man who collects the tickets, the stoker, the driver—in fact, all connected with the line—are military men. Whether or not these men are very formidable as soldiers, I cannot say, but I suppose they are put there because there is no population either capable of carrying out these railway works or willing to do so, the men employed in that part being capable of only manual labour. But here is the situation in a nutshell. China at the present moment is dominated by Russian influence. British influence in China—I am not speaking of our influence with the Tsung-li-Yamen, but in China generally—is absolutely and, in my opinion, almost hopelessly subordinated to the immense power which has been gained by Russia. That power is not of so modern a growth as many people, and especially the critics of the Government, are inclined to suppose. It has been growing steadily, persistently, and silently for five-and-twenty years; but this startling development began five years ago, and during the last three years that Power has become regularly established. In a short time they will have linked up the railway joining the central station of Siberia with Vladivostok. There are immense engineering difficulties, and I am sure the railway will take very many more years to complete than the Russians say. They hope, at the present moment, to have a through service from St. Petersburg to the Pacific in fifteen months time, but they will have to greatly reform their methods if that is to be done. Just a word with regard to the policy largely the result of this enterprise in the north of China. The hon. Member desires us, in concert with other Powers,
  868
  as he said, to put a finger into every Chinese pie. I most devoutly hope the Government will strenuously refrain from interfering with anything connected with Manchuria. I hope also that the Government will refrain from doing anything to uphold the Chinese dynasty. It may sound a radical change to suggest to any Government, but the result of interference in any dynastic question will, I am convinced, lead to a further increase of Russian power. I hope the Government will not take such small advantages as it can take in the north of China in order to secure a Parliamentary case. Wei-hai-Wei has been quoted as a triumph. It is not a triumph. It has led us into the very gravest peril. If we had been content a few years ago to limit ourselves strictly to one field or area, which had a population far greater than this country can ever hope to supply, we should have avoided a most critical state of affairs with Russia, we should have preserved our prestige in China, which is now almost irretrievably lost, and the Government would not have suffered the loss of reputation resulting from that which has occurred all over the world. I hope, therefore, the Government will strictly limit itself to the sphere of influence which it has chosen for its own efforts.
  MR. MOON: I cannot join in the condemnation pronounced by the hon. Member opposite of what he calls the "humiliating inactivity" of the Government. I think he has lost sight of the fact that the reason why our progress appears not to have been so rapid in the Far East is because he compares our present progress with that of Powers which have only just entered the field. Take, for instance, a comparison of Wei-hai-Wei with German activity or with Russian activity at Port Arthur. A fairer comparison would be that of Hong Kong with Port Arthur and with Kiau-chau. We have a splendid military base and a splendid commercial harbour there, and I have all along understood that Wei-hai-wei was only to be a second military base.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: A counterpoise to Port Arthur.
  MR. MOON: But there is a point in regard to which I certainly think the onus lies on the Government to show

  869
  that they have not lost a great opportunity. I refer to supporting the cause of reform in China. By doing so in the future, or by having done so in the past, we should strengthen China against adverse enemies, we should further the cause of civilisation, and we should secure and maintain our reputation in the Far East. As a great civilising power, I think we should seize the opportunity of promoting Western reforms. China is not like India, where the educated people are rather a dreamy people; the educated people in China, apart from all their mandarin culture, are a very hard-headed shrewd folk. To such people Western civilisation would, I am quite sure, have been acceptable. By promoting these reforms we should have created a solidarity in China which would have enabled her to continue to exist as a buffer between ourselves and that great Power in the North-east of Asia, whose methods and ideas, whose character and government, are so different from our own as to be, in fact, antagonistic. That result, I think, we might have secured. At least, I suggest that it lies on the Government to show that they had reasons for not interposing, instead of allowing the Empress to initiate a sanguinary coup d'état. The young Emperor had a project of reform for every branch of administration, and his ambition was to play in China the part played by Peter the Great in Russia. He wished to emulate that great man, who by his own initiative changed the character and position of a European nation. I have on previous occasions ventured to give statistics showing that in various parts of China there was an immense demand for Western literature and Western instruction. That, I hear, has now come to an end. The coup d'état of the Dowager Empress was regarded by certain persons as merely an attempt to moderate in Oriental ways precipitate and subversive measures of reform. That view, perhaps, had some plausibility for a few months, but during the last twelve months we have seen the results but too clearly. I have recently had a communication from Mr. Timothy Richards, an American in Pekin, and a well-known authority in these matters. He points out that the old curriculum has been restored in the place of modern Western education; the Pekin University, which used to have 1,000 students, now has no more than 200; a similar institution
  870
  started in Nankin has been closed; many Anglo-Chinese schools supported by Chinese reformers in different parts of the country are closed; and then he refers to newspapers and other reform measures which are entirely suspended. On that point it is necessary to add one more item of evidence. I would mention the edict published by the Empress at the beginning of February, which demands a return to the old manner of study according to Confucius for examinations for official rank, and the abolition of studies in what are called the new and depraved subjects. It is over fifty years since we intervened in China. It may be urged that the circumstances have changed, and that by supporting the reform movement we would force Russia to support reaction. If that is so one would like to hear it stated by the Government. There is only one other point to which I would refer. The hon. Member for Barnsley as well as my noble friend has lost sight of the commanding position of Russia by reason of her geographical position. That was particularly pointed out in the other House last session when a noble Lord dwelt on the thousands of miles of frontier for which Russia was coterminous with China. When we consider our immense expansion in every part of the world, and when we look at Russia and know that Russia can only expand on her own frontiers, can we be surprised if she develops in the direction of Persia and the Trans-Caspian Railway and in the North-east? I think the co-operation of the Great Powers interested in the Far East in matters commercial is a very hopeful sign, but I do not think we can look to such a combination as being permanent I hope that if the Government have lost an opportunity in the past they will not fail to be vigilant in order to seize any opportunity that may present itself hereafter of advancing our commercial interests.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Although I have not the personal acquaintance with China possessed by hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, I have endeavoured to follow the Parliamentary experience of the question. I have also endeavoured, in the very short time which has been at our disposal, to look into the Blue book just published. With some of the observations of the noble Lord opposite and of my hon. friend below me I

  871
  entirely agree. I entirely agree with the noble Lord's remarks in reference to Manchuria. Manchuria, it seems to me, is a part of Russia, and should have been recognised by Her Majesty's Government as being absolutely within the control of Russia as soon as she began to expand. If that had been done frankly at the beginning this country would have been spared a good deal of useless negotiation, humiliation, and expenditure. But we know that that was not the attitude adopted in the early stages of this Chinese question. The Government embarked on a course of policy which was apparently prompted solely by the desire to enter into political rivalry with Russia in China, and to give China, or to lead her to expect that she would get, active support in withstanding the demands of Russia. So far as Manchuria is concerned that failed, and Manchuria now practically belongs to the Russian Empire. I agree with what was said by one hon. Gentleman opposite when he suggested we had better give up any attempts to press forward the British claim, commercial or otherwise, north of Pekin, and devote ourselves to our interests in other parts of China. The hon. Member for Barnsley in the course of his remarks stated that there had been "a humiliating inactivity on the part of the British Government." I cannot agree with him on that point. My personal survey of this last Blue-book, as well as of previous ones, leads me to the conclusion that if there is humiliation that humiliation is rather because of the activity of the Government than in consequence of their inactivity. Certainly you cannot fairly accuse them of humiliating inactivity. It is unfortunate that this book should not have been produced before. The last despatches contained in it are nearly three months old, and there can be no reason why it should not have been placed in our hands at an earlier period. Hon. Members have not had an opportunity of fully examining the many interesting documents contained in the volume, which is really a history of what Her Majesty's Government have been doing or attemping to do in China during the last year. I may be singular, but it does seem to me that a good deal of that record is anything but pleasant reading for the nation and the public. Nine-tenths of this Blue-book is composed of negotiations between the Foreign Office
  872
  here and the British Embassy at Pekin endeavouring to force upon the Tsung-li-Yamen the claims of various British con-cessionnaires. There are a number of syndicates mentioned which have apparently gone out to China, obtained an introduction to the British Embassy there, and practically asked them to enforce their demands upon the Tsung-li-Yamen for the rights of mining, or railways, or whatever it might be. Lord Salisbury, last year, in a speech on the subject succinctly stated that the policy in regard to China was a policy of railways and concessions. It is not pleasant to read of this constant pressure being put upon the Chinese Government to make concessions. I cannot express this point more forcibly than did the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in a debate in this House a year ago.* Protesting against this constant concession hunting on the part of British subjects, and the way in which they endeavour to put on the screw on the British Embassy to obtain concessions, he used these words—
  "We cannot go there and, as an act of pure piracy, insist that over a large extent of country, every mine, every line of railway, every public improvement for which money is provided shall be handed over to any concessionaire, but we have, of course, used our diplomatic influence to see that Great Britain received a due share of this development."
  I should like to give one other instance of what has taken place during the last year. There is one despatch which is a particularly humiliating one to read. It is to be found on page 149 of the Blue-book.† Lord Salisbury telegraphs in the month of June last as to interest due to the British and Chinese Carporation; I do not know who they are, but I suppose they are one of these syndicates—
  "I am informed by the British and Chinese Corporation that one month's interest on the Northern Railways Loan is outstanding which must be provided by the 16th July, with a further month's interest, in order that they may meet the first coupon which is due on the 1st August.
  "You should press the Chinese Government officially to make good the balance required in pursuance of the guarantee given by them.
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxvi., page 227 (8th February, 1899).
  † See "Further Correspondence respecting, the Affairs of China" (Command Paper, No. 93, 1900)

