§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI do not apologise for venturing to bring before the House a subject different from that which has interested hon. Members to-night hitherto. I mean the question of China and our relations with that country and the other Great Powers. I had the opportunity of listening to an important discussion which took place this afternoon in another place, and I found that the general view of the leaders of the party opposite was, that a debate on China was not only necessary but imperative. It was admitted that Parliament and the country had the right to the 164 fullest information on this vital question, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs thanked his political opponents for their forbearance in postponing, to so late a date discussion upon it. Another reason I have for asking the attention of the House to the affairs of China at the present stage is that in the critical position which prevails in the far East at the present moment His Majesty's Government have an opportunity of acting with, I trust, permanent effect. There can be little doubt that the Russian Government is now pressing upon China a Convention which, if signed, would give our great rival in the Far East very important advantages over this country in regard to political power and commerce in the north-eastern portion of China. I hold that it is equally clear from all the facts that have come under our notice that His Majesty's Government at this moment hold the key of the position, and if they are prepared to assure China, of their support in resisting the most unreasonable demands of Russia, that Convention will not be signed, and a serious check will be offered to Russian aggression in the Far East. I venture to say that our position in China, and the encroachment of other Powers in that country, constitute at this moment a far graver crisis and are of infinitely more importance to this country than the South African question has ever presented. However great the mistakes that have been made in South Africa by the Government—and they have been truly colossal—there was always this satisfaction to those who desired the ultimate triumph of the Briton in South Africa—the position in that country was never out of our control. The war in South Africa has cost us five times as much money as was necessary, and ten times as many human lives as were necessary, but we have never lost control of the position; we have never been in the presence of force majeure. The same cannot be said in regard to the Far East. We are there in the presence of the greatest possible danger, and when hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and perhaps some on my own side, are disposed to accuse those who feel with me of exciting: a warlike feeling, and rousing irritation in other States, I would beg their attention to this fact, that if what we said tem 165 or fifteen years ago had been listened to in regard to South Africa, the troubles there would have been settled at a tenth of the cost now being expended.
The present phase of the Chinese crisis is perhaps the last opportunity that will ever be offered to this country of dealing with this tremendous question victoriously for England. When Russia once obtains political and military control in Manchuria, and when the Trans-Siberian railway is completed, by which Russia can throw immense stores of munitions and hundreds of thousands of troops into Manchuria, we shall find ourselves in presence of that force majeure which it will be impossible to deal with. Therefore it is the bounden duty of those who wish to see the territorial integrity of China preserved, and British commerce there maintained and increased, to do what they can to bring pressure on the Government, and to rouse the country to the dangers that exist. Our trade in China amounts to 64 per cent. of the foreign trade of the country, and British shipping amounts to 84 per cent. of the foreign shipping which carries foreign commerce to China. That country, with its 400 millions of population and great natural wealth, offers boundless openings for British commerce in the future. It is not only the question of China that is at stake; it is the question of the future of Asia; and with Asia goes our Indian Empire. I would try to rivet the attention of the House on the danger of Russia obtaining control of even one province of China. If Russia gets possession of Manchuria, with its twelve millions of people, she would be able to form there a large, well-equipped, and well-drilled Chinese army, armed and disciplined, and led by Russian officers, which would enable her, step by step, to overrun absolutely the whole of China and threaten our possessions in India. Against such an army we would be perfectly powerless, and even the whole of Europe would be powerless.
The history of the last seven years has, I regret to say, been one series of the most inconceivable blunders in regard to our policy in the Far East. First of all, we allowed the Japanese to be driven out of Port Arthur. That was a stupid and cowardly blunder. I believe 166 that Lord Rosebery was opposed to it, but was overborne by his colleagues in the Cabinet. The Japanese were our natural allies in the Far East, and so long as they were in the Lao Tung peninsula we had no reason to fear. Then we come to the year 1898, which brought disasters in every part of the globe to this country. Fortunately that policy has been reversed and we are now in a better position. The second great blunder in our Far Eastern policy was the withdrawal of our ships from Port Arthur by the Ministry now in power. That was not quite as bad as the first blunder, but it was pitiable beyond description. It will be seen that I am impartial in my criticism. I regret that the First Lord of the Treasury is not present, because I would have called his attention to that unfortunate speech of his at Manchester in which he invited Russia to occupy Port Arthur. That was one of the most mischievous observations ever made in this country. It is no secret that the Leader of the House has adopted a very Gallio-like attitude in regard to foreign affairs, though I am glad to know that he is getting rid of it. Then came the Boxer movement, which was undoubtedly stirred up by Russian agents. It was exceedingly like the agitations carried on in Bulgaria and Armenia. There was the working of a corrupt coterie in China in the supposed interests of the people. There were wholesale terrorising and brutal outrages of every kind. Then we come to the most extraordinary blunder of the Government, the Concert of Europe, which to me is the most preposterous fiction ever palmed off on an ignorant public. The idea that there can be a genuine Concert of Europe is to place far too great a strain on the imagination, of intelligent persons. To some, the Concert of Europe is a delightful sound, and I am prepared to admit that it has misled considerable numbers of the Members of this House. But the Concert of Europe as practised in China has been the most wicked, cruel, and disastrous failure that any Government has put before the country. It has resulted in losing our prestige in China, in weakening our power very seriously, and has led to squabbles and disputes of the most dangerous kind between the Great Powers. So serious were these, 167 that the whole time of the Governments of Europe, the Ambassadors, and the Commanders on, the spot, has been exhausted in trying to prevent the Concert from coming to blows within itself. In regard to China, this Concert of Europe has been practically a besom of destruction. The looting and massacring carried on by the troops of the so-called Concert is a disgrace to humanity and a scandal to civilisation. Nothing like it has been seen since the days of Attila and Genghis Khan—50,000, some say 100,000, Chinese were deliberately massacred by the Russian authorities in Manchuria. I have accounts of the most horrible character by persons who were eye-witnesses of these scenes. The great majority of the victims were not fighting men at all, but perfectly harmless men, women, and children. They were driven into the river or bayonetted on the bank and then cast into the river. The river was so choked that the steamers coming up the Amur had difficulty in forcing a passage through the great mass of human corpses. The