13th September, Stssects of all kinds are brought up when the second reading of the Appropriation Bill is before House of Commons,-and on the 6th of August last the China Question was one of the subjects brought forward, Mr. Joseph Walton making an able and interesting speech, and asking number of questions, some of which were answered by Lord Cranborne and some entirely neglected. His first question was as to the rendition of Newchwang, and he asked if our Government intended to see that this was done. "In the treaty port of Newchwang," he said, "there was a British trade of no less than £3,000,000 annually; and it would have been well within the ability of the Government out of their strong naval force on the China station to take steps to protect British interests there. The Government ought now to secure that Newchwang should be handed back to Chinese jurisdiction by the Russians simultaneously with the handing back of tientsin, and that the railway from Tientsin to Shanhaikuan should be handed back simultaneously with the railway from Shanhaikuan to Newchwang." Lord Cranborne's answer to this must be given in full domination of the attitude of the Gove The hon. gentleman spoke with conment in old times in allowing the Russian occupation of Newchwang. He apparently forgot the circumstances la which that occupation took place. Ho must remember that all the Powers were agreed in common action in order to save the Legations and to avenge the outrages which had been committed against us; and each Power advanced in its own way. We advanced from the sea; the Russians advanced from the Manchuri i and, naturally enough, as Newchwang on the line of that advance, they occupied the place. The hon. member asked when Newchwang was going to be restored to the Chi The hon. member knew as much about this as he In the Manchurian agreement the evacuation by the Russians of provinces in China was divided into three divisions. A part was to be evacuated in the next six months; another part in the course of another period of six months; and the remainder in another period of six months. In the course of the first six months Russia agreed to evacuate all that part in which the railway from Shanhaikuan to Newchwang lay; in the course of the next six months they agreed to cracuate that pro-ince in which the town of Newchwang was; and they agreed in the third period of six months to evacuate the remainder. That was the present state of things. The railway to Newchwang lay in that province of Manchuria which would be handed back in the first period of six months under the Manchurian agreement.
Lord Cranborne must be right, because he doubtless obtained this information from the Russian Foreign Office; but our impression here was that the Russians took Newchwang in order that they might get in their' railway material without interference they intended to take Manchuria, of which Newchwang was the seaport; and because its occupation facilitated their design to transfer the trade of Newchwang to Dalny.
Mr. Walton next referred to the land dispute with Russia at Tien'sin, and he reminded the Hous: " that when Russia occupied the railway station at Tientsin there were documents ina safe in the station showing the title of the Northern Chinese Railway Ca., to the lands, and that safe was forced and rifled of its contents. That important fact ought to be brought forward and pressed." To this point no reference whatever was made by Lord Cranborne in his reply, and, indeed, it would be impossible for him to entertain at all the idea that officials of a friendly Government would force a safe and destroy title-deeds in order to claim the land themselves.
Mr. Walton next asked whether the new treaty with China contained a most-favoured-nation clause in regard to railway construction; and he dwelt on "the extreme desirability of arriving at some agreement, between the various Powers undertaking the construction of railways in China, that equal railway rates should be accorded to the nationals of all Powers overall railways in China." British concessionaires of railways in China have given as one reason for their inaction that they are hampered by more onerous terms in their concessions than other European concessionaires: and a most-fivourednation clause has been suggested so that sll may be put on the same footing. Lord Cranborne's answer this was: "In the amount of railway concessions which this country had obtained we stood at least a3 high as any other competing Power in China."—Unfortunately, none of the concessions are being taken up, except a piece of coal railway by the Peking Syndicate.—* The hon, member wanted us to have a most-favoured-nation clause in regard to railways. He was not at all sure that such a thing was practicable, but the matter would be considered. Every railway had features of its own which were the subject of special bargaining in each case; and whether it was possible to Jay down that whenever any advantages were given to any country in ect of a particular railway concession, those advantages should be extended to every other railway—concession throughout China, he was not ssu that it was a practicable proposal. This is a thoroughly official answer, and it will be noted that nothing was said about securing equal rates on the railways.
Farther questions of Mr. Walton related to subjects' which have' been provided for in the new Commercial Treaty, such as the inland. waters on the part of the Customs: because navigation regulations, the equal isa
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.