  873
  "At the same time you may intimate to the Chinese Government that the regard paid by them to our representations in the question of the Northern Railways and other matters, recently the subjects of discussion with them, will greatly affect our attitude in regard to the territory now held by us outside the Conventional extension of Hong Kong."
  What is that? Shortly put, it is that on behalf of this corporation who are afraid that their interest would be in arrear, Lord Salisbury telegraphs out to the British Embassy to put pressure on the Chinese Government who had given some guarantee to pay this money, and if they do not do so the British Embassy is to make itself politically nasty in the south of China, thousands of miles from where this railway exists. I suppose that this is the corporation to whose prospectus the British Government last year unfortunately gave to a certain degree its imprimatur. I do not think the British Government ought to have allowed its name to appear in that way upon the prospectus of a financial company, and this is one of the humiliating results of that conduct. I do hope, for the sake of our good name, that these constant communications between our Foreign Office here and the British Embassy in China for the purpose of endeavouring to obtain concessions for financial enterprises will soon come to an end. We have heard a good deal about the "trail of finance" in other parts of the world. To my mind there is a great deal too much of the trail of finance over this Blue-book in regard to our affairs in China. A year ago, in answer to a question, the right hon. Gentleman told us that already over 2,800 miles of railway concessions had been made. Not upon a single mile of territory has a single step been taken to put into operation any one of these railway concessions. When pressure is put upon authorities in China I understand that a good deal of money must pass to obtain these concessions. I hope the Government do not devote any secret service money in China for this purpose, and that whatever the syndicates may do, our hands are absolutely free from anything of that sort. We have had in the course of the past few years a constant change in the policy of the Government in regard to China, and apparently we are going to have another change now. My hon. friend has under-rated the change of policy he has in view. He has embarked
  874
  upon a very wide policy which he has described as not one of aggression. I should like from the Government some information as to what they propose to do in reference to the suggestion that we are to undertake the drilling of the Chinese army. If we begin to undertake responsibilities for providing China with a military force, we shall be embarking upon a work of which we do not know the end. We have already assumed important additional responsibilities there since the present Government came into, office. We have Wei-hai-Wei leased to us as long as the Russians hold Port Arthur; we have undertaken the policing of the Yang-tsze River, and the West River, and these are very serious political responsibilities entailing considerable expenditure, which will probably be increased in the future. We desire to know what the Government is going to do with Wei-hai-wei. It is quite clear that the original intention for which Wei-hai-wei was acquired has been abandoned, and that policy has been practically given up. I gather from a statement in the Navy Estimates that the number of our naval force on the Yang-tsze River and the West River is to be increased, and that we are building one or two gunboats for those rivers. When a foreign Power undertakes the control of a thousand miles of a river like the Yang-tsze and its rapids and the West River, it is a policy which entails considerable political responsibility and may possibly lead us into serious trouble. We should like to get some definition of the responsibility which Her Majesty's Government consider they are undertaking when they state that they are policing these rivers. Another important matter is the correspondence with the United States, and it is greatly to the credit of the American Secretary of State that he has got some tangible results. We have assented to the policy of the open door, and this course has also been followed by Germany and Japan. I should just like to call attention to a statement in Mr. Choate's letter.* He says that what he asks is that the various Powers within their spheres of influence shall seek to maintain the open-door policy, but he goes on to say that the United States Government will not in any way commit itself to any recognition of exclusive rights of any Power within spheres of
  *See Paper last referred to, page 303.

  875
  influence. When we get a statement like that from a first-class Power like the United States, with a large and increasing trade with China, in which it declares categorically that it will not recognise these exclusive spheres of interest or influence, it ought to make us pause and consider whether we are going to extend these spheres of influence, and what is the exact weight we put upon our position in the sphere of influence or interest which I understand we claim in the Yang-tsze valley. Lord Salisbury is exceedingly cautious in his statement upon this question, for he does not name a single one of the spheres of influence which he claims that Great Britain possesses. We should like to know from the hon. Gentleman if the Government in the future are going to proceed further in this policy of spheres of interest or influence in China They indicated definitely last year that this would be their policy, and in that they had the approval of my hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire. Do the Government intend to proceed further in that direction? After the statement which has been made by the American Government that does not seem likely to turn out a profitable line of policy, for it is one in which we shall not have the co-operation of the United States, and I doubt whether we shall have the co-operation of Japan. I think it is about time that Her Majesty's Government declared their general lines of policy in regard to China.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: It was not my intention to take part in this debate, because I have not yet been able to master the Papers recently laid before the House on this subject, and in the few remarks I intend to make I shall be as brief as possible. The fact that my hon. friend the Member for the Barnsley Division and other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have recently been in China has no doubt added very considerably to the interest of the discussion. There is no doubt whatever that the spirit of adventure which leads men of our race and blood to seek fresh fields for effort and enterprise is as strong as ever in this country. At the same time I think we are apt to lose sight of the fact that we are busy in other parts of the world, and to blame the Government for a vacillating and hesitating policy in China, whereas we had been more fair to them
  876
  if we recognised, as the noble Lord to night recognised, that the development of which we now see the fruit in China in the great advance made by Russia ought to be dated at least a generation back. Not for five years, but for twenty-five years at least, has that movement been going on. It is quite true that we have lost ground, and that, as compared with ourselves, Russia has now a position of greater influence than it had twenty five years ago, but that period has not been all loss to us. We have been busy developing South Africa, Canada, and other parts of the world, and I am not disposed to look at a question of this kind without remembering that we have been busy in effort and enterprise elsewhere. At the same time, if we look at the conduct of the Government for the last five years, and at what has been done by them in China, we must confess to a considerable sense of disappointment. The noble Lord reminds us of Wei-hai-wei, and many hon. Members have expressed grave doubts as to the wisdom of the action of the Government in regard to it, but it has never been so boldly stated as it was to-night that the action of the Government was a concession to the force of public and Parliamentary opinion in this country. The discussion does not seem to me to show that we have got very much further in the adoption of a definite policy with regard to our position in China and our relations with the Chinese Empire. It may be very difficult—I have no doubt it is very difficult. The very fact that our efforts are not concentrated in development in any one direction, and that we have other irons in the fire, other matters of interest and great importance to attend to, makes it more difficult for us to have a single eye and a single aim in the prosecution of a policy in regard to China; but if this debate does nothing else than to clear our minds a little as to the possibilities of the future with regard to China, I think it will have done a great deal of good. My hon. friend the Member for the Barnsley Division said that the great object of his policy was China for the Chinese, and if that could only be recognised by the Chinese and by other Powers interested in the development of China it might smooth matters; but we cannot leave out of sight the inevitable accompaniment of the development of a new country, and without going

  877
  into details I think the Blue-book shows that while there is much of "China for the Chinese," possibly in the future, there is a great deal of "concessions for concessionnaires" in the present. There are, it seems to me, three conflicting policies and principles which are laid down with regard to our position in China—we have the open door, the treaty of Tien-tsin, and the principle of spheres of interest or influence—and it is very desirable that we should know how far and in what respects these three policies overlap and conflict. The open door as referred to in the despatches in the Blue-book is perfectly clear. It only concerns the Powers who are parties to the agreement, and is satisfactory as far as it goes. But it must be admitted it gives us nothing we have not had before. It may improve our position in the future, it may be a safeguard for the future, but we had the privileges it proposes to confer on us for all practical purposes in the past. In June last the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs gave a most explicit statement as to our policy in China.* He said it was an essential part of the policy of the Government that special protection for our trade in the Yang-tsze valley should be assured. Then he said that by means of transit facilities we should endeavour to provide that our trade should be free from undue taxation, and, thirdly, he looked forward to the opening of further inland waterways. My hon. friend speaks with so much knowledge and information that it is not necessary for me to add anything to the questions he suggests to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in regard to the further opening of inland waterways, but with regard to spheres of influence I think a word may usefully be said. The noble Lord who was Member for York last year… solemnly warned the House of the danger of our drifting into the sphere of influence policy. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs himself pointed out that though our privileges in the Yang-tsze region were to be special privileges, they were not to be exclusive privileges in the same sense as German privileges in Shangtung or French privileges in the southern provinces of China. That suggests the question, are our
  *9th June, 1899 (See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxii., page 800).
  …Ibid., page 784 (Speech of Lord Charles Beresford).
  878
  Yang-tsze Valley privileges really strong, valid, and potent for the purpose for which my hon. friend the Member for the Barnsley Division asks? It seems to me that his criticism is amply justified if we cannot regard our privileges in the Yang-tsze Valley as in any way a counterweight to the privileges of the Germans in Shangtung or the French in the southern provinces of China. My hon. friend has put some questions to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs which he may find it difficult to answer. For my part, having in my recollection the remarks of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs last year, and also the remarks of the noble Lord the then Member for York, I am inclined to think that my hon. friend the Member for the Barnsley Division wishes to push us too far in regard to this sphere of influence policy. What may be the inevitable result if we adopt for ourselves such a large region as the Yang-tsze Valley?
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I am entirely opposed to spheres of influence, and entirely in favour of the open door and equal privileges for all nations.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I understood my hon. friend to suggest, at the end of his speech, some sweeping reforms which he hoped this country, in concert with other nations, might later endeavour to carry out. Practically, they would amount to the international control of a population of 400 millions of people, leading to as many difficulties in the future as the quasi-international control of South Africa and Egypt may do. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has not committed himself to any policy of that kind. He said last year that we could not make the Yang-tsze valley a province like Shangtung, because we were not prepared to take the responsibility of governing what is practically a third of China. That is a much safer limit of policy than the sweeping suggestions of my hon. friend, who, no doubt, is an idealist and looks far into the future. But, as my hon. friend will remember, one of the great schemes of the noble Lord who was Member for York was that we should undertake the reorganisation of the Chinese army and so strengthen it that the Chinese Empire would be able to stand against all comers. The noble Lord who spoke to-night warned us