scenes that occurred between Tientsin and Peking were in many cases not much more creditable to the European troops. I am glad to say that our own troops as well as the Americans and Germans are free from any serious complicity in the atrocities committed there. The Government for a long time tried to defend this fiction of theirs—it was not a fiction of theirs but of Mr. Gladstone's—the fiction of the Concert of Europe, but I fancy we shall not hear much more about it, because the Government have shown by their own action that the Concert of Europe is a farce. Having allowed or invited the Great Powers to go into China, they found the position so hopeless that they have now been obliged to do that which they ought to have done at first, make an alliance with a Power on which they could rely. The agreement with Germany is a conclusive condemnation of the Concert of Europe. By that agreement they bound themselves to preserve the integrity of China; others have joined them, notably Japan, in that policy. It was sensible and practical to ally ourselves with those Powers whose interests are identical with ours, and those Powers whose word we can trust. It was the policy of Lord Beaconsfield 168 in 1878, when he saved Constantinople and gratified Europe. It was followed in 1885, on the collapse of Mr. Gladstone's Government; it has been resuscitated in 1898, and has given us our South African Possessions; and if we use it properly we shall be able to settle the Chinese question. The Concert of Europe has for us been, disastrous in every respect. Our prestige has been lowered before the Chinese and our Indian troops, and I am afraid that one of the results will be that the Chinese will have an undying hatred of Europe and of this country, which has been allied with the forces which have inflicted such great cruelties upon them. Russia has been aggrandised and our prestige lowered. The Russians have marched at the head of the allied troops through Peking. We have had repeated insults levelled at our troops, our officers, and our flag; the seizure of railways in the most flagrant and unjustifiable way; the occupation of Niu-chwang in spite of the protests of every foreign consul; agreements with regard to Manchuria made behind our backs; the sudden evacuation of Peking proposed by Russia, and carried out by Russian troops in face of the so-called Concert of Europe; the refusal of the Russian Minister to demand the death punishment of local Chinese officials who had been guilty of such gross cruelty, and of the murder of our missionaries; and all this has been done with a motive, because the Russian Minister promised the Chinese Government that if they supported Russia with regard to Manchuria, he would abstain from demanding the death punishment of these Chinese criminals, and would even demand their release by the Great Powers. Those are the points on which we have had loss during the continuation of the recent policy in China.
Now I come to the questions which are at this moment agitating China, and upon which our future position in China depends. I mean the agreement or agreements which are now being negotiated with regard to Manchuria and the adjoining provinces. Although I listened with great interest to the speech in another place of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I am bound to say I could not get any indication from his words as to what was the policy of the 169 Government. In one sentence he made a reassuring statement, and in the next statements of a most alarming character. I do not wish to pass any criticism upon Lord Lansdowne in this matter. He combines the quality of courtesy with that of backbone, winch is most necessary for dealing with this question, and it would be unfair to blame him for the present position of affairs. I do not wish to derive any dark conclusion from what he said. I desire to look at the facts as they are. One phrase of the noble Lord struck me very much. He said we must look to principles and not to details, and that we should be satisfied if we secured the principle even if the details went against us. That is exactly what we should not be satisfied with. It is the details which count in this matter. It is the practical, material position that is a force in China which counts for prestige in the future. We heard a good deal about principles in general two years ago. We were told of free trade in China. We see little of it now; but in its place we see Russia holding forts at Port Arthur, and controlling the whole of the province of Manchuria, throwing out railways in all directions—those are details. We heard a great deal about principles and the promise of China never to alienate the Yang-tsze Valley. Of course she will not do so if she can help it. If such a promise had been given by Russia or some other Great Power it might have been worth something, but given by China it is worth nothing, and we see ourselves losing our power and all our advantages in northern China, and having no compensating advantages in the Yangtsze Valley. Those are illustrations of the importance of detail. It is. I know, a favourite view upon the part of men who are indisposed to take action, that the question of Manchuria is hopeless; that Manchuria is lost. Manchuria is lost; Pechili is lost; Northern China is lost: the Yang-tsze Valley is lost: and Asia is lost, if the policy of the last seven years is followed by the Government. But the position is not hopeless; the position is full of encouragement if the Government will only recognise a policy of firm and consistent action. The right hon. Gentleman might rise in his place and say, "Do I want to put upon this country a Russian war on the top of the 170 war in South Africa?" But there is no necessity for any war in this case. We need not send a single soldier to the Far East. We have the game entirely in our own hands if we will only use the materials which lie before us. We have a natural and most valuable ally in the Far East, we have the great and rising nation of Japan, whose people bear the same relation to Asia as we do to Europe. A rising, brave, intelligent, and patriotic people, who are most anxious to be used, and we have only to use them, and we need fear nothing from the extremest exertion of Russian power.
The time has come for plain speaking in this matter. Russia respects nothing but force. That has been proved by all the nations in the last four years, and if any hon. Member doubts it I invite him to read the Blue-book containing most interesting statements in regard to not only China, but the Russian policy upon the whole question of China—No. 1, 1888. C. 1114. Let anybody read about Port Arthur, how it was to be a port for winter occupation only, how within three months it was annexed, and he will find that Russia respects nothing but force. The time has come to show what this country can do. We have only to use Japan to be, master of the situation. We have only to promise Japan that we will hold the ring, and the whole matter is settled. There would be no war even between Russia and Japan, because Russia knows how to respect superior force, and she will recognise that she is in the power of a superior force, and there will be no disturbance of the equilibrium. I express that view to the Government. I do not expect them to tell us they are going to adopt any such policy. I do not expect them to tell us what the truth is with regard to the Convention which Russia is now trying to force from China. We know what that convention is from the disclosures made by the Peking correspondent of The Times, and discussion upon this subject would be incomplete without a tribute being paid to that intelligent and most capable gentleman for the inestimable services he has been able to render to us and to our Imperial interests abroad. We understand that the terms originally demanded have now, to a certain extent, been modified. 171 Russia has ceased to claim control over provinces like Mongolia and Turkestan, and some alterations have been accepted by the Government at St. Petersburg, but the basis of the objectionable proposals still remains intact. Russia is still to have control of all railways, customs, and concessions in Manchuria, and if that is once accepted by this country the fall of China and British commerce and British politics in the Far East is settled for all time.
