Mr. F. Anderson's address in Manchester on the subject of "British Interests in China" must have been as interesting to his listeners as it proves to be to the readers of the reports in the papers. But there are many points to which the truly Imperialist Britisher might take exception. Not certainly to his emphasis of the fact that the paramountcy of the British trade in China would justify England in taking a stronger position than she does in Eastern matters. One of the main points that would lead one to take exception to Mr. Anderson's address, is that he says the Government fail to protect- British interests and he hints that the Government has not given assistance to British merchants in taking advantage of those treaties of the sixties which he describes as excellent. In reality Mr. Anderson does not instance any cases, and surely after his general statement he could quote plenty. He further does not propound any remedy for existing mistakes and blunders. If Mr. Anderson, after so long a residence in the east, cannot see his way clearly to suggest remedies, whereby the lot of the British merchant and trader might be improved in China, how can he expect the British Government, who have never set foot in China, to know any better. It is little use telling a man his house is on fire unless you assist him in putting out the fire, particularly if you have a corresponding interest in the house, to the trade interest which Mr. Anderson has in China. Further, a doctor docs not tell you, sou have typhoid without prescribing the medicine. Lectures of the kind given by Mr. Anderson are practically no use, unless he in them gives the Government some sketch of the Me to go on; for he, if any one, should know. Then he is blessed with the further knowledge of administration gleaned from his experience on the Shanghai M. C. and this coupled with his knowledge of dealing with the Chinese should place him in the enviable position of giving advice, and good advice, sound advice, practical advice. One suggestion of his certainly shows his practical turn of mind and that is that he thought it would be a wise policy to create a special department of the Foreign office, with an official having an intimate knowledge of China and Chinese affairs," but Mr. Anderson might have gone further and suggested a special office, totally independent of the Foreign office, on the lines of the "Indian office" and called the " China office" with a definite secretary to the China office. China at the present day and in the inimediate future would andoubtedly justify such an office. If our colonies which are working for the advantage of England justify a colonial office, surely in the name of logic there should be a special China office to cope with those best of diplomatic rogues, the mandarins, ho according Mr. Anderson "were constantly endeavouring to curtail foreign rights." This is now where the shoe of Mr. Anderson's discourse pinches, Are not British traders and merchants a little bit to blame in not taking advantage to the full of the existing treaties? Why don't they force the issue with these mandarins themselves by saying, " I am going to take up a certain position in accordance with treaty rights," take it up, and let the mandarin attempt at his peril to shift him from it, and then let him seo if the British Government will leave him in the lurch or not. The Lord helps those that help themselves, it is said. and it will be found that the House of Lords and House of Commons won't neglect those merchants and traders who are only bold enough to help themselves. The mandarins do the things complained of to see how far they can go: then why do not British subjee' take a lesson from their tactics? But no, they won't, and say, without having tried the method, that the British Governmen won't back them up if they do. If they say this they are wrong. for it has been seid by a fairly strong member of the British Lega-"Do the thing, or get something, we will see you through. but do not ask us to get it for you." Could anything be mo. reasonable? Could any merchant or trader desire more? unless it were to be suckled on the bottle of mercantile markets at the hand of the British Government. If the individuals or companies are too weak-kneed to take advantage of the opportunities offered, and take up a strong position themselves, how are they to expect a Government who are thousands of miles away to do their business for them. The Government is only a concatenation of in dividuals and exemplifies individual enterprise. What has built up the British Empire? Is it the British Government? Certainly not! Individual enterprise ultimately backed, not led, by the British Government. And so it will be and so it must {be in China. What gave Britain the claim'to South Africa? Was it the Government or the individual trader and adventurer? Why certainly the latter. Was it the Government who increased that influence No, but trading companies, adventuring in dividuals and adventuring companies composed of men who, knowing themselves strong and capable, did not ask.for the as-stance of the Government, but gave England a country as big if not bigger than China. What gave us Rhodesia but the ori ginal energy of two individual traders, obtaining trading and mining rights from old "Lo Ben's" father. Then came the small charter, after that the repudiation of the original mining nnd trading treaty by King Lo Ben himself, with his attempt to squeeze outend kill all the trading settlers. Tien what was thy Government's action Did it support these energetic traders or not? Who conducted the first Matabele war? Was it not through the instrumentality; of one powerful individuality personified Mr. Cecil Rhodes that the Government is the sovereign lord of the Chartered Ca, of S. Africa and that that vast dominion was secured to the empire? On the other side there is the question—what lost us the American States? Originally a community of triders like these of China, established ascertain stations collectively called New England—what but the very fact of th Government trying to force its power practically mercantile enterprise Then came individuality to the ture and me dividunlity combined with individuality forming the nudens of that proud and successful nation "The United States of America." The English people of Shanghai and other treaty ports of Cirina (the tr ders and merchants as well as so-called adventurers or concession seakers) cannot too learn the lesson that if they allow their individuality in mercantile enterprises to fall asleep and expect Governments to know what they want and do it for them, the sooner they clear out of the Kast the better for themselves, for their interests will pass into the stronger and younger me dividualism of German enterprise. "Do not blame the Government for what in a grent measure is our own fault, no wore than we blame the weather because we have "claret liver."
Mr. Anderson takes alarm ut the railway concessions to France, Germany, and Russia, Need there he any alarm at this if they facilitate British trade? Does not history teach a leon? Do we regret to-day that France (and France, not Eng. land) made the Suez Canal? Has English trade suffered? Who practically owns it, England, or the France who move: it? Docs Mr. Anderson want to ery with loud view for the open door, while with both hands he holds it shut against other European railway development? Why the very theory of the open door ix that all and not particularixed enterprises should be open to the capital and energy of all nations, Then has Mr. Anderson looked at the large maps of China, which show the proposed railways for China given in colours indicating the nationality of the promoters? If not let him look and see, and he will find that the British red makes not only a conspicuous but a preponderating show amongst the glomerate of other colours. Why doos individual enterprise not go ahead with
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.