  879
  against that policy. I would like a little light as to what is being done in the Yang-tsze valley. My hon. friend described it as having a population of fifty millions of peaceful, industrial people; and he went on to say that there were 500,000 stalwart sailors engaged in the carrying trade in that region, who would view with grave concern the arrival of steamers carrying the British flag. Well, it would be a melancholy thing if, in our endeavours to maintain China for the Chinese, we should have a repetition of the circumstances that occurred in China a generation or two ago. I hope that we may have, before the debate closes, some light as to how this theory of the open door does not conflict with the Treaty of Tien-tsin and the spheres of influence policy. It was said last year that not one of our privileges under the Treaty of Tien-tsin have been taken from us, and that we hold the Chinese Government to that treaty. I should like to remind the House that the relative proportion of our total trade to that with China is only three per cent. I hope, with the hon. Member for Barnsley, that that trade may be extended. I believe that the Chinese have no better friends in developing their country than the British people, but my sympathies are rather with a policy of caution and concentration, not only in China, but in other parts of the world. We are too apt to forget that the policy of expansion has its drawbacks, because it multiplies the points that are vulnerable. The noble Lord the late Member for York, who could not be accused of a desire to curb the reasonable development of the Empire, told the Committee last year that he did not believe anyone in this country wanted to see a single acre added to the British Empire. He said that the British Empire was too big already; and in almost prophetic words the noble Lord pointed out that if we had disturbances at the Cape, or in India, the problem would he not naval but military, and difficult of solution, even with conscription. I hope that nothing will be said to-night which will encourage the belief that we do not adhere to the policy of caution and concentration.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Although
  880
  the hon. Member who moved this motion, which seems to be a severe condemnation of the policy of the Government, or of the conduct of the Government during the past year, introduced his motion with a knowledge of his subject which we all admired, and with a command of the Chinese nomenclature which we might envy; and although the House has listened to him with great pleasure, I cannot help feeling that the condition of the House during a considerable part of the discussion is, perhaps, the best answer to the motion which he has put down on the Paper. Those of us who recollect the character of the discussions on China two years ago, and the full House which was attracted when we discussed this question twelve months ago, must feel that there is something besides the absorbing interest we feel in the military operations in South Africa to account for the comparative slackness of the discussion to-night. I do not say that in order to detract from the importance of the subject, but to indicate that it is the feeling of the House, this is not the occasion for a vigorous censure of the Government, or for giving the acute stimulus to their exertions which the hon. Member for Barnsley believes is necessary. The hon. Members who followed the hon. Member for Barnsley have, to a large extent, devoted themselves to answering him and, to some extent, to answering each other. My noble friend the Member for the Chorley Division, who, I venture to say, is heard too infrequently in this House, delivered an admirable and interesting discourse to-night. Although he agreed with the conclusions of the hon. Gentleman opposite, he disagreed in toto with most of his premises, and his particular statement of policy, with which he concluded his speech, has also attracted the censure of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire and the hon. and gallant Member for Forfarshire, who has just sat down. And, therefore, I may stand upon this—that the Government, although no Member has spoken immediately in defence of it, has not been without defenders. One other point which has struck me very much during this discussion is that, although we were discussing the Blue-book which dealt with the affairs of last year—a document which I regret could not be put in the hands of hon. Members earlier, but the dis-

  881
  cussion came on rather unexpectedly, and, in addition to that, the despatches come up to the end of last year, and it is never possible to bring out a Chinese Blue-book except after a considerable interval—although we have been dealing with the affairs of last year, practically hardly any of the criticisms which have been presented against the Government had to do with their conduct during the past year. We have had a strong impeachment of the original character of our negotiations with regard to Port Arthur, and with regard to the taking of Wei-hai-wei. We have had a great deal said about the advantages gained by other nations in regard to concessions, and the comparative inefficiency of the advantages obtained by our Government in the same direction. We have also heard a good deal about the state of affairs in Manchuria. But nearly all of these points refer to matters which were antecedent to the period which we are now discussing, and I think you will search the Blue-book in vain, bulky as it is, for any proof of those diplomatic and commercial defeats which the hon. Member for Barnsley declares had illustrated the whole of the efforts of Her Majesty's Government during the past year. I will take one point alone. The hon. Member points out how little we have gained from the Yamen during the past year. But he does not, I think, suppose for a moment that we can deal with these matters precisely as we please. His complaint is that we have too little influence with the Yamen, that the Yamen keeps us at arm's length, that what we might achieve in a better governed country we ought to achieve in China if only we had not lost the whole of our prestige. Have foreign Powers met with no difficulties from the Yamen? Is there not evidence even in that Blue-book that every foreign Power which has been dealing with the Yamen has found sometimes an obstructive spirit, and in almost every case a difficulty in its dealings which could not be overcome? I do not wish to emphasise this too strongly; I do not wish to put my finger on every case, because possibly it might produce a certain amount of feeling in other quarters. But in all the more important cases the hon. Gentleman will find either that there has been a direct refusal by the Yamen, as is shown in the case of that railway to Pekin, on
  882
  which he said a few words, or that there has been a refusal based on an objection taken by this Government. I saw it was stated the other day that the organisation of the French concession at Shanghai had been entirely stopped by the Yamen because Her Majesty's Ministers would not assent to it. That is only one illustration; and I am quite certain of this, that for every illustration which he gave us of the impotence of Sir Claude MacDonald in these negotiations he would find that we were able to give him similar instances in respect to other Powers. Now, I should like to say at once that I do not propose this evening to trouble the House with any detailed argument with regard to Manchuria. I know perfectly well that it is possible to reckon up the large number of troops and the great works which are being carried out by the Russian Government in Manchuria; but when I hear these arguments I am very much inclined to wonder at the temerity of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Knowing that we are a maritime Power, and that Russia has a land frontier of some 3,000 or 4,000 miles with China, I am somewhat surprised at the spirit with which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley attacks the question, as if it were the business of Her Majesty's Government to challenge the Government of Russia for possession of a province which we do not desire to possess ourselves and which China, unfortunately, is not able to retain without the vigorous support of Her Majesty's Government or of some other Power. But, leaving that, the hon. Member says that there are other matters in regard to which there have been grave failures on our part. He specially alluded to the Kau-lung extension. The hon. Gentleman has been to Kau-lung and I have not, and he has heard there opinions which, no doubt, he has repeated in this House, as to the large extent of territory which it was desirable to take in order to secure what he considered an effective boundary. But let us look into the question a little more closely. What is it we asked for at Kau-lung and obtained? We obtained 200 square miles addition to the colony of Hong Kong. That, in itself, is a not inconsiderable extension. In taking possession of that it is quite true that we were forced, owing to the opposition which was threatened to us by disorganised Chinese troops, to take this

  883
  territory of Sam Chun, which the hon. Member seems to regret so much that we have given up.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Hear, hear!
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, but when the cause of offence has passed, I ask the House whether the punishment which we were forced to inflict for that cause of offence should not be withdrawn too? It really amounts to this—that, according to the hon. Gentleman, we were to do an act not justified, at all events, by any legal convention or agreement; we were to take a considerable further tract of country because we were temporarily obstructed in taking the extension at Hong Kong to which we were entitled. I think that, as a matter of public right and justice, in restoring that territory to the Chinese we were not acting amiss.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I said we ought to have taken a further tract of country in the first instance, and thus have secured a proper frontier.
  MR. BRODRICK: I quite grant that he wants a more effective boundary, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he and his friends ever considered, in their desire to have this extended boundary, the probable number of troops which would be required to maintain that boundary? Let me say one word about concessions. I do not think it has been seriously advanced by anybody except the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government have been backward in obtaining concessions during the past year. Of this large volume (the Blue-book) an enormous amount is due to the correspondence in connection with concessions which were desired by various persons, for whom Her Majesty's Government did their best. But we cannot force these concessions from the Chinese Government. They are concessions, let us remember, for mining, for railways, and for other advantages for which absolutely no payment is to be made in most cases—or at all events, no payment of which we are aware. Therefore we cannot, as a matter of right and justice, insist in every case where a British subject, sometimes without any serious capital at his back, comes forward and states that he desires to have the whole mining concessions throughout an entire province. That has been the case in some instances. We cannot in those
  884
  cases declare to the Yamen that unless the concessions are granted we shall use force in order to compel them to do so. But I notice that the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire actually fell foul of us for doing too much. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] He said that Lord Salisbury had been obliged to explain that our policy in regard to the restoration of the land at Sam Chun would be to some extent guided by the Chinese Government's performance of their undertaking in regard to the Northern Railway. The Newchang Railway was a special case. Her Majesty's Government allowed it to be stated on the prospectus that they had taken note of the agreement with the Chinese Government under which the railway was to be constructed. Therefore we were perfectly justified in putting pressure on the Chinese Government to see that their engagements were carried out. One hon. Member stated, and stated very truly, that we heard very little about the construction of these railways, or about the development of these mining enterprises for which concessions were granted. Well, if it is the fact, as indeed it is, that in too many of these cases concessions have been obtained and no work been done, then I think the Chinese Government is justified in declaring that, until some substantial progress has been made with these schemes, they will not give concessions for other railways; and Her Majesty's Government have, I submit to the House, in accepting to a large extent their declaration, only taken a wise and prudent course—a course which any business man would have been inclined to take in similar circumstances. Once it is found that these concessions, like those, for instance, which are being worked by the Pekin Syndicate, are being undertaken seriously and pushed forward, the Government will not be found wanting in pressing the Chinese Government to grant further concessions. Then the hon. Member touched upon a very proper question when he came to the difficulties with regard to the internal navigation of China. My predecessor, Lord Curzon, made a very definite declaration on that subject on 25th February, 1898.* It is quite true that some difficulties have been found in working out that pledge, seeing that there are two quite distinct customs duties. The Chinese Govern-
  * See The Paliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. liv., page 31.