There is, in addition to the points I have mentioned one point worthy of the consideration and attention of the Government, and that is that this encroachment on the part of the Russian Government has raised a strong feeling of resentment among the intelligent masses, so far as there are intelligent masses, in China, Remarkable information has come to this country of late, to the effect that all the intelligent classes in Central and Southern China are uniting to impress on the Imperial Government resistance to and refusal of Russian demands. The Secretary of State to-night, in another place, paid a great tribute to the services which had been rendered to China, to British interests, and the cause of civilisation by those two eminent men, the Yang-tsze viceroys. It is impossible to speak too highly of them when we consider that through what they have urged they have earned the enmity not only of the Manchu officials, but of the Russian Government, because it must not be forgotten that Russia is perfectly well aware that her only hope of success in China is to maintain the Chinese Government in as corrupt a condition as possible, and to keep China in the same rotten condition for which Russia is responsible, as for the last thirty years the Ottoman Empire has been kept. That is a point worthy of notice.
The Government will, it is to be hoped, maintain these viceroys in the position they have taken up, but they will find their work cut out for them unless they put a stop to this Agreement at Peking. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs made a statement to the effect that it is not the business of His Majesty's Government to support the cause of internal reform in China. 172 Every statement of that kind, that we are not deeply interested in the cause of reform in China, is a mistake. We, may not wish to support it, but we should not tell the world so; we should rather try and make the people believe we are willing and anxious to uphold their cause. But perhaps I may have taken the noble Lord's words too seriously. I trust the Government will not take a despairing view of their opportunities, and if in the future of Northern China or Manchuria there may be some difficulties with regard to the Anglo-German Agreement, they will not be more than can be easily overcome. Although Germany may not have included Manchuria in the scope of the Agreement, she is bound, as much as we are, to uphold the integrity of China, The situation is not hopeless, and if the Government grapple with it with a firm hand for a few months the position will be restored. Russia is engaged in a great game of bluff against this country, but right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench hold all the cards in their hands if they will only play them. There is no necessity for war, but there is great necessity for action being taken; and if it is known all over the world that we are prepared to take action, if we take the lead firmly and clearly, as we have a right to do, and as we are bound to do the great majority of the Powers will follow us. We shall have not only civilisation and humanity on our side, but, what is of more importance, force. Therefore I beg the Government not to temporise, but to act at once, and firmly press these tremendous British interests now at stake. The future of China, over 400,000,000 of people, will be assured if only the Government will act in a way worthy of the party and the great traditions it represents.
§ MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W. R., Barnsley)did not think that there was any difference of opinion as to the policy which the Government ought to pursue in the present crisis in the Far East. That policy had been declared again and again to be the preservation of the integrity of the Chinese Empire and the equal opportunity for all nations to trade there. There was reason, he 173 thought, to complain of undue reticence on the part of the Government—they had not answered questions put in the House in as full and complete a manner as they ought to have done. It was to be regretted that the Government had not, having regard to the great public interest in this matter, done as was done by Count von Bülow and the President of the United States, both of whom had taken the opportunity of stating in the most definite manner the policy they intended to pursue in the Far East; but he hoped that what had taken place and the, statement the House would have that night from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would constitute an adequate departure from that policy of reticence. It was only reasonable, having regard to the state of affairs in China, that this opportunity should be taken to have a reasonable discussion, and the Government should state to the House the progress they were making in the settlement of the crisis and the success attending it. The various agreements entered into behind the back of the Chinese Government interfered with the settlement of the present crisis. In the Agreement with Russia, under which the railway rights north of the Great Wall were conceded to her whilst she conceded similar rights to us in the Yang-tsze Valley, we did not stipulate for British goods to be carried over those railways at equal rates of carriage. The Anglo-German Agreement stated distinctly that its object was the maintenance of the territorial integrity of China and of the open door for trade throughout the whole Chinese Empire. It stated that—
It is a matter of joint and permanent international interest that the ports on the rivers and littoral of China should remain free and open to trade, and to every other legitimate form of economic activity for the nations of all countries without distinction; and the two Governments agree on their part to uphold the same for all Chinese territory as far as they can exercise influence.But was Japan informed, when her consent was sought, that Germany declined to recognise the Agreement as applying to Manchuria, or were the other Powers of the Concert informed? A most emphatic statement had been made by Japan that she understood it to mean 174 what it said, and that it applied to the whole of the Chinese Empire. If the Agreement had any utility, the time had arrived when we, who initiated the Agreement, ought to ascertain what action the other Powers who were parties to the Agreement were prepared to take-in view of the serious infringement which was threatened by the new Manchurian Convention.What was the policy of Russia? In August she made a declaration of her policy, which was the maintenance of the former State organisation in China, the removal of all that could lead to a partition of the Chinese Empire, and the re-establishment of a Government able to preserve order and tranquillity in the country. And she further said that the measures taken by her were in no sense to be regarded as indicating an independent plan, which she affirmed was completely foreign to the policy of the Imperial Government. She also stated when giving a qualified assent to the Anglo-German Agreement that she had been the first to lay down the integrity of the Chinese Empire as a fundamental part of her policy. Therefore all the world had apparently agreed to preserve the international integrity of China. On the 28th February the Under Secretary stated "that His Majesty's Government had the assurance of the Russian Government that the guarantee that they would require from China in respect of Manchuria would not take the form of an acquisition of territory, or a virtual or actual protectorate in Manchuria." The right hon. Gentleman had further stated a few days previously in reply to a question that the Russian Government had repeatedly declared their intentions to respect the integrity of China, and that His Majesty's Government were not aware that they had infringed it; and that His Majesty's Government had been informed by the Russian Government that they had no intention of withdrawing their co-operation with the other Powers in the affairs of China. All those declarations were satisfactory on the face of them, and it would appear to be difficult to discover where danger underlay them, but when they turned to the terms of the new Russian Convention—which included the disbanding of the Chinese Army, the razing of fortifications, 175 the creation of an army without the consent of Russia forbidden; importation of arms and ammunition into Manchuria prohibited: refusal of advantages as to mines, railways, or other matters in the Russo-Chinese frontier provinces—Manchuria. Mongolia. Chinese Turkestan—including Kashgar, Yarkand and Khotan, right down to the borders of Thibet to other Powers; the Chinese debarred from constructing their own railways without the consent of Russia, and the right of Russia to construct a railway from the Manchurian railway towards Peking and the Great Wall—His Majesty's Government admitted that if the reported version of that Convention was correct, it was derogatory to treaty rights, and extended far beyond Manchuria. It was incumbent on the Government, therefore, in view of the destruction of treaty rights in the great regions of Central Asia and in the interests of the commercial future of this country, to take care that no Agreement was sanctioned to our detriment and in violation of our treaty rights with China. We could not afford to have a great neutral market like China invaded by great protectionist Powers like Russia, Germany, and France, which would inevitably be followed by protective tariff's excluding to a large extent British goods. At this moment Russia, France, Germany, and Belgium were all engaged in laying down railways and occupying the Chinese Empire, and stipulating in all their contracts that the materials and rolling stock should be drawn exclusively from the country of the concessionaires to the exclusion of the British trader and manufacturer.
