in labour disputes know exactly what the men who forced the war upon the that means. In this case not only have nation will see to it that when the settlethe troops been called in to preserve the ment comes, in so far as they can affect peace, but cannon have been mounted that settlement, it will be in their interest, on all the surrounding hills commanding and thus we have a fresh incentive to the the open space in which the meetings are Boers to continue fighting to the bitter being held. And why? These people end. One further statement made ap are British subjects. They are meet-pertaining to the settlement was that of ing together unarmed, as they have a giving compensation to the Boers whose constitutional right to do, to discuss farms have been destroyed. The right matters of grave public importance hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secreaffecting them and affecting stated us, tary has and why do we permit this insult, this incitation to rebellion, to be held out to these men as is done by the mounting of guns in the manner I have stated? I will now pass to the other part of my remarks, chiefly with regard to the burning of the farms. I want to submit to the House that, in this regard, as in some others, the proclamations of Lord Roberts and our other generals, if not illegal, at least are contrary to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the carrying on of war between civilised countries. Article 4 of that Convention provides in regard to prisoners of war—

"All their personal belongings except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property."

*MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member looks at the Amendment he will see that a discussion as to whether the war has been carried on according the provisions of the Hague Convention does not come within the terms of the question before the House, and is not relevant.

*MR. KEIR HARDIE: I thought that, as several other speakers had been allowed to go rather wide of the subject, the same licence would have been granted to me. I do not know that I have any more to say in regard to the terms of settlement. I feel very strongly with regard to the opinion expressed by some of the previous speakers that this war will not end short of the restoration of independence to the two Republics. There is one feature of the proposed settlement to which I should like to call attention for a few minutes. We are told that there is to be a distinction between the form of Government offered to the Transvaal Republic and that which will be offered to the Orange Free State. We have not been told why this distinction is to be made. In the Orange Free State there are no gold mines, and no mine speculators to dictate the terms of peace and the form which the Government of the country shall assume. In the Transvaal, Mr. Keir Hardie.

that he believes: the numbers in regard to farms destroyed have been very much exaggerated, and that the farms are not. of much value. So far as my information goes-and I have tried to find out the truth-the number of farms burned in the two States number between 1,200 and 1,500. The hon. Member for the. Ecclesall Division of Sheffield has told us that most of these farms would cost very little to rebuild. If that be so, then the cost of compensating the Boers would not be so great as has been stated. But there is another side to this question. The war is now costing us £1,500,000 per week, and it may drag on for months. Now one month's cost of the war would more than compensate all the losses sustained by the destruction of property. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to study economy he should support this proposition to pay compensation, if by that means the war might be brought to an end. I do not think I have any more to say in regard to the settlement, although I shall, later on, have more to say on other aspects of the war, for I have no intention whatever of modifying the views which I have given expression to outside of this House simply to meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen inside the House. I believe that the nation was lied into the war, bluffed through the war, and tricked into endorsing the policy of the war before it had time to recover its sanity. We have been told that the war was undertaken in order to "wipe something off a slate," but unless a better settlement is proposed we shall have to put something else on to the slate. All that has been wiped out up to the present has been the finest act of moral courage that was ever shown by a British statesman in settling a question of international politics. If those who support the Boers on both sides of the House had but the moral courage and the insight of the late Mr. Gladstone, who knew the right and had the courage to do the right in the face of public clamour,

1

:303

our troubles in South Africa would grow
less, and the outlook there would not be
so gloomy. I will conclude by saying
that I am delighted to find that the party
opposite, with its big majority, is
beginning to see a glimmer of the fact
that the Boers cannot be defeated, and
the British Empire, with all its power,
has pitted itself in vain against the people
What you are
of those two Republics.
dealing with are men, and not machines,
which have been demoralised, debilitated,
and degraded by a bad system of com-
mercialism. They were free men, and
I
they are people who love freedom.
shall therefore endeavour inside the
House, as I have endeavoured outside, to
80 educate the nation to my views that
even the strongest Government of modern
times which is already weak at the
knee will be compelled to concede to
these two Republics the only form of
settlement which can be accepted by
them, and that is the complete restora-
tion of their independence.

*MR. EMMOTT : I think it is generally agreed that the reply of the Colonial Secretary has been so sympathetic in tone and so generally satisfactory that it would be a pity to divide the House on the Amendment which I have moved. I have therefore pleasure in accepting the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, and I ask the leave of the House to with

draw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.

BRITISH INTERESTS IN CHINA.
*MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire,
W.R., Barnsley): I rise to propose the
Amendment to the Address standing in
my name. Having regard to the grave
crisis still confronting us in the Far East,
appeared to me incredible that neither in
the speech of the hon. Member who moved
the Address, nor in the speech of the hon.
Member who seconded it, was there the
slightest reference to the situation in
China. Although Parliament has been
called together in special session for the
sole purpose of providing the necessary
money for the carrying on of military
operations in South Africa and in China,
even the right hon. Gentleman the First
Lord of the Treasury concluded his
speech and sat down without making the
slightest reference to the important crisis
with which we are face to face in the
It is true that
great empire of China.