  885
  ment have thought it necessary, up to the present time, to insist that one class of steamers should deal with the Treaty ports, and another class of steamers with the intervening ports. If it could be shown that Her Majesty's Government had sat down and allowed British trade to lose its position in consequence of any want of effort on their part, then I think the hon. Member's strictures might be to some extent justified. But that is not the case at all. In the first place, there is no man in China, either now or in the past, who has done so much for obtaining proper treatment with regard to likin and the system of transit passes, both on the West River and the Yang-tsze, as Sir Claude Macdonald. In the same way at this moment, and for some months past, Sir Claude MacDonald, aided by the very active consuls in the various ports, on the West river and the Yang-tsze, has been pressing strongly for the simplification of the regulations with regard to internal navigation. I have myself, within the last few days, conferred with a gentleman who has recently come home from China, and I believe I may say that the suggestions he has made will be pressed by Her Majesty's Government on the Chinese Government. I will only say that a complete change of the whole national idea of throwing their close trade in small junks into open competition is one which we cannot expect to achieve in a very few weeks. At the same time, the reasonableness of it is, on the face of it, so great that I look forward to our continuing to press for it with some good hopes of success. There is one more point with regard to the waterways. The hon. Gentleman made some excellent suggestions with regard to what class of steamers should ply on the Yang-tsze and the West river. Those points I will certainly bring before the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is most anxious to ascertain the class of steamer most likely to he useful. In pursuance of the pledge given to the House last year, attempts were made by two gunboats to ascend the rapids in order to see whether it is possible not only to improve the navigation, but to place boats on the upper Yang-tsze. Those attempts are to be renewed at the proper state of the water, which is, I think, in April or May, and I hold to the full the pledge given last year that the Government will take up that question with the full
  886
  intention both of seeing that our trade is properly protected, and also, as far as we can, the conduct of that trade by British steamers. These are really the main points which it is attempted to make against us. I should like, however, to refer to one or two other more general matters before I sit down. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that in all these questions one nation should be able to impress the Yamen with the reasonableness of the proposal; and, failing that, that the reforms desired would be reached if only there was a concert of the Powers. He thinks it could be done if the nations arrived at a general resolution to press these reforms on the Chinese Government. Has the hon. Gentleman considered this question from the point of view taken by my noble friend? The policy which he foreshadowed involves not one question, but a collection of difficulties. There is the question of the dynasty, there is the question affecting the collection of taxation, there is the question of the customs, the likin; there is the question of payment of officials—all these and more are questions which he proposed should be dealt with by one Power or the concert of the Powers. But these questions taken together simply mean the government of China—that is the government of an empire of 400,000,000 people; governed with difficulty and to some extent not governed at all, or misgoverned under the name of an Emperor whose edicts they revere. If that is a great undertaking for one Power to face alone, what is the prospect opened to us of the combined action of foreign Powers? We have already had some experience of the concerted action of the Great Powers. We had quite recently the experience with regard to Crete. There we had the case of a small island—not the object of ambition probably to any of the Powers which were engaged for some considerable time in an endeavour to settle it. What was our experience of our endeavours in regard to Crete in concert with other Powers? Why, it took weeks and months, it almost took years, to carry out the smallest reforms or a settlement with regard to questions which some of us certainly thought capable of prompt settlement in a very short time. Then if we want to have another illustration in the same direction we may take the case of Samoa, where Germany, ourselves, and the United

  887
  States of America were concerned. There we had small islands and a meagre population—certainly no large number of inhabitants. Those difficulties certainly have been solved so that each Power now knows what its responsibilities and duties are.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government has not already agreed to act in concert with the United States and other Powers in bringing forward reforms in the administration of China, to strengthen the Imperial Government and preserve the integrity of China. Those were the special points which the British Government assented to most cordially.
  MR. BRODRICK: There is a great difference between what was agreed upon between the British Government and the United States Government as to the open door and dealing with the Chinese Government.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: The agreement was for administrative reform.
  MR. BRODRICK: The wording will not cover the government of China. No one can be more anxious than we are to bring united pressure to bear in the proper direction, but when it comes to the government of the country, then I think, and perhaps the House will agree with me, that the matter does not appear so simple to all of us as it seems to appear to the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: But that is what you agreed to do.
  MR. BRODRICK: Let me say one further word as to the charge against Her Majesty's Government of having throughout this year indulged in what is called "a do nothing policy." What does the hon. Member say to-night? He says we had five years ago a prestige and a para mount influence which has now vanished into nothing through a policy of drift and surrender. Well, I am not quite clear that our influence was paramount five years ago. The noble Lord who has just come back from China denied that altogether; but without going into all that, what grounds does the hon. Member find for saying that our influence now is
  888
  non-existent? What is there in the papers which justifies him in saying that our influence and interest in Pekin come to nothing? The House will find that in the last five years, like other Powers, we have been able to protect the interests of those of our nationality in various places where there are murders or outrages in China. There were four cases in the past year, including the case of Mr. Brookes, who was murdered recently, and the Government in every case secured the exemplary punishment of the criminals and obtained compensation, and in the last case the magistrate at the scene of the murder was dismissed; the prompt action which the Government took in these cases and the response to it, showing that in these respects it is untrue to say that our prestige is non-existent at Pekin. If we are to regard our position as compared with that of foreign Governments, I would ask him to look at the Russian concession at Hankow and the French concession at Shanghai. We find in both cases that Her Majesty's Government secured from the Chinese Government fair treatment, and also from the French and Russian Governments. Of the many subjects which have been dealt with and concluded, mentioned in the Blue-books, the House will not find a single case where the British Government have been obliged to give way or give up the claims they put forward. I challenge the hon. Member to state any single diplomatic triumph by which Her Majesty's Government has been worsted in the course of the year. I have already alluded to what we have accomplished, and I can only say that, from information which has reached us, neither has British trade suffered in China nor has British prestige suffered in any respect. As I ventured to say last year, having regard to the great rapidity with which events followed one another in China during the previous year, it is desirable that we should now proceed with a policy of concentration. It is the policy of the Government, without creating further responsibilities necessitating the employment of a large number of troops, to keep open the waterways of China for our trade, and to secure to British subjects a full share of opportunities to open out China while securing from all countries the recognition of the principle of the open door. We shall also endeavour to obtain by

  889
  legitimate pressure from China all those reasonable facilities which it is as much in her interest to give as in ours to obtain. That is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and it is one in which we shall not be found wanting.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt very fairly with the points raised in this debate. He has shown that desire felt by all of us to deal with the various questions and to explain to the House that the Government are alive to their importance, and desire to do something to procure practical results. I have no complaint to make of the object pursued or with the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with it. Where there is a little difference between us is, not as to the policy to be pursued or as to the energy which should be shown in keeping the objects in the front, but on the practical results that ensue. That was a difference which must have been seen throughout. It is seen that it is difficult to get practical results except on paper, but the knowledge which my hon. friend the Member for Barnsley and the noble Lord opposite have gained, and which they have placed before the House from their own personal experience, must be of value. Both the hon. Members who spoke in this debate dwelt on the decline of British influence at Pekin. I do not go so far as to say that British influence is non-existent—I think that would be overstating the case; but I think it is undoubtedly the fact that British influence has declined as compared with the influence gained by some other Powers, certainly Russia. Undoubtedly the shadow of Russian influence has been deepening over China. Russia has been pressing forward, and has come nearer; her communications are crossing the continent. As to the Russian railways, I think they ought to be studied from a strategical position—from the point of view of Russian political ambition, rather than from the point of view of trade competition. I do not believe that the railway trade across Siberia will ever be able to compete against Great Britain. I do not think goods will ever be carried to China by rail. Therefore the railway is a political matter, and so far Russia has gained. To a certain extent it is
  890
  inevitable, and I welcome the recognition of the right hon. Gentleman that Russia has a certain sphere of interest in Manchuria with which we should not think of interfering. Our complaint on this side of the House has always been, not that that has come about—because I think it was inevitable—but that a great opportunity was missed of having a good understanding with Russia while it has been coming. There was a moment when Russia's designs had not been fully declared, but when Russia was obliged to show her hand by making representations on the presence of British ships in Port Arthur. Lord Salisbury expressed surprise, and said that the ships would go on in due course; and they did go on; and that incident will remain in our memories as a great landmark of an opportunity lost. It is true that we have had an understanding with Russia since; but it is not as explicit or comprehensive as the understanding which might have been made, quite safely, before the ships were removed. With Lord Salisbury prepared to concede—as he would have been—what Russia wanted, it would have been the obvious occasion to explain that we were not a permanent obstacle to Russia's designs, but that to bring them about must be the result of an understanding with us. That belongs to past history, and I do not wish to dwell upon it; but our treaty rights, on which our position depends, have been by a slow process gradually eaten away—not altogether, but considerably eaten away. On paper we are entitled to much more than our trade secures. I admit that it is not under the present Government alone that this diminution of our treaty rights has been going on. Many of them are old treaties which in practice have been considerably impaired. But in August, 1897, Lord Salisbury wrote a despatch to say that Her Majesty's Government could not support British merchants in claiming any privileges which they had not enjoyed in the past. That has been construed to mean that treaty rights which exist on paper, if they have fallen into desuetude, will not be pressed by the Foreign Office. That is a direct sanction to the doctrine that we have more treaty rights on paper than we mean to enforce. With regard to internal navigation, I would raise the same point—what has been given on paper has not been realised in practice.