The country was face to face probably with a cycle of trade depression, and therefore he wished to point out how very little attention the country had paid to the danger incurred in not upholding our commercial interests in the Far East. A great deal more attention would have to be given to them in the near future if British trade and commerce were to be maintained. Many hon. Members would have expected that the Government would have been able to give some information as to the terms of the new Chinese-Russian Convention, but apparently the Government had no positive information with regard to it. What 176 course did the Government propose to take? The only possible course to pursue was to put themselves, not individually, but collectively with the other Powers, into communication with the Chinese Government and bring about a practical agreement to preserve their mutual interests. Surely if the Great Powers of Europe stood together with the United States and Japan it would solve the question affecting China-There were other questions, some of which it was unnecessary to dwell upon, having regard to the lateness of the hour. There should be increased facilities for trade and the complete opening up of the immense waterways of China. There should be also a rearrangement of commercial treaties, and included in that arrangement should be the abolition of likin dues. But in addition to those there were other questions which ought to be the subject of friendly negotiation and settlement between this country and Russia. If a different policy had been adopted at an earlier stage the Tientsin incident might in all probability have been averted. The duty of the British forces, next to relieving the Legations in Peking, was that they should protect British property. He recognised the difficulties caused by having 200,000 men locked up in South Africa, but our naval forces in Chinese waters were for a long time only third in point of strength. If the railway from Tientsin to Neu-chwang, which was seized by Russia, had been occupied at various points by our blue-jackets it never need have passed under the control of Russia. What was the Tientsin incident? The allied troops had been victorious over the Chinese, and Russia yet said that she retained this ground by right of conquest. There was no right of conquest in the matter, and when that claim failed she said she had a concession signed by Li Hung Chang, but if that were so it was very doubtful if it had the sanction of the Chinese Government. That was a subject for negotiation, and he hoped in the settlement British interests would be fully upheld; but in the settlement of that question, why should not other questions be settled with Russia in a friendly way? Russia still retained possession of that part of the Northern Chinese railway from Shan-hai-Kwan to Neu-chwang. The earnings 177 of this railway had been allocated by the Chinese Government as security for British bondholders. He would like to know whether the assurances that the Russian occupation was temporary were written or verbal, and whether Russia might not be asked whether the time had not arrived when the military necessity that she should control the line had ceased to exist, and whether it ought not now to be given up to its rightful owners. There was the question of the administration of Niu-chwang. We had been told that there was no wish on the part of His Majesty's Government to exaggerate the importance of our interests in Manchuria or at Niu-chwang. We did, however, a trade of three millions sterling a year through Niu-chwang, and at the back of Niu-chwang there was the magnificent country of Manchuria—400,000 square miles. Manchuria had enormous possibilities of expansion and development. The maintenance of the just treaty rights of this country was a matter of importance. Referring to the objection raised by Russia to the expedition to the Elliott Islands, he urged that a claim put forth through such an extent of water would give Russia control over the entrance to the Gulf of Pechili, and he desired to have an assurance that the Government intended to resist the pretension of Russia to own those waters. There was also the dismissal of Mr. McLeavy Brown from his post in Korea. A similar tiling happened in 1897, and he hoped the Government would do as they did in 1897—resist the demand which had been put forward.
There was another matter to which he wished to refer, namely, the remodelling of our consular system. He had received from British consuls in the Far East great hospitality and great kindness, and he was very much disinclined to say one word which would be derogatory to them. But he was bound to say that the general impression he obtained after having come into contact with the consuls of the United States. Germany and Japan was that, while they made it their main work to push the trade of their respective countries. British consuls seemed to make their judicial and diplomatic functions their main work, and to consider the question of pushing British trade as somewhat 178 beneath them. If we were to hold our own in competition with other nations, who were competing with us more effectually than ever, it was absolutely necessary we should employ the same agencies in the shape of consuls, who would devote their energies to obtaining information and pushing trade as other consuls did. There was no doubt that the Chinese crisis, and especially the present phase of it, involved a problem of great importance to our country. They knew that the people of China were a most industrious commercial people. Commercially he believed they were the most honest people on the face of the earth. If China were developed in the next thirty years to the same extent as Japan had been developed during the last thirty years, there would he an increase in foreign trade of more than two hundred millions sterling a year, and if England only held anything approaching 60 per cent. of that increased trade, it would mean all the difference between commercial prosperity and commercial adversity. He hoped the House would have from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a full and definite statement regarding the present situation in China and the policy the Government intended to pursue, such as the House and the country had a right to expect, and which, he believed, it would be the noble Lord's pleasure to give.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE, FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,) RochesterWhen I understood the arrangement of the business for this evening I was inclined to congratulate myself that before I should have the honour of addressing the House a far abler tongue than mine would have given to the country the views of His Majesty's Government on all the departments of the Chinese question. I am not so sure that I congratulate myself now, because it appears from the speeches of my hon. friend and of the hon. Gentleman opposite that to some extent this debate is to-be looked upon as a continuance of a debate in another place, and that, without the presence of my noble friend who made he speech, and without having the report of his remarks before us, comments are to be made on his utterances. I do not know that that is a particularly convenient 179 arrangement, because it leads to considerable inaccuracy. My hon. friend, for instance, told the House just now that my noble friend in another place had declared against reform in China. I am confident he did no such thing.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI did not say that. I said the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had declared that the Government would not make it one of their principal policies in China.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTONI may be allowed to say that I carefully refrained from referring to various points raised in another place, on the very ground that I thought it would be unfair to anticipate the statement of the noble Lord.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure his intentions were admirable, but I am not quite sure that he did not refer indirectly to some of the statements made in another place. But my hon. friend told the House that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had discouraged, as it were, reform in China.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)Hear, hear!
