laid 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—

reported 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.

reported 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.

reported from the Committee on Group A of 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.

reported 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.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury 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 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.

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 the preference to ships carrying British crews.

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.

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 under the guard of Kaffir constables; and whether similar cases have been brought to his notice.

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.

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.

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.

When does the noble Lord expect that the long delayed Report will be received?

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.

Is there any chance of the Report being received before Easter?

I know nothing about it. I have no control in the matter.

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.

; 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.

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.

I am precluded on military grounds from giving any indication of Lord Roberts' plans.

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.

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.

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.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there 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?

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.

Can fifty men form a guard of honour for the Queen?

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.

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 those attached to Hyderabad contingent batteries armed with smooth-bore guns.

No, Sir. The Royal Artillery captain and four subalterns employed with the field artillery of the Hyderabad contingent are not available for service elsewhere.

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.

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.

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 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.

No, Sir. I have told the hon. Member before^* that the case cannot be reconsidered.

Did not the hon. Gentleman request me to again put this question to him?

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.

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?

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.

Who is to support this old soldier?

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).

British Commissioners to secure as far as possible the non-exhibition of goods on the Lord's Day.

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.

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.

The Government have received no information, but we have telegraphed to inquire.

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.

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.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Eastern Telegraph Company and the Indo-European Telegraph Com- 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.

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.

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 Her Majesty's Government from them on account of these transit taxes for the year 1898–9.

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.

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.

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.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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.

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.

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.

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.

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- 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 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.

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.

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.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster 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.

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

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.

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 special view the purpose that it should be rigorously enforced.

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.

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.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain 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.

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.

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.

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."

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 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.

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.

Were any steps taken to watch him at Liverpool?

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.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that aiding 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.

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.

Was the pamphlet in English or Gaelic?

As my hon. friend knows, there are very few people there who cannot understand English.

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.

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.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to the fact 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.

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.

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.

I understand that my right hon. friend has answered a question on the subject matter of this very fully.^* With regard to the Committee asked for, I am afraid I can hold out no hope whatever of its appointment.

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.

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.

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.

The sum granted under the sub-section re-

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., p. 1191 (19th March, 1900).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Did not the interference of the Board of Trade in this matter deprive the authorities of land which they would otherwise have acquired?

I can only say we took what we believed to be the most beneficial course.

Why did not the Board of Trade communicate with the local authorities in the usual manner?

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.

So is all land that is any good.

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?

Why was this preference given to Lord Midleton? Does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Aye, does he know?

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.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the land is claimed by the Cork Harbour Board——

Order, order! It is impossible to follow this matter further in question and answer.

This is a flagrant job; and we shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates.

Is it intended to take any steps to protect the public interest?

Order, order!

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, 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 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.

Pending the introduction and passing of the Bill, could not cases like this stand over?

That is entirely a matter for the local boards of guardians. The Government has nothing whatever to do with it.

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?

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 facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Local Government Board have been advised that a doctor 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Then may he let lodgings if he chooses?

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.

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.

Will that be done in connection with the cases to which I have referred?

Certainly.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I am afraid not. The matter has been fully considered, and the Board came to its decision after a full examination of the proposal.

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.

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.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, with four veterinary surgeons on the Board, there is no Catholic amongst them?

I suppose through other qualifications.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

Who has been appointed?

I am not aware.

No official information!

Can the right hon. Gentleman now state when the debate on the Education Code will be taken?

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.

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?

I have every hope and expectation that the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill will pass before the Easter holidays, whenever that may be.

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?

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.

When is it proposed to take the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill?

I cannot say.

Will it be taken on Tuesday?

If hon. Members desire, I will not press it on that day.

rose 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—

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 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.

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.

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 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.

Two others.

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.

Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the cases of the two vessels named in his motion.

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 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, 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.

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.

I might have raised that question.

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.

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?

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.

This vessel was fully loaded.

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 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.

said 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.

The crews understand English.

I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman; they do not.

said 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 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.

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.

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the officers were disgusted with the crew.

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 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.

expressed the hope that the Government would take into consideration generally the practice of employing foreign seamen on British ships.

reported 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.

who 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 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, 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 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 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 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- 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 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.

said 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, 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 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.

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 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.

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?

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 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 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.

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 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.

May I say that the physical drill is military drill.

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 our elementary schools as a source from which Tommy Atkins is to be recruited; but why not all schools—intermediate, secondary, and higher schools?

Hear, hear!

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 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 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 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.

said 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.

Mr. Speaker, I desire 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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- 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. 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 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 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.

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 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 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- 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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, 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.

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.

A counterpoise to Port Arthur.

But there is a point in regard to which I certainly think the onus lies on the Government to show 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 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.

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 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 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)

"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 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.

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.

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 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 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).

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?

I am entirely opposed to spheres of influence, and entirely in favour of the open door and equal privileges for all nations.

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 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.

Although 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- 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 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 territory of Sam Chun, which the hon. Member seems to regret so much that we have given up.

Hear, hear!

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.

I said we ought to have taken a further tract of country in the first instance, and thus have secured a proper frontier.