  891
  It was on March 1, 1898,* not February 25, that Lord Curzon made this statement—
  "That the opening of the internal navigation on all rivers in China to British steamers from the ensuing summer means that we shall be able to take British merchandise in British ships, not merely to the ports recognised by Treaty, but to every riverside town and station in the whole of the interior of China."
  The right hon. Gentleman met this point very fairly by admitting that in practice great difficulties had been found which prevented this promise being as fully realised as was expected at the time the statement was made. But, of course, he will understand that, when that statement was made by Lord Curzon, there was very great anxiety as to whether we were not being worsted in the contest for commercial supremacy in China, and that statement undoubtedly went far not only in the House, but in the press, to disarm criticism. If it disarmed criticism, and has not been realised since, it is not unnatural that it should be the cause of renewed criticism. As to Wei-hai-wei, we on this side generally deprecated the occupation of Wei-hai-wei, doubting whether any good object would be secured. We were told then that it would not be in any case of commercial value, though it turns out that it is of commercial value. We were told that it was of value as giving moral courage to the Government of Pekin. I cannot say that the evidence of that moral courage has been apparent since the occupation of Wei-hai-wei. I have always been of opinion that for a second naval base we should have been in a stronger position if we had taken some place nearer to the month of the Yang-tsze, and what I fear is that the occupation of this second naval station may make us more reluctant, if the time comes, to take a station which may be necessary nearer to the centre of our commercial interests. It is more difficult to take a third base than to take a second. Now I come to the question of concessions. I have great sympathy with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said about that. It is not so long ago that M. Delcassé, speaking in the French Chamber, gave a warning of the same kind—that concessions were being pressed and that advantages were being asked for; and that in
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. liv., page 335.
  892
  some cases it was well to bear in mind that there were parts of China which were conspicuous for their want of resources and the abundance of piracy. I am afraid that concessions have been pressed for which are not in themselves very desirable—which are a "try on," and which have no real backing behind them; and the Government ought not to be open to reproach because in every case it does not lend its influence to support them. I doubt whether at this moment the granting of more concessions will tend to the development of the trade of China. The danger is that they may prevent China from being developed. Given concessions limited in number and backed by capital, they will assist the development of China. But an over-great number of concessions, of which comparatively few are exploited, is likely to be a drawback. You may have the ground covered by paper concessions which positively block the way. Railway concessions may be obtained through large districts of China by people who may not be prepared to give effect to them; and they will prevent other people from, in the course of time, getting effective concessions. Therefore, I am not anxious to see this competition in concessions carried further; and the want of concessions is not the real obstacle to the development of trade in China. We all feel that there may be an enormous development of trade in China. With the population and resources of the country, its power to enter into exchange of commerce with Europe is far greater than has been realised in practice, though not, perhaps, in imagination. What are the real obstacles? Piracy is one obstacle. Brigands on land appear to be another; and I am not sure that the worst is not the leakage in the likin duties. If these could be removed there would be a tremendous expansion of trade between China and foreign nations. But I have no doubt that it is very difficult to effect this. The British Government and others certainly ought to lose no opportunity of bringing to the notice of the Government of Pekin cases of disorder, or breaches of Conventions, or tampering with the likin duty. But the difficulty is not to bring these things to the notice of the Government of Pekin, but to get them to give redress; and the problem is how to make China govern itself well, how to introduce Western methods

  893
  of government into China. Directly any progress is made in that direction, you will have a tremendous expansion of trade; but as long as the Government remains as it is now, however many concessions are granted, it will be impossible for trade to make those leaps and bounds which it could do with greater security. There are three stages in governing well. There is first the desire, second the capacity, and third the habit of governing well. I am afraid that China has not yet the desire to improve the methods of government. If she had, then the advice of the foreign nations might be useful in developing her capacity; and once capacity is developed then the habit will follow. Promises are given about internal navigation, about concessions, and so forth; but the Chinese Government in giving them is not really anxious that the trade of China should be developed; and whatever good intentions there may be seem to get lost in the local officials and the peculiar methods of Chinese government. The local officials take advantage of the weakness of the central Government; and the central Government takes advantage in turn of the divisions between the foreign nations. Sometimes it seems to be the shuttlecock between the diplomatists and the local officials; and I am not sure that it does not appreciate the situation. It is difficult in these circumstances to make progress; and the most satisfactory thing in the Blue-book is that some agreement has been made between the Powers as to a common line of action. I cordially endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said, that we ought to be careful not to be led into any course which would lead to the occupation of territory in China or the employment of troops on land. We must show the utmost energy in pressing things on the Government of Pekin, but we must always look upon those two things as essentially undesirable. I hope that other Powers will feel that. If that is so, more can be done if the Powers themselves concentrate their efforts on what is practicable. If they will concert to use pressure together, then the Yamen may be compelled to go, slowly, in the direction desired. But when one Power pushes by itself in one direction and another Power pushes in another direction, no progress is possible. We are all exceedingly gratified that the United States Government's circular to the Powers has met with a
  894
  favourable response—certainly from our own Government. The United States for a long time strictly adhered to the principle of not interfering in foreign affairs generally. This circular of the United States is a departure from their old practice, and I think that they are to be congratulated, having thus decided to take the initiative in a question of general policy, that that initiative has been shown in a step of this kind. I hope it will be a cause of some gratification, as the step is one which was well received by the Powers. If the Powers would agree on the "open door" they would be safe as regards themselves. But it is not only the United States which has expressed its strong opinion in this matter, M. Delcassé in the French Chamber said—
  "The majority of these enterprises (French) are developed in regions other than those which, if the policy of zones of influence prevailed, might constitute the French zone. Is not this enough to caution us against the onerous vagaries of which I spoke just now, and to induce us, on the contrary, to keep China open to the free conflict of the intelligence and capital of the whole world?"
  Our own opinion is declared to the world; and I think it is possible to look on the future commercial development of China with more equanimity than ever before, if foreign nations who are interested determine to preserve the "open door," I which is the best guarantee of the integrity of China. I hope they will go a little further, and agree gradually on a little concerted pressure. When breaches of regulations take place, when outrages occur, and difficulties about internal navigation arise, they might use their diplomatic influence all together at Pekin in the same direction. I admit that it is rather difficult to preserve the integrity of a country by a pressure from the outside, but at the same time I am sure that in the long run in dealing with the integrity of China there must be a considerable amount of administrative reform. I hope from what we have seen about the open door there is some prospect that there will be a free interchange of views between the foreign Governments concerned in Chinese trade and affairs, that they will be able to pull together to use all their influence and to exert it together at Pekin, a policy which is necessary to secure the growth of trade and better government in China, and to maintain the integrity of the country.
  MR. YERBURGH: With regard to the position to be taken up by the Powers, I think it has been shown that the position of China at the present time is entirely different from that in which it stood when we last discussed the question. We have this declaration of the French Minister, and we have had America declaring that we should, along with other countries, declare that the open door should be maintained throughout China. There are certain things on which the Government ought to be congratulated. The American Ambassador, writing to Lord Salisbury, says he believes it "to be the settled law of this country that no commercial advantage to be gained by us will conflict with the advantage to be gained by other countries." I think that is a point Lord Salisbury is to be congratulated upon. With regard to one point referred to by the hon. Member—the extent of our trade interests in China—I wish to deal with it for a moment, because he took a small view. He said that our trade with China was 3 per cent. of our total foreign trade. It appears to be forgotten, however, that our Empire as a whole is largely interested in the trade of China. The foreign trade of China at the present time amounts to only 2s. per head of the population, but if it is developed to the extent that the trade of Japan is developed, I believe the foreign trade of China will amount to something like two hundred millions per annum, of which sum our Empire will have by far the larger share. Therefore, I am justified in drawing attention to the remark of the hon. Gentleman with respect to the trade with China. It bears, as the hon. Baronet has said, upon the question of the reform of China. I have been one of those who have held that this country has ready at its hand a great duty to perform, and I have used the phrase in connection with it of "Egyptianising China." One does not wish to convey the impression that this country and America have large enterprises for the acquisition of territory in China. A great burden would be laid upon the shoulders of this country if we undertook the reform of all the departments of Chinese administration. The point I wish to deal with to-night is the question of the inland waterways and their development and use by this country. That is directly affected by the reform of the administration of China.
  896
  The great difficulty with regard to the development of the waterways is that you have two systems of finance in China. You have the provincial finance and the Imperial finance. The Imperial authorities make out the amount required for carrying on the Government, and it sends down requisitions to the provincial authorities, and they have to send enough to Pekin to meet the requirements of the central authority. The House will see that if you propose to introduce a new method in respect of the inland waterways, you run the danger of confusing your inland trade with your maritime trade, and it is the difficulty of distinguishing between the two systems of trade—the danger of their being mixed up—that has led to the opposition of the provincial authorities to the opening up of the inland waterways of China. In dealing with this matter, surely the simplest way of all, now that the Chinese are asking for a revision of the tariff at the treaty ports, would be to come to an arrangement by which the likin would be altogether abolished and another tariff introduced at our treaty ports. There is another point that bears on the same question. At the present time there is an enormous leakage in the revenues of China, and a very distinguished authority has pointed out that in the land tax alone there is a leakage of something like fourteen millions per annum. It is not conceivable how that amount disappears, but the figures are given by a distinguished authority, and there can be no doubt that you have an enormous margin to go upon with which you might develop another reform, and that is to undertake the proper payment of the officials throughout the length and breadth of China who are entrusted with the control of the various departments. What is the position of the ordinary official in China? An official has to pay a large sum for his post, and he is not certain how long he will hold it; he has a large crowd of needy relatives who feed upon him, and he must during his term of office do his best to recoup himself for his outlay. Here you have one of the root evils in China. If you had China properly administered, and its finances placed on a sound footing, you would have an ample margin to pay these officials proper salaries, and so deprive them of any excuse for resorting to the system of bleeding the revenue. I want to ask the House, what is there so extravagant