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI do not think so, and if the right hon. Baronet will look to-morrow at the report he will see that my noble friend was speaking of reform in China in connection with the question of fiscal reform, to which that particular portion of his speech was devoted. He had pointed out that fiscal reform was one of the things which the Powers had to place in the Identic Note which had been presented to China, that is to say, that it formed part of the programme which the Powers were intent upon compelling China to adopt. Then he went on to distinguish our attitude and that of other Powers on fiscal reform, and reform generally, and it will be abundantly clear to the House that nothing would fee more rash than to have announced that part of the policy of the Government was that they intended to coerce China in the general reform of her administration, 180 as distinguished from fiscal reform, the latter being evidently of international importance, instead of national importance, as is the former.
The speech of my hon. friend went back a long way into ancient history, into which he will not expect me to follow him. He discussed things which occurred many years ago, and he gradually worked his way down to the origin of the present crisis. To my hon. friend Russia is the author of all evil—nothing goes wrong in Europe or in the world but Russia is at the bottom of it. In my opinion, as far as my limited opportunity of acquainting myself with the subject extends, the Boxer movement cannot be said to have been due to Russia. The Boxer movement was a very remarkable one, because it took by surprise all those who knew China best. In its nature it consisted partly of a religious movement and partly of a national movement; and it suddenly grew, with quite unexpected force and vigour, and swept over the country. As far as the external action of the other Powers was concerned, I do not pretend that a certain aggressive spirit which had shown itself among European nations had not something to do with it, but I do not think it would be fair to assign that to Russia, or to any other one Power, but rather to a great many. When my hon. friend speaks of Russia I wonder he does not think of the danger of using generalities. Russia may mean anything, from the Russian Emperor, the Russian Government, the Russian representative in China, down to some obscure colonel in command of a small body of Russian troops in a remote province; and there can be no greater mistake in estimating the action of Russia than to confuse these very dissimilar units. Recent experience has gone a long way to bear out the truth of this. The hon. Gentleman opposite reminds us of the question of the Northern Railway, and that furnishes an example of how pacific but firm representation and an appeal to the justice of the Russian Government meet with their reward. It is known now that, with regard to a large part of that railway, not the whole, but a large part—that part that is inside the Great Wall—the Russian Government 181 have consented to surrender it, and have surrendered it to the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, who in turn handed it over to the British military authority. That is part of the railway, but I do not forget we have rights in the whole of the railway—rights founded on the fact that the railway was made by British enterprise and capital, under British management, and was solemnly secured in an international instrument as an addendum of the Anglo-Russian Convention. The rights we possess in that railway will not be forgotten by His Majesty's Government. The hon. Member opposite has asked me about the incident in reference to the Elliott Islands, and I do not know that I have anything to add to the answer I have given to this question. The incident occurred, as the hon. Member himself mentioned, owing to the fact that a British naval officer, detached to hunt down pirates in that part of the world, in the course of his duty put into one of the islands, and remonstrances were addressed to him, or rather I think to the Admiral Commanding-in-Chief, not by the Russian Government, but by the admiral on the spot. We have instructed our admiral that we know no reason why our treaty rights to enter any port in China should be disputed, and that, so far as we are concerned, no attention need be paid to the protest. The hon. Gentleman then addressed himself to the various conventions which exist between this country and other Powers in respect of China. I did not gather he objected to them. His objections consisted, as it seemed to mo, in his opinion that they hardly went far enough. He spoke of the Anglo-Russian Railway Convention, to which I have referred, and he said it was a pity that it did not extend south of the Great Wall as well as north—or so I understood him. But I am not quite sure that I share that view. I recognise that in so far as it went it made for tranquillity and the avoidance of friction as between one Power and another, and anything that makes for tranquillity in China is for the benefit of British interests. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the Agreement is bi-lateral.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTA most discreditable surrender.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEMy hon. friend holds very strong opinions on this subject, I know, but I think I should get on with my speech better without his interjected observations. My hon. friend is aware the Agreement is bi-lateral in character. We recognise the geographical gravitation—that is the phrase used—which led to our abstention from interference with Russian railway enterprise south of the Wall, just as the same geographical gravitation led to Russian non-interference with our enterprise in the Yang-tsze basin. The Anglo-German Agreement has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite. That Agreement consists of three clauses. The first embodies the principle of the open door, but is limited in the terms of the article to the rivers and littoral of China, and to that part of the Chinese Empire in which the particular Powers signing the Agreement have interests.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTONThe words are "to uphold the same for all Chinese territory."
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEThat is not the interpretation put on the document by either of the contracting parties. The rivers and ports of China are the parts of China to which it extends, and the whole Empire of China so far as the influence of the Powers signing the document goes. I am asked how I explain the German Chancellor's speech in reference to that article. He said in the first place—I do not pretend for a moment to embrace all he said—that, as far as Germany is concerned, that article does not include Manchuria. I presume that the German Chancellor thinks that Manchuria is not a place where Germany has influence. But it is fair to say that, at the time that instrument was being negotiated, so far as Article 1 was concerned the German Government gave us to understand that they did not consider that, for the purposes of Germany, their influence extended to Manchuria. As to Clause 2, which binds the Powers to direct their policy towards maintaining the integrity of the Chinese Empire, that, as I said the other day in answer to a question, is, in our opinion, without qualification. Whatever the interpretation the German Government may have put on that 183 article, at any rate this can be said, that as a matter of fact they are pledged, and admit themselves pledged, and are glad they are pledged, to maintain the integrity of China by a hundred other documents besides the Anglo-German Agreement. The fact is, as the German Chancellor pointed out, the whole of China is a security for the money which the Chinese Government owes to the Powers of Europe, and in the opinion of His Majesty's Government and the German Government China has no right to part with a single acre of that which constitutes the security for so large a sum. With regard to Manchuria, as I have pointed out we fully recognise the obligations upon us which the great interests of this country impose. I have mentioned the railways; but there are other interests, trade interests, in different parts, to which we are bound to have regard. I am asked by the hon. Gentleman whether we are in a position to communicate the text of the alleged Agreement between Russia and China to the House. We are not in a position to do so. No one regrets more than His Majesty's Government the atmosphere of mystery which has been thrown round that Agreement. We think it a pity. It has the disadvantage that many versions, more or less accurate, reach us from many different quarters, and it is exceedingly difficult to say what may be the accurate or final form which it has assumed. One thing I can say, and that is that to the best of our information neither the account of it given by my hon. friend, nor the account given by the hon. Gentleman opposite is accurate, though that does not carry us very much further.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTWill you support China in refusing to sign it?
