THRUST AND PARRY

Northern Advocate, 7 April 1927, Page 5

THRUST AND PARRY

DEBATE ON CHINA

IN HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MACDONALD MEANDERING,

(United Press Assn,—Copyright.) (Received 12.20 p.m.) LONDON, April'6.

In the House of Commons there was a crowded attendance when Mr Ramsay MacDonald initiated a debate on China.. Mr MacDonald said that no one could say what was going to happen. The despatch of the Shanghai Defence Force had undoubtedly increased Britain’s negotiation difficulties 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 Britain's policy. Nobody could say before an 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 today were presenting notes and not ultimata. There should be a clear statement that Britain still Stood where she was at Christmas. If the League of Nations could make the Nanking inquiry 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 i mind of the Wav Office in sending out i more troops and how far Britain was [acting alone in such matters. It was [not in British interests, as the market for her goods was circumscribed and (barred by prejudice and ill-will. The [Chinese had learned the power of the | boycott. ! Mr R. Mitchell Banks (Conservative) said Mr MacDonald’s speech reI called the proverb that in the king[dom of the blind the one-eyed man | was king. He wished Mr MacDonald could give some vision to his party, but [unfortunately His kingdom was govierned not from the throne, but from (the antechamber. Mr MacDonald had said that revolutionary propaganda in the East was based on history, but 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 that party would be its chief authors. If Sir Austen Chamberlain had to defend himself it would be against pushing the virtue of patience almost to a fault.

After Colonel 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 0. Mosley (Labour) shouted: “We arc debating the Government’s policy without hearing what it is.’'’

Sir Alfred Mond began amidst a chorus of Labour interruptions and cries of “Poison Gas!”

The Speaker warned both Messrs Purcell and Beckett, who consistently interrupted Sir Alfred Mond. Sir Austen Chamberlain, replying, 'said that the whole city of Shanghai had been created by foreigners and it had existed prosperous because of foreigners. Britain was ready to negotiate to meet the Nationalist aspect and remove special conditions rendered necessary by past conditions as soon ns China could give foreigners the same justice and security as the Chinese obtained elsewhere in the civilised world. Looting in Nanking had continued unchecked to April 4. The officer in charge of the Nationalists! bad sent a warning that any British - ( er 'going ashore would be shot. Similar incidents had occurred in Chekiang, Ichang and other places under ■control of the Nationalists. While Sir Austen was reading the Tepoit on Ichang, Mr R. C. Wallhead j (Labour) interjected: “It sounds like,! a students’’ rag day.” This was fob j lowed by cries of “Order!’’’ i Sir Austen Chamberlain asked: j “What interest does the member j serve by minimising these outrages'?’” |

Mr Wallhead; “Nothing I have! heard justified -war.” Sir Austen continued that Britain, must know the attitude of the responsible Chinese authorities towards the outrages. He believed that all the Powers were in substantial agreement that it was necessary to require redress, but he did not want to speak too confidently. He hnew that agree-| ment had been reached by the Minis-j ters at Peking, but was not absolute- j ly certain regarding the attitude of j their Governments thereon. All the; indications were that Japan, the.. United States and Britain were not .

•mcrcly in agreement on the matter of asking for reparations, but regarding what reparations should be asked for.

Sir Austen Chamberlain added that !the Nationalist authorities must understand that their reputation as a government 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 in every place under Nationalist 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 was that Labourites

were unmoved and were again demanding fhe recall of the defence force. Did the Labourites desire to expose the Britishers in Shanghai to the dangers realised in Nanking? "The Government is pursuing a policy of conciliation and adjustment to meet the new Ciiinese aspirations,” Sir Austen concluded, "but we are not prepared to hustle out of China, to withdraw onr nationals from Shanghai ami other places, nor to allow them to be treated as though the lives of our people are of no account.” (Loud cheers).

Mr Lloyd George paid tribute to the courage with which Sir Austen Chamberlain had faced a 'difficult task and continued to pursue the policy specifically laid down a few months ago. Mr C. P. Trevelyan (Labour) said: "If we Avent to war against China we should probably do so alone, and our trade would pass into the hands of Powers standing aloof.” The Labourites forced a division on a motion for adjournment of the debate, which was defeated by 27? to 317 votes.—A. and N.Z.