  897
  in this country asking, in conjunction with the other Powers, to undertake the reform of these various parts of the administration of China? Would there be anything very serious in retaining the services of some distinguished financier to preside over an Imperial Board of Revenue in Pekin? I cannot, for my own part, see where the extravagance comes in. I think those who have studied the subject must be convinced that one way to keep China upon its legs is to adopt some system of reform such as I have ventured to suggest I do not want to speak strongly upon the methods that have been pursued in the past. I think I have had the honour of saying before what the hon. Baronet said about the treatment of the affair of Port Arthur, and I think it would have been far better if an agreement had been arrived at at the time of a friendly nature. I am bound to say that the Government have undoubtedly done their best to deal in an effective manner with the different matters brought before them, but this is the complaint I should be rather inclined to make. My right hon. friend said that the remedies had been "prompt." That is a word I could not use, because it appears to me throughout the Blue-book that the remedy applied has not been prompt. Take the case of the murder of Mr. Fleming. He was murdered under circumstances of peculiar horror, and it has taken nearly a year to bring the criminal to justice. For a long time this criminal remained near his own home—something like four months—and although during the whole of that time he was known to be there, no attempt was made to arrest him. I take this as an example of the way in which our Government failed to act as promptly as they ought. Through the whole correspondence it appears that you must show an absolutely firm front to the Chinese Government. Supposing you have an official in China of high integrity and capacity, who is convinced that the safety of his country lies in furthering British interests in China, supposing that, in furthering these interests, he incurs the hostility of a neighbouring Power which is able to make its influence felt in various ways, supposing that man has assisted the British Government and British traders in obtaining something they desired to have, and after having done that, he is brought to trial on a charge
  898
  of having misappropriated funds—supposing all that done, if you find that man dismissed and disgraced, do you think that your Government, by allowing such treatment to take place to a high official of great integrity, is promoting your interests in China? Another example is this. The demand for the cession of Wei-hai-wei was received on a Thursday. It was put before the Yamen on Friday, and I think it was on the following Tuesday that Wei-hai-wei was handed over to this country. That shows you what you can do if you make up your minds to act. I give this illustration as showing my view of the position the Government ought to take up in China.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: When the Under Secretary of State says that it seems to him to be a sufficient answer to the severe condemnation contained in the terms of the notice placed on the Paper that the House was rather empty during the greater part of the evening, I think the House itself will hardly think the emptiness of the House—when there could be no division—is any answer to the charges my hon. friend has brought against the Government. The Under Secretary answered himself also in another phrase of his own speech. He said that the coming on of this subject for discussion had been rather unexpected. The debate to-night has established this fact: that in the opinion of the great majority on both sides of this House who take any interest in Chinese affairs, the weakest point in the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government has been the story of our dealings with China itself, and that was as fully admitted by the hon. Member for Chester as it was in the speech of my hon. friend who so much pleased the House. The Under Secretary has contended that the charges brought against the Government are old and stale, and he challenged Members who entertained doubts with regard to the policy of the Government to quote from the Blue Book any actual instance of the failure of the Government. Let us take one matter which is specially interesting to the commerce of this country—I mean the development of the trade upon the rivers. The hon. Baronet speaking from our front bench declared that that was the main ground for self-praise which the Government selected on previous occasions

  899
  in this House. They said, "At all events nothing could be more important for British trade. We have got this understanding for the complete development of the internal navigation of China and British steamers going over the waterways carrying our goods there." The late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs—Mr. Curzon as he then was—made the statement on three occasions in the strongest note, in a song of triumph as to the policy of the Government in that respect. Everyone who knows anything of the trade of China will recognise the importance of developing the waterways of China. The words Mr. Curzon used in uttering that song of triumph were none too strong if the thing had really been brought about. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick division of Northumberland and the hon. Member who last addressed the House have both alluded to it in general terms. What is the statement made on behalf of the Government their own agents in the Blue-book itself? There are three passages in communications from Government agents, a ml one from Sir Robert Hart. They are very short, and I will read them as they stand. In the report on the trade on the West River I find these words—
  "were the inland waters open, and equality of treatment secured to both, a large increase, in which both Chinese and British vessels would participate, would inevitably occur.… Under the heading of internal trade comes the crux of the whole failure of the so-called opening of the inland waters."
  Acting-Consul Fox, writing from Wuchow on June 9th, 1899, says—
  "Foreign steamers on the West River are now, to all intents and purposes, on precisely the same footing as were steamers on the. Yang-tsze before the opening of the inland waters of China."
  Sir Robert Hart wrote on Maw 12th, 1899—
  "This privilege [the privilege of trading on the inland waterways], whether rightly or wrongly thought valuable, will require years of patient nursing before it can possibly answer any expectations."
  This is what has followed the great boast to the House of the success of your policy in China. This was the one thing that you were supposed really to have obtained, and this is the thing I have shown conclusively by the letters of your own agents these you have altogether failed to secure. I have only one
  900
  other thing to say in regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Chester in the last part of his speech. The note of hope that he struck in the last words of his speech concerned the action of the United States. That action has been minimised by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He has twice spoken of it as if it had to do only with the open door. As I read the despatch of the United States, and as it has been understood in the United States, the open door is not the main point of United States policy in China. They put before the open door in writing to us the policy of promoting reforms in China. The Under Secretary of State altogether minimised the new departure in the policy of the United States. He puts forward the open door as the main portion of their policy, while the main portion of their policy as regards China is to develop China on the lines of the reformed Government, which is the first point referred to in the despatch. It was quite clear in what the hon. Member said about Egyptianising China that he did not mean we were to undertake that work ourselves. I am quite sure he was alluding only to European control in reforming the Government, and not to the undertaking of that work by any single Power. We should not minimise this new departure on the part of the United States as if it referred to the open door alone. As I understand the dispatch of the United States, what we are asked to do is to co-operate with the United States in this policy of developing China. The United States asked for united action
  "to promote the administrative reform so greatly needed for strengthening the Imperial Government and maintaining the integrity of China, in which the whole Western world is alike concerned."
  That is the main point of the American policy The open door only follows incidentally, as it were, from it. My hon. friend the Member for the Barnsley division, is not, I think, open to the charge made against him to-night of desiring that we by ourselves should undertake the reform of the Government of China, because he wishes us frankly to accept the American invitation with more exact knowledge of what it really means than the Government seem to possess. They have assented to it, but with special reference to the open door, and it was to that alone the Under Secretary for Foreign

  901
  Affairs devoted his speech to-night. The hon. Member for Chester referred to the forcible upsetting of the reform movement. Of course, we cannot expect the Government to know things they have not yet heard, but there are weighty reasons for believing that one of the leading reformers—Kung-ya-wei—has been kidnapped and carried off from British territory. It was long since known that this reformer had a price set on his head, and that a sum of 100,000 dols. had been offered for him dead or alive. He fled to British Columbia and returned to Hong Kong, where he was living under police protection, the police occupying the house in which he dwelt. If he has been kidnapped after this price had been set on his head, not only should prompt action be taken by this country, but it seems to me it might form an occasion in which we might properly ask the United States, in support of their own policy, to co-operate with us in any measures which it may be necessary to take. They are desirous of reform, and we are told that a would-be reformer has been carried off from a British colony. If that proves to be true it may provide a leverage for that joint action by the United States and ourselves which we should all like to see at the present moment.
  MR. MALCOLM: The right hon. Baronet has indicated that the gist of the United States despatch refers to the strengthening of the Imperial Government of China, and the maintenance of the integrity of China. But to me this passage seems only the exordium of the despatch. The real gravamen is contained under headings one, two, and three, on which the United States Government desires from Her Majesty's Government a declaration, and in them there is nothing about strengthening the Imperial Government.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: It believes such a result may be greatly aided and advanced by the declaration.
  MR. MALCOLM: Although the right hon. Baronet has great experience of despatches I think the greatest stress is laid on headings one, two, and three. I think we may congratulate Her Majesty's Government, that so little is now heard in the country about China, and that the House
  902
  is almost empty now when the question is being discussed. A year or two ago when the question was raised the House was always full, and we had what is called a full dress debate. Now there is no outcry, and I find myself in almost complete accord with my hon. friend the Member for Chester, who has been one of the most acute critics of the Government with reference to Chinese questions. I think the hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division of Northumberland has put his finger on the chief difficulty of doing anything with the Government of China. In his observations on the philosophy of government he said they had neither the desire not the capacity for reform. I think there is a great danger in the House—which has been illustrated to some extent by the speech of the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division—of considering the Chinese question as rather a parochial question, as if this country by a sic volo, sic jubeo attitude could do whatever it liked with an enormous empire like that of China. Therefore I think that his observations that "we will stand no nonsense" about one thing and "insist" on something else, are completely out of place, because in my opinion we have absolutely no power to enforce such threats upon the Government of China. The hon. Member also said that he at last had come to the conclusion that owing to some Government management or mismanagement in this country, we had begun to treat the North China question not as a sea question, but as a land question. I have always thought that this problem of North China lay in a land question, not in a sea question. I have always felt, as the noble Lord said to-night, that we lay too much stress on the question of the cession of Port Arthur, and, if anything, not enough of stress on the action going on along the boundary between the south of the Russian dominions and Northern China. I have means of knowing from those who have travelled along that boundary that there are Russian camps along the whole distance within the boundary of China—not military camps, it is true, but trading camps, which get into the confidence of the Chinese, which lend them money, and which are preparing the way, no doubt, for the possible annexation of Northern China. Yet, upon the whole, I agree with the noble Lord who said to-night that we ought not to pay