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEThe line we have adopted is to inform the Chinese Government that, in our opinion, any surrender of territory on her part under an agreement of the kind suggested between herself and anyone Powerduring the continuance of the present state of things in China would be a mistake dangerous to ourselves which we could not approve of. We have suggested that the proper course is to submit any such instrument to the representatives 184 of the Powers at Peking. That is the policy of His Majesty's Government. That is the policy not only of His Majesty's Government, but also, as we understand, of the German Government and of several other Governments; and I think it is quite as good a policy, indeed a far better one than that indicated in the reckless observation which has just been addressed to the House by my hon. friend. I know my hon. friend takes a very gloomy view of the future position of this country in Asia.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTNo, no.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEHe conceives that Russia is gradually absorbing everything, and I think he said that within three years she will have absorbed the whole of Mongolia and will have threatened India.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTNo; I said nothing of the sort.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEWell, I think if Russia's capacity and desire to pursue such a policy was anything like that which is described by my hon. friend we might indeed despair; but I confess I form no such opinion of Russia's intentions, and no such opinion of our want of strength, supposing any such thing were possible, to resist a danger of that kind. He attributes all our misfortunes to the Concert of Europe. Sir, the Concert is not perfect as an international instrument. I do not think that any of us on this side of the House have ever pretended that it was. I do not say that it was the most perfect method of addressing ourselves to the solution of the Chinese crisis, but I say that it was essential, that there was no other means of solving the crisis. The injury which had been inflicted by China was an international injury—an injury to all the Powers alike by assailing them in the persons of their representatives—and, of course, it was a matter of common interest and common obligation to vindicate our honour there and to take the necessary steps to prevent any such catastrophe ever happening again. But I quite admit that the Concert is very slow, and that its success depends upon; the cordial working of it by all its members, and that it is in the power of 185 any of the members of the Concert to make its future progress very difficult, or, indeed, impossible. For my part, as I have already said, we are not prepared in any way to abandon it. Indeed, the very policy I have described, of suggesting to the Chinese Government the propriety of referring any agreement of the kind which is alleged to have been made to the representatives of the Powers, is another example of the working of the Powers in concert.
I am not able to touch upon every point which has been raised by the two hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House, but I hope it will not be thought that where I have not corrected them I have admitted the accuracy of all that has been said. I do not admit, for instance, that the "open door" has been in any way injured by Russia. I do not admit that insults have been hurled at our officers and soldiers, except, of course, in a few cases between private soldiers in China. Nor do I admit that in the action we have taken in regard to the port of Neu-chwang we have anything whatever to be ashamed of. It is quite true that Russia continues to occupy Neu-chwang and the railway that leads to Neu-chwang. But in the course of the pacification of China undoubtedly the Russian troops advanced from that direction and used that railway. That was her field of operation—Neu-chwang came within it, and it is not surprising that she occupied it. So long as that is a temporary occupation we have nothing to say against it and the attitude of our representative at Neu-chwang seems to have been a thoroughly proper one, which deserved and has received our full support. The fact is that I do not share the view of my hon. friend that the prestige of Great Britain in the East is a thing of the past, or that it has been seriously impaired. Depend upon it, prestige is not a matter of display and ostentation. Prestige really depends upon what is real and what is essential. What makes our power in the East is not that we are ostentatious, but the consciousness of those with whom we have to deal that there is a great power behind us. And there are also great moral qualities which make us powerful in the East—our tolerance, our fair dealing, our sense of justice, and our business capacity. All these things have told in 186 the past in China, and they remain as powerful as ever. For my part, having taken some trouble to inform myself on the matter, I do not believe in the least in this great degradation of British influence in China. So long as our countrymen retain those great qualities which have served them so well in so many different Oriental countries, so long shall I believe and continue to believe in the continuance of British power and British influence. I have done my best to answer the questions put to me, and I believe that in China, as elsewhere, the Government deserve and enjoy the confidence of the country and of the House of Commons.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)I join in the debate at this hour, not at all with any desire to inflict a long speech on the House, but rather, if I may be allowed, to point out certain reasons which occur to me for thinking that a long debate on the details of the Chinese question to-night may not perhaps be considered altogether to be in place or to be very desirable. It is within our knowledge that a very important statement has been made in another place on the whole Chinese question, and I feel quite certain that I am expressing the view, not only of hon. Members who sit immediately near me, but of the House in general, when I say that whatever complaint there may have been the other day in regard to the action, or rather the silence, of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, we are all agreed that he has to-night made a full statement, and that he has fully respected the rights of the House of Commons to be fully informed about foreign affairs. I think we must also feel that the noble Lord has been at some disadvantage to-night, because this discussion began at a very late hour, and he himself had to rise after others had addressed the House.
Take first of all the speech of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division. I am bound to say that it seems to me that I have heard it as far back as 1884. The hon. Member as usual told us that the great errer of all foreign policy has been that his advice has not been adopted, and that his advice to successive Governments has been that there should be an Anglo-German Alliance. He seems to 187 think that alliances are to be got simply and solely by saying that a particular alliance would be convenient to the country, and that, therefore, it could be at once entered upon. Has not the hon. Member ever heard of the able and interesting speech of the German Minister in the Prussian Parliament, in which he warned those whom he addressed that Germany was not going to enter into alliances for the goodwill, pleasure, and advantage of other countries, but only exactly as far as they suited German interests? The hon. Member is aware that an alliance with Germany cannot be made simply because we say it would be convenient to us. The hon. Member has now added to his own recommendation with regard to a German alliance by saying that we have simply to proclaim that we want a Japanese alliance and that the Japanese will say: "Of course; let us frame it." The hon. Member appears to be the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs. Perhaps he would like to address the House from the bar as representing the Japanese Government. Then the hon. Member said: "Send the Fleet into Japanese and Chinese waters." He said that by sending the Fleet to the Gulf of Pechili—
§ SIR F. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI said nothing of the kind.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI must congratulate the hon. Member that he did not repeat his former declaration about sending the Fleet to the coast of Poland.
