BRITAIN AND CHINA

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLVII, Issue 10888, 7 April 1927, Page 5

BRITAIN AND CHINA

DEBATE IN COMMONS.

LABOUR PARTY'S ATTITUDE.

THE QUESTION OF INQUIRY. (Per Press Association—Copyright.) (Received This Day, 9.50 a.m.) LONDON, April 7. There was a crowded attendance in the House of Commons when Mr J. Ramsay MacDonald initiated the debate on China. He said that no one could say what was going to happen. The dispatch of the Shanghai defence force had undoubtedly increased our difficulties in negotiating, without increasing protection for Britishers outside Shanghai. It had also fed traditional Chinese suspicion, though he believed this .was without foundation. Not Shanghai, but the whole of China, was the immediate test of .our policy. Nohody could say, before inquiry, what had happened in Nanking. Therefore he urged the Government to use the League of Nations method of inquiry. Personally, he was most glad that Britain, America and Japan were to-day presenting Notes, hot an ultimatum. There should be a clear statement that we,still stood where we were at Christmas. I£ the League of Nations could make the inquiry regarding Nanking, it would do a tremendous lot of good. He hoped Sir Austen Chamberlain would not decline to use the League. They should know what was in the mind of the War : Office in sending out more troops, and how far we were acting alone in such matters. It was not in British interests, as the market for our goods was circumscribed and barred by prejudice and ill-will. The Chinese had learned the power of boycott. Mr R, Mitchell Banks (Conservative) said that Mr MacDonald's speech recalled the proverb that, "in the kingdom of the blind a one-eyed man was king."- He wished Mr MacDonald could give some vision to his party, but unfortunately his kingdom was governed, not from a throne, but from an ante-chamber. Mr MacDonald had said that revolutionary propaganda in the East was based om history, but Mr Mitchell Banks declared tha,t the Independent ' Labour Party was busy preparing history upon which to base propaganda. If anybody spread suspicion it was the Labour Party, by meetings and resolutions; and if there should be disaster they would be its chief authors. If Sir Austen Chamberlain had to defend himself it would be against his pushing of the virtue o'f patience almost to a fault. Labour Interruptions.

After Colonel J. C. Wedgwood (Labour) had spoken, there were loud cries for Sir Austen Chamberlain. The Deputy-Speaker called on Sir Alfred Mond, but the interruption continued. Mr Oswald Moseley (Labour) shouted "We are debating the Government's policy without hearing what it is." ■i Sir Alfred Mbnd began, amidst a chorus of Labour interruptions and cries of "Poison gas!" The Deputy-Speaker warned both Mr Purcell and Mr Beckett, who consistently interrupted Sir Alfred Mond. Sir Austen Chamberlain, replying, said the whole city of Shanghai, had been created by foreigners, and it existed and prospered because of j the foreigners. Britain was ready to negotiate to meet the Nationalist aspect and remove the special conditions rendered necessary by past conditions, as soon as China could give foreigners the same justice and security as the Chinese obtained 1 elsewhere in the civilised world. The looting in Nanking: continued unchecked to April 4. The officer in charge of the Nationalists sent a warning that any Britisher going ashore would be shot. Similar incidents occurred at Chekiang, Icangtik, Ichangj and other places under the control of the Nationalists.

While Sir Austen was reading a report on Ichang, Mr Wallhead (Labour) interjected, "It sounds like a students' rag day.'' This was followed 1 by cries of "Order!" Sir Austen Chamberlain asked: "What interest does the member serve by minimising these outrages?" Mr Wallhead: "Nothing I have heard justifies war." Question of Reparations. Sir Austen Chamberlain continued thai Britain must know the attitude of the responsible Chinese authorities toward the outrages. He believed all the Powers were in substantial agree'ment that it was necessary to require redress, but he did not want to speak too confidently. He knew an agreement had been reached by the Ministers at Pekin, but he was not absolutely certain regarding the attitude of their Governments thereon. All the indications were that Japan, the United States, and ourselves were in agreement, not merely on the matter of asking for reparations, but regarding what reparations should be asked. Lives Must Be Protected.

Sir Austen Chamberlain said that the Nationalist authorities must understand that their reputation .as a Gov-, ernment and the honour of China required them to give full satisfaction and reparation. He read the British Vice-Consul's report on the outrages in Nanking, and pointed out that looting was continuing there, without the Chinese authorities attempting to interfere. A similar state of affairs prevailed m every place under the Nationalists' control, including looting and outrages in hospitals These attacks were not confined to British subjects or interests. The most significant feature of the present debate, Sir Austen said, was that the Labourites, unmoved, were demanding the recall of the defence force. Did the Labourites desire to expose Britishers in Shanghai to the dangers realised in Nanking? The Government was pursuing a policy of conciliation and adjustment to meet the new Chinese aspirations. Sir Austen Chamberlain concluded, ajmid cheers: "But we are not prepared to hustle out of China, to withdraw our nationals from Shanghai and other places, or to* allow them, to be treated as though the lives of our people were of no account." Tribute by- Mr Lloyd George.

Mr D. 'Lloyd George paid a tribute to the courage with which Sir Austen Chamberlain faced a difficult task, and continued to pursue the policy specihcaOv laid down a few months ago. Mr C P. Trevelyan (Labour) said that if we went to war against China we should probably do so alone, and our trade would pass mrto the hands of the Powers standing aloof. _ m The Labourites forced a division on the motion for the adjournment of the debate, which was defeated by 277 yotesi to 17.