  903
  so much attention to Northern China, but ought to confine our energies and attention to the Yang-tsze valley, which he said we should take within our sphere of influence. But I do not agree with him when he diminishes altogether the importance of our possession of Wei-hai-wei. It is possible that Wei-hai-wei is not the strategic base it was supposed to be, or that it does not possess the commercial advantages it was supposed to have, but at the time that possession was secured it was absolutely necessary that some make-weight should be obtained by England as against the acquisitions of Russia and Germany; and I do not know what better we could have done at that time than to secure Wei-hai-wei as a make-weight, and what better we can do now than improve it as a port under the direction of the Admiralty. The hon. Member for the Barnsley Division also referred to the question of the Yang-tsze valley. I am not sure he did not use the phrase "Yang-tsze myth," but he rather set on one side the value of our concessions in the Yang-tsze valley.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: We have no concessions.
  MR. MALCOLM: That is a point to be subsequently discussed. It seems to me we have the Yang-tsze valley as a sphere of influence as against Russian influence in Northern China. If we advocate the confinement of our energies to the Yang-tsze valley, what we mean is, not that we are going to lose sight of British interests in other parts of China, but that we are prepared to concentrate our pressure in that particular portion of China.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? I did not speak of the Yang-tsze valley as a myth. What I said was that any agreement between the British and Chinese Governments giving us any priority of right in the Yang-tsze valley was a myth.
  MR. MALCOLM: Many hon. Members appear inclined to consider anything this country has got as a paper concession, and that everything other nations get is of very material importance. I consider myself that the Government have absolutely nothing to be blamed for in this matter. They have not been behind
  904
  other Governments. They have the interests of their country at heart, and are doing their work in as statesmanlike a way as other countries are doing their work. It does seem to me, noticing as I do in this House and in the country an utter absence of the excitement which prevailed a year or two ago with reference to the Chinese question, that the obvious deduction is that we are all infinitely more satisfied now than we were before with the action of the Government with regard to the Chinese question, and that we all observe the material concessions made to this country through the statesmanship of the Government by the Government of the Empire of China.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I think the Government are to be congratulated upon the firmness with which they appear to stand by the opinion that we should not incur territorial responsibilities in China. I only wish that that opinion had prevailed sooner, and that we had not increased our land responsibilities by taking Wei-hai-wei with a land frontier. I cannot but think that debates in this House on the question of China are very like getting up a discussion on the 8th or 9th chapter of a book without having read the previous chapters. It is said that this Government lost this chance or that, as if these matters were quite modern history. My own opinion is that the real chance this country lost was in 1855–6. The Crimean War is the original cause of Russia being at Port Arthur to-day. It was magnificent strategy of Russia, and it was our own want of information and our failure in military and naval action in the North Pacific that gave Russia the first grip on the sea coast. It was wonderful strategy on the part of Russia, and we then lost our chance of effective interference to stop the growth of Russian interference at Pekin which was inevitable when Russia got to the sea with a long frontier behind. My own belief is that the Government are taking a wise step in doing what is practicable in concert with other Powers to deal with China through her waterways, and in no other way whatever. Even granted that the British and United States Governments and all the Powers in Europe combine, I believe when young men now in this House are old that the Treasury Bench will still be charged with

  905
  not having sufficiently accelerated matters in China because any process of improvement must be of very long duration, so great is the inertia of the vast mass of human beings who inhabit the country.
  Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[The LORD ADVOCATE, (Mr. A. Graham Murray, Buteshire), in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

    CLASS I.
    1. £29,000, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces and Marlborough House.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid the First Commissioner of Works would recollect that on a former occasion he referred to a certain collection of paintings and other articles, the property of the nation, which was in Buckingham Palace. As the matter had been already discussed he did not desire another discussion, but he thought it was important that the Vote should not be taken without reference to the subject, as in that way a reform might in years be brought about. The paintings referred to were left by one of the Georges to the nation, and not to the Crown personally. They were very historic and valuable, and the question arose whether they ought not to be removed to some place where the public might view them, or, if that were not possible, whether some portions of Buckingham Palace should not be thrown open a little more often to the public. Royal Palaces on the Continent were much more open to the public. Even Windsor Castle was thrown open at certain times, and it seemed strange that the public should be excluded from Buckingham Palace, which was less in the personal occupation of the Crown than any of the other Royal Palaces.
    [Mr. GRANT LAWSOX (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) succeeded Mr. A. Graham Murray in the Chair.]
    MR. CALDWELL: It was remarkable that as regarded Palaces occupied by the
    906
    Crown there was no difficulty in the way of the public getting access to them at certain convenient times, whereas the public were excluded from Buckingham Palace in the interests of minor people. He did not think the Crown had any wish to exclude the public from Buckingham Palace, and that must be the act of some minor officials. It was quite true that the First Commissioner of Works expressed himself clearly on the subject last year, but another year had since elapsed, and he hoped there would be a change of opinion, and that Buckingham Palace would be thrown open to the public at certain times. If not, then the collection to which he had referred, and which was the property of the nation, should be removed to some building where the public could view it. He noticed that the installation of electric light in Buckingham Palace had cost £11,000, and that was an additional reason why the Palace should be thrown open to the public. With regard to the installation of electric light at Windsor Castle £2,000 was taken on account, and he would be glad if the First Commissioner of Works would state how much was to be expended altogether. There was hardly anything at all for repairs to Holyrood Castle. It had the disadvantage that the Queen only went there occasionally, but the building required that money should be spent on it to keep it in decent repair, especially when so much was spent on the Royal Palaces in England.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The hon. Member has again raised the question of the opening of Buckingham Palace to the public, but I am afraid I have no other answer to give him than that which it was my duty to give on several previous occasions. I would point out to the hon. Member that Buckingham Palace is on rather a different footing to other Palaces. Although Her Majesty does not occupy it to any very large extent, it is after all the town house of Her Majesty and her family, and I can assure the hon. Member that there are very few weeks in which it is not occupied either by members of Her Majesty's family or Her Majesty's visitors. I do not think that Her Majesty can be accused of any want of consideration or selfishness, in the way in which

    907
    she throws the Royal Palaces not in Her Majesty's occupation open to the public. I may illustrate my argument by reminding the Committee that within the last two years Her Majesty has allowed Kensington Palace to be opened to the public, and further, has thrown the grounds attached to the Royal Palace at Kew into Kew Gardens. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that so far as Buckingham Palace is concerned it will be thrown open to the public. The hon. Member also referred to the electric lighting installation at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. The safety of Buckingham Palace was recently considered by a Committee, and it was reported that it was in an extremely unsatisfactory condition, and the committee recommended that it should be lighted with electricity. With regard to Holyrood Palace, we have not spent as much money there as I should like to have seen expended, but I sincerely hope that this year I shall be able to spend more upon that palace, and reduce the inequality which exists. The hon. Member will bear with me, I think, when I remind him of the very great expenditure we have had to incur this year with regard to national matters, and when I say that this is not a year in which I could successfully or fairly approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a large sum of money for this purpose. I will bear in mind the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and if during the year I should feel myself justified in approaching the Treasury with regard to further expenditure on Holyrood Palace, I will do so.
    MR. WEIRasked the First Commissioner of Works if some of the pictures and art treasures at Buckingham Palace could be transferred for a time to Holyrood Palace. He was glad that the renovation of the tapestries at Holyrood Palace was proceeding, and he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee any idea when they would be completed, and if it was possible to increase the staff of girls engaged on that work. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman was going to try to get more money for Holyrood Palace, which was one of the most neglected of all the palaces.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to ask a question in regard
    908
    to an item for fuel, light, water, and household articles supplied at the Royal residences. He wished to know if, when they gave an eminent person a free residence, they provided him with household articles, such as coal scuttles and slop pails. He had been told that the First Commissioner of Works kept a kind of chandler's shop to supply these goods to such people. He did not think this kind of thing was ever intended, and anybody who had a small house like Pembroke Lodge rent free, and enjoyed a great many other advantages, should not come upon the State for fuel, light, and household expenses. It was not right that the State should buy those small articles for these people, and he should like a little explanation as to what those household articles were, and whether they could not be reduced.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I entirely agree with the gist of the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down. There is no fuel or light supplied free to any of the residences he has mentioned. The only charge is one of £25 for Pembroke Lodge, and that is in regard to the water supply. In all cases where residences are lent by Her Majesty they pay the whole of such charges. Certainly if the occupants of these houses live rent free by Her Majesty's favour, they ought not to receive such perquisites.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I wish to call the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the road from Pall Mall to the entrance to Buckingham Palace. Last year I defended what was considered to be an extravagance, but I am glad to see now that the road has been completed. The right hon. Gentleman will observe that in front of the stables at Buckingham Palace the paving of the crossing places and road is not in that good condition which it ought to be, and I would suggest that he should write a letter to the surveyors of the parishes concerned, asking the local authorities to put those roads in a proper condition.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I may point out to the hon. Member that that question does not arise under this Vote. I may, however, thank him for his suggestion, and I will see what can be done to carry it out.
    MR. WEIR: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my points.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I did not mean any discourtesy to the hon. Member, but I thought I had answered his points when I replied to the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. With regard to the pictures and art gems at Buckingham Palace being transferred to Holyrood Palace, that is not a matter with which I have to deal. I think, however, that we should be very thankful to Her Majesty for allowing so many of the Royal Palaces which are in her occupation for life to be thrown open to the public. With regard to Holyrood Palace, I agree that the amount spent there is somewhat out of proportion to the expenditure upon the palaces in London. In regard to the tapestries, I will take care that no delay occurs, and if a larger number of hands can be employed, that shall be done if it is possible with the amount of money at my disposal.
    MR. CALDWELLthanked the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the suggestions which had been made, and he had no doubt that he would carry out his promises. He desired, however, to point out that the public did not get as many facilities for visiting Buckingham Palace as they did of visiting Windsor Palace. There were some very valuable pictures and art gems at Buckingham Palace which they were not permitted to see, and as Buckingham Palace was closed so much to the public he thought it would be a good thing if those pictures and art gems were sent for a time to Holyrood Palace.
    Vote agreed to.
    2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £73,000, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to ask a question upon a matter about which there seemed to him considerable doubt. On page 11 there was an item, "Appropriations in Aid" for key subscriptions amounting to £696. He
    910
    believed those were subscriptions to public parks set apart for private use. He understood that this sum represented the sale to private individuals of private privileges in public pieces of ground. He thought all public parks and pleasure-grounds for which they were asked to vote money should be devoted to the public. He did not think the First Commissioner of Works should set aside any portion of those grounds exclusively for the use of private persons. He thought the appropriations in aid were altogether wrong and improper. He did not propose to move a reduction, because he believed it would be ruled out of order. His opinion was that it ought not to be there, and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation of it. He proposed to move to diminish the amount of these appropriations.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would not be in order in proposing the reduction alluded to.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that his motion would leave the amount of the Vote exactly as it was now.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The amount voted will not be increased or diminished by one farthing by my motion, and the sum would be voted whether the appropriation is there or not.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid there was always a way of getting out of the difficulty, for they could move a reduction at any time or for any reason. There were certain privileges which had been given to certain people which, he thought, ought not to have been given, and, therefore, they could move a reduction on that ground. They were quite entitled to say that they declined to allow this sum of money to be voted for the public parks, for which special privileges were given to private persons. He contended that a motion for the reduction of the Vote would be a perfectly competent proposition, on the general ground that the parks had not been used for the public generally.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid what he suggested was not a reduction of the