§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTI never said that either. I may as well kill, I hope once for all, one of the most monstrous fables ever spread about an unfortunate Member of this House, by stating that the story which was circulated by the noble Lord and Members like him was inaccurately attributed to me by the late Mr. Gladstone. I never said anything of the sort.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEMy recollection is that the hon. Member in former days did want to send the British fleet to the coast of Poland, and that when it was pointed out to him that Poland did not possess a coast he rushed into the columns of the press with the statement that Poland formerly had a sea coast, and that what he meant 188 was that the fleet should be sent into the Baltic. I congratulate the hon. Member that he has on this occasion made a recommendation which at any rate is within the range of physical possibility.
It is pleasant to pass from the rather exaggerated views of the hon. Member on foreign policy, which he is never weary of inflicting on the House, to the clear and able statement, made from intimate knowledge of China, of my hon. friend the Member for Barnsley. My hon. friend pointed out to the House that the policy which this country ought to aim at in China was to maintain all our commercial rights. We have had in the statement of the noble Lord a very clear allusion to that part of the negotiations which have been going on. I think I may certainly say on behalf of hon. Members on this side that we shall approach everything that has fallen from the noble Lord and from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place in the spirit which at a grave moment like this they fully deserve. We desire that no single word shall fall from any of us which might complicate the position of the Government, which we all feel is one of very great difficulty in this matter. I would, however, venture to urge on the Government that there are two points on which we desire to be fully enlightened, namely, what the position is in regard to Manchuria, in respect, in the first place, to the maintenance of our general rights under existing treaties, and secondly, in respect to what I might call our particular rights in regard to the railway which has been more than once mentioned in the debate. Subject to that observation, I will only say that I believe the feeling on this side of the House is that the Government ought carefully to abstain from pursuing any policy which would appear to assume that it was a matter of grave danger to this country if certain rights were acquired by Russia in Manchuria. We have interests there—commercial interests, not military or political interests. We desire to maintain the policy of what is called the "open door," and if that can be maintained we will be the very first to acknowledge that the foreign policy of the Government has been successful, because, after all, on these matters, we desire to 189 support the Government of the country as far as we possibly can. We ought never to look upon these great questions of foreign affairs from the point of view of party, because these are essentially questions regarding which party considerations should as far as possible be put into the background. There is, however, another point which has been mentioned, and which I must distinguish from the question of Manchuria. I mean the question whether Russia has or has not obtained large rights in what is called Mongolia and Chinese Turkestan, which is a far larger area than Manchuria, although it may look small on maps of a certain scale.
These are the points which I venture to place before the House, but I recur to the point from which I started, namely, that we are yet hardly in a position to enter on a detailed discussion of what has been said by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place, or to embark on those large views of foreign policy in which the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division always rejoices. He says alliances are so simple, but I would remind him of what was said to Owen Glendower, according to Shakespeare, when he said he would call spirits from the vasty deep. Percy replied—I am struck by the fact that I now see a Percy sitting behind the hon. Member—"But will they come?" I would recommend the hon. Member to consult the noble Lord behind him, who has travelled experience, and ask him whether he thinks the hon. Member's views of foreign policy are possible, or whether the views of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place and of the Under Secretary in this House are not saner views to follow.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.May I venture to appeal to the House now to bring this debate to a close? We have had two interesting debates on the Second and Third Readings of the Appropriation Bill, and I must also remind hon. Members that the Speaker and the officials of the House have to be here at an early hour to-morrow in order to get through the financial business within the legal period.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)In view of the fact that for some time past I have put a number of questions to the noble Lord on the matter of Manchuria and the action of Russia without obtaining any direct answer, I think I am entitled to take this, the only opportunity I shall have, of repeating my questions and of emphasising, the indecision of the speech of the noble Lord upon the matter, It is another illustration of the disadvantage under which this House labours in not having the Foreign Secretary here, that we should be all aware that a speech has been delivered by that Minister in another place this afternoon upon this subject, of the substance of which we must remain in more or less ignorance until to-morrow. The noble Lord did not give us clearly to understand whether or not the German Government are in accord with the action of His Majesty's Government in Manchuria. He told us that the first article of the Anglo-German Agreement was understood to extend to Manchuria, but that the second article, which had reference to the Chinese Empire generally, would naturally include Manchuria. The House of Commons and the country have a right to know which it is. Is it a fact that the German Chancellor has strongly declared that no Agreement with this country binds Germany to object to the outrages of Russia in China? The noble Lord has put off replying to the question again and again, as though he is desirous of biding the fact that the German Chancellor has made that statement. There is something mysterious about the whole matter. The fact of the matter is that the Anglo-German Agreement does not include Manchuria, and the German Government are not prepared to take action with this country in opposition to Russia. That means that Russia is practically doing what she likes in China, The people of this country and of Europe generally want to know what is to be the attitude of the Government upon this question. With or without the support of Germany, are you or are you not going to take up an attitude of opposition to Russia's operations? The indecision displayed by the Government goes to show that you are friendless in the matter, and that you have been unable to prevail upon Germany to make 191 common cause with you against Russia. The speech of the noble Lord to-night was the weakest and lamest pronouncement the House of Commons has ever heard from an Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it will be read to-morrow with amazement from one end of the country to the other. But the matter will not rest there. Sooner or later the Government and the people will have to face the question of whether Russia is to be allowed a free hand in Manchuria or not, and, if she is not, whether this country is prepared to take a strong stand in support of the integrity of the Chinese Empire. With regard to the general question, there is a growing feeling that the Governments of Europe are mainly responsible for the unfortunate development which has recently taken place. The Chinese people had been irritated and interfered with to an extent that no other people would have stood, and no grounds would have been given for the intervention of the allied Powers if the conduct of certain Europeans in China had not been of a thoroughly provocative character, which nobody could put up with. All this muddle is another illustration of the fact that it is dangerous and unjustifiable for Europeans to deal with
§ the populations of Eastern countries upon the assumption that they are dealing with people who have European instincts, customs, and habits. There will never be a settlement in China until a different system is pursued, and Chinese customs and habits are respected.