1

when the right hon. Gentleman's atten-
tion was called to this grave omission he
did make some slight reference to the
question. He said: "Oh, yes; papers will, I
suppose, be laid on the subject of China,
Meanwhile, I do not know that there is
anything bearing on policy to mention,
or upon our military operations, the digest
of which was thoroughly explained to the
House when the former Vote was taken."
But since the House separated a great
deal has taken place in China. We have
had the Anglo-German Agreement con-
cluded. The object of that agreement is
stated to be the desire on the part of
Great Britain and Germany to maintain
It sets forth in that
their interests in China and their rights
in existing treaties.
agreement that

"It is a matter of joint and permanent
international interest that the ports on the
and open to trade, and to every other legiti-
rivers and littoral of China should remain free
mate form of economic activity, for the
nationals of all countries without distinction;
and the two Governments agree on their part
to uphold the same for all Chinese territory as
far as they can exercise influence."
If the Anglo-German Agreement conferred
equal rights and privileges upon both of
the contracting parties then, speaking
personally, I should say that it was a step
in the right direction.

But when we come to examine that agreement, and try to gain some knowledge of what is meant by the maintaining of their rights and their interests in existing treaties; when we come to interpret that by the language used by Count von Bulow in the German Reichstag, we find that it does not confer equal rights and privileges. Count von Bulow said--

"It is our desire, and it is our intention, to stick to the basis of the Treaty of 6th March, 1898, and not to go beyond this Treaty." When we remember that that is a secret treaty between Germany and China, and that it has reference to the great province of Shantung, with its 30,000,000 of population, then we begin to see and wonder whether those equal and mutual rights. throughout the Chinese Empire are secured to England as well as to Germany under this Anglo-German Agreement. The full details of the agreement between Germany and China have not yet transpired, but we do know that that agreement secures for Germany exclusive preferential rights in the matter of railway construction and industrial and mercial enterprises. When this AngloGerman Agreement was announced to the Second Day.

com

that British ships could take British goods
to every riverside town and station in
China. But now it is within the knowledge
of the House that that agreement, so ex-
cellent as it appeared to be, has proved to
be practically a dead letter. When the
late British Minister at Peking was enter-
tained before he left England, he spoke
very strongly of the great advantage of
the opening of the West River to the
trade and commerce of Great Britain. I
have just received a communication from
one leading commercial firm interested in
trade on the West River, which states
that owing to the restrictive regulations
and differential treatment accorded to
British vessels on the West River, the
shipping companies of Hong Kong have
withdrawn all their vessels and have seld
them, and that that has left the British
flag practically unrepresented in these
waters. That is a very serious position
of affairs, commercially considered, for
the British subjects who have invested a
considerable amount of money in the
building of steamers especially to conduct
the West
commercial operations on
River. What I would urge upon Her
Majesty's Government in connection with
the settlement which they have to make
in China is that their best endeavours
should be used, so that the opening up of
the inland waterways to trade should be
fully accomplished on just and equitable
lines, in order that the trade of the civi-
lised world with the Chinese Empire may
be developed and increased, and that
we, as Britishers, may enjoy a fair share
of the increase which is possible in con-
nection with that trade. There is another
question that I should like to refer to,
and regarding which I desire to have as
much information as the Under Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs is in a posi-
tion, with due regard to the public
interest, to give to the House. It is the
question of the railway from Tong Ku,
through Tientsin to Peking, and from
Tong Ku to
Niu-chwang.

Wall of China. What came to many as a great surprise was that. Her Majesty's way or Government should in some other have so weakly upheld the rights and interests of British subjects that the manager of that railway and his officials have been entirely pushed on one side, and that the railway to-day is under the control of Russians and Germans. Though we understand that in case of military exigency some arrangement of this kind might be temporarily necessary, what I cannot understand is the information which comes to me that the Russians have actually painted engines bought by British capital in the Russian colours; that they have altered the names of the railway stations and signal cabins. into the Russian language, and any person travelling to-day over the railway would naturally regard it as a Russian line. I hope that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be able reassure us that this control by to Russia of that railway is a very temporary matter, and that the Government have received the fullest assurances that when military exigences disappear the railway will be restored to the control of A telegram appeared its rightful owners. in The Times on December 4th, which stated that by the imperative order of the Czar the Russians were handing over the Shan-hai-Kwan Railway to the Germans.. If that is so, it may be a convenient way of having the railway passed over to the control of the late manager and the officials under him. That would be a very satisfactory ending to this matter. I only desire to have information on this very important question because I cannot forget that the Russians interfered and advanced to the altered the terms of the contract under which money Chinese Government for the construction of this railway, and that the Foreign Office took a note of the transaction and allowed the fact that it had Shan-hai-Kwan and taken a note of it to be introduced It is within the into the prospectus on the strength of knowledge of the House that this which the British public were asked to railway was built with British capital, invest their money. Therefore, in regard and that the original agreement which to this railway, there rests upon Her gave to those who advanced the money a Majesty's Government a special responmortgage over the line which was being sibility to support the just rights and constructed from Shanghai towards Niu- interests of British subjects who have the intervention or invested their money in it. I do not say chwang was, by interference of Russia, altered, so that that they have not taken all reasonable by the agreement with Russia the security steps to uphold these rights and interests, of British investors was limited to that but that at the present moment we are Second Day. portion of the railway south of the Great without information on the subject, and

was