    911
    Vote by £100, but simply that the appropriation should be diminished, which would leave the Vote unchanged.
    MR. CALDWELLheld that according to the rules of the House if they wanted an increase in the Vote the only way to do it was to move a reduction, which was the only way of testing it. [Laughter.] There was no more absurdity in moving a reduction when they wished the Vote to remain as it was than in moving a reduction when they wished it to be increased. To put the matter in order he would move that the Vote be reduced by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £72,900, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: These subscriptions only amount to something like £400. They are in respect of Hamilton Place Gardens and some private enclosures in Regent's Park, but they only amount to a small sum. My hon. friend himself has enjoyed these gardens, and I would ask under these circumstances whether he regards their use as an exclusive privilege. I do not think that any general case has been made out in favour of doing away with all these keys at once, but I will undertake to look into the matter and see if any of them can be foregone.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee how many of these places there are?
    MR. AKEES DOUGLAS: I think only two, but I will inquire and inform the Committee on the Report stage, or communicate with my hon. friend privately.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: After the conciliatory answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I would appeal to my hon. friend not to divide on this question; but I wish to emphasise the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, that these subscriptions are not for admissions from private gardens only into public parks but for private entries into public parks maintained out of the public funds. That happens in Hamilton Place Gardens and other parts
    912
    adjoining Regent's Park, and the general public think that these persons should not get the exclusive right of user of any part of Regent's Park, and when these key tenancies terminate I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of not renewing them. I am very glad to hear that there will presently be an opportunity for exercising his discretion in connection with Regent's Park. May I suggest to him that he should adopt the policy of the County Council, who make a considerable revenue from people with premises abutting on open spaces by charging a key fee of 7s. 6d., though they have only the same right of user as the public. In Regent's Park many people pay two or three guineas a year for an advantage worth £200 or £300, because of the magnificent gardens placed at their disposal. The people outside that ring strongly oppose the arrangement, and I think the gardens should be thrown open to the general public.
    MR W. A. MCARTHUR: I should like to ask a question—xI admit, out of mere personal curiosity. How is it that the inhabitants of Hamilton Place Gardens are the happy possessors of keys at all?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I explain that. I paid three guineas for my key. It was not a gift at all, and I gave it up.
    MR. W. A. MCARTHUR: I should like to ask how this particular part of the park was set apart for people who paid for their keys; and also whether there is any foundation for the statement that a payment of three guineas a year constitutes a kind of perpetual right to this part of the park. As I understand, there is no right beyond the year for which the subscription is paid, and I hope that next year the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make an arrangement whereby this portion of the park will be put in the same position as the rest of the park for public use and enjoyment.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The fee simply covers the year for which it is paid.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. WEIR: I wish to call attention to the insufficient number of seats in Kew Gardens, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way to provide better seating accommodation there.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: That question will be considered.
    MR. CALDWELL: A large sum is paid every year out of Imperial funds for the up-keep of parks in London which, practically, ought to be kept up by the inhabitants of London themselves. The property of these parks belongs to the Crown, but the people use them in the same way as the people in the provinces use their parks, which they not only have to keep up, but have to purchase in the first instance. I do not think it fair that the London parks should be kept up out of Imperial funds; if the people of London want them let them keep them up at their own expense. It may be said that people from the provinces use them, but if people from London go to the provinces or to Paris they get the use of the parks there. There is no argument therefore in the statement that because it is London the parks should be maintained at the national expense. The buildings around these parks increase enormously in value because of their proximity to the parks, and London benefits by the enhanced valuation of these buildings. People in the provinces have reason to complain, and I never could understand why London should be treated differently in the matter of parks from the provinces.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to kindly explain why cyclists are not allowed to use the roads in Kew Gardens under well-defined conditions. It is a favourite resort for cyclists, and it would be a luxury if they were allowed to ride through the Gardens.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that Kew Gardens are not a park, and I do not think it would be at all convenient, even if within statute, that cyclists should be
    914
    allowed to use the footpaths in Kew Gardens any more than the footpaths outside Kew Gardens. The value of Kew Gardens is, I have reason to hope, chiefly for students, and they are not regarded as a public park. I may mention that recently I caused better arrangements to be made for cycles at the entrance to Kew Gardens.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I observe there is another appropriation in aid—£217—which I believe is mainly derived from fees on presents of venison. That seems to me not creditable to the State. Certain judges and other officials receive every year a quarter or a haunch of venison which is considered a very graceful and handsome present. It appears, however, that while giving this present with one hand you take a fee from the recipient with the other. I should like to know what is the value of the venison. When any friend of mine sends me a present of venison, I get rid of it as quickly as I can, and I have strong doubts whether the venison presented is worth the £217 in fees which is received for it. This question of fees is one that requires a general looking over. I understand that many persons who have been offered peerages have refused them because of the fees. When the Sovereign sends a man a present of venison he cannot send it back and say he does not want it; but if he takes it he must pay the fee. That is not in the least creditable, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that he will abolish the practice of giving away venison altogether, or else abolish the fees.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLASsaid that the fees referred to were merely nominal, and that several other amounts were included in the £217 mentioned.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The Chief Commissioner of Works, like his predecessor, has given privileges to athletic clubs in the neighbourhood of Kew Gardens which are very beneficial to them. But if these clubs are given grounds they ought not be allowed to display ugly and very vulgar advertisements above their scoring boards. I would suggest that where clubs are given such a favour they should not be permitted to allow a local tradesman—not of English origin either—to put up one of

    915
    the most vulgar advertisements I have ever seen.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, be granted to Her 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, 1901, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to an old historic friend of his about whom he has not quite satisfied me. I refer to our late lamented friend Oliver Cromwell. I want to know whether he has changed his mind about the Cromwell statue. If a statue to Cromwell is, despite the resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, to be placed within the precincts of Parliament, and if money is to be spent on it, what is to prevent a more progressive First Commissioner of Works in the future erecting a counter attraction by putting up a statue to Hooley and his communion plate? He has as little to do with the House of Commons as a Parliamentary institution as had Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell defamed Parliamentary institutions, and Hooley endeavoured to defame them by becoming a Tory candidate. I object on Irish grounds to a statue to a polluted murderer, and I object on English grounds because Cromwell was the ne plus ultra of an English adventurer. He began life by endeavouring to disestablish the Church, and he succeeded. Then he allied himself with the aristocracy, instituted a very severe administration in England, and talked scornfully of his Radical days. He was distinctly a family man, and he put into every place his own relatives and creatures. I do not like Cromwellians of that kind. He was a cowardly and vin-
    916
    dictive murderer; he was dead to every principle of humanity, and to have a statue to him in the precincts of Parliament is an insult to Englishmen, and a very gross insult to Irishmen. I will protest against it in season and out of season. I am sorry the First Commissioner of Works is turning a deaf ear to my eloquence, because I am about to appeal to his artistic sense against this wretched statue. I know the right hon. Gentleman is not very famous for his artistic tastes. I have known him since his Oxford days—I will not say how long ago—and candour compels me to say that at the same time the Committee should hear what he thinks of this statue, morally and politically. I saw him myself go into the lobby against it. Why then should he erect the statue? Was it because it was given by Lord Rosebery that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to put the unclean thing out of sight? Is it that the Government are afraid of Lord Rosebery, the great Imperialist, and must accept his gift even if it defiles the Palace of Westminster? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division would give us his views as a representative of Birmingham. I am a good man struggling with adversity; I am the voice of one crying in a stock-jobbing wilderness. The statue is to the Irish Members an emblem of insult. It shows the amazing want of sensibility of the English race that, although they compel us to come to this Parliament, they presume to insult us.
    It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.