§ MR. BELL (Derby)The matter I wish to bring forward is one affecting a large number of railway men in the country, but in deference to the wishes of the First Lord of the Treasury, if the matter may be raised upon the Adjournment on Tuesday, I am prepared to defer my remarks until then.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member would be quite in order on that occasion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 109.)
193| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. | Chapman, Edward | Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Charrington, Spencer | Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Grenfell, William Henry |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Groves, James Grimble |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready | Guthrie, Walter Murray |
| Asher, Alexander | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x. |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Cranborne, Viscount | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th |
| Austin, Sir John | Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. |
| Bain, Col. James Robert | Dickson, Charles Scott | Hay, Hon. Claude George |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds) | Doughty, George | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Heaton, John Henniker |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B. | Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Bell, Richard | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'de |
| Bignold, Arthur | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Johnston, William (Belfast) |
| Bill, Charles | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) |
| Blundell, Col. Henry | Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) |
| Bond, Edward | Fisher, William Hayes | Kenyon-Slaney Col. W. (Salop. |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose- | Keswick, William |
| Brassey, Albert | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Knowles, Lees |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Law, Andrew Bonar |
| Bull, William James | Fuller, J. M. F. | Lawrence, William F. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John | Lawson, John Grant |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- | Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Graham, Henry Robert | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. |
| Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Pemberton, John S. G. | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Penn, John | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Percy, Earl | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. |
| Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G Ellison | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Macdona, John Cumming | Plummer, Walter R. | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Valentia, Viscount |
| Majendie, James A. H. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. |
| Malcolm, Ian | Purvis, Robert | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Manners, Lord Cecil | Handles, John S. | Webb, Col. William George |
| Martin, Richard Biddulph | Rankin, Sir James | Whiteley, George (York, W. R. |
| Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. | Ratcliffe, R. F. | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne |
| Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Rea, Russell | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Middlemore, J, Throgmorton | Rentoul, James Alexander | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Renwick, George | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Richards, Henry Charles | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Moro, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow | Royds, Clement Molyneux | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Morrell, George Herbert | Rutherford, John | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Sackville, Col. S. C. Stopford- | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Morton, Arthur H. A. Deptford | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Mount, William Arthur | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) | Younger, William |
| Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | |
| Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Smith, H C. (North'mb. Tyneside | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Nicol, Donald Ninian | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) | |
| Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Spear, John Ward | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E) | Harwood, George | O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Malley, William |
| Ambrose, Robert | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- | O'Mara, James |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Black, Alexander William | Holland, William Henry | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Poland, John | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | Priestley, Arthur |
| Boyle, James | Joyce, Michael | Reddy, M. |
| Caldwell, James | Leamy, Edmund | Redmond J. E. (Waterford) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Lundon, W. | Rigg, Richard |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Fadden, Edward | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Cullinan, J. | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Delany, William | Mooney, John J. | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r |
| Doogan, P. C. | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.) |
| Dully, William J. | Murphy, J. | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Duncan, James H. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Ffrench, Peter | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | White, Patrick (Meath, N.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Doherty, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Goddard, Daniel Lord | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Dowd, John |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
194§ The House divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 110.)
195| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol | Cautley, Henry Strother |
| Acland-Hood, Capt Sir Alex. F. | Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bignold, Arthur | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Bill, Charles | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Black, Alexander William | Chamberlain J. Austen (Worc'r |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Blundell, Colonel Henry | Chapman, Edward |
| Asher, Alexander | Bond, Edward | Charrington, Spencer |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. |
| Austin, Sir John | Brassey, Albert | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Ball, William James | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Caldwell, James | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Carson, lit. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Keswick, William | Randles, John S. |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Knowles, Lees | Rankin, Sir James |
| Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Law, Andrew Bonar | Ratcliffe, R. F. |
| Doughty, George | Lawrence, William F. | Rea, Russell |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lawson, John Grant | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Duncan, James H. | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Renwick, George |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Rigg, Richard |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Leveson-Crower, Frederick N. S | Ritchie, Rt. H n. Chas. Thomson |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Long, Col Charles W. (Evesham | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth) | Rutherford, John |
| FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. (J. F. | Sadler, Col Samuel Alex. |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon | Macdona, John Gumming | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J. | M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) | Smith, H. C (N'rth'mb, Tynes'de |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Majendie, James A. H. | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) |
| Cordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn | Malcolm, Ian | Spear, John Ward |
| Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts | Manners, Lord Cecil | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M. |
| Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby- | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F. | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh) | Thomas, J. A. (Glam'rg'n, Gow'r |
| Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry | Middlemore, John Throgmort'n | Tomlinson, William Edw. M. |
| Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S. |
| Groves, James Grimble | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Guthrie, Walter Murray | Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. |
| Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x | Morrell, George Herbert | Wason, John C. (Orkney) |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Webb, Col. William George |
| Harris, F Leverton (Tynemouth | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Weir, James Galloway |
| Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Morton, Edw. J. G. (Devonport) | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne) |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Mount, William Arthur | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon Charles Seale- | Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute | Williams, Col. it. (Dorset) |
| Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. |
| Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Pemberton, John S. G. | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Hickman, Sir Alfred | Penn, John | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | Percy, Earl | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Holland, William Henry | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Hope, J. E (Sheffield, Brightside | Plummer, Walter R. | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Younger, William |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Pretyman, Ernest George | |
| Jones, William (Carnarvons.) | Priestley, Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) | Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop) | Purvis, Robert | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Malley, William |
| Ambrose, Robert | Joyce, Michael | O'Mara, James |
| Harry, F. (Cork, S.) | Leamy, Edmund | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Boland, John | Lundon | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Boyle, James | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Reddy, M. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | M'Fadden, Edward | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cogan, Denis J. | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Mooney, John J. | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Crean, Eugene | Murphy, J. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Cullinan, J. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Delany, William | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Doogan, P. C. | O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry Mid | White, Patrick (Meath, North |
| Duffy, William J. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Doherty, William | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Dowd, John | |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N |
Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ Adjourned at ten minutes before One of the clock.