CHINA POLICY DEBATED

Taranaki Daily News, 8 April 1927, Page 7

CHINA POLICY DEBATED

THE ATTITUDE OF LABOUR “USE LEAGUE OF NATIONS” SPIRIT OF CONCILIATION By Telegraph —Press Asen.—Copyright. London, April 6. In the House of Commons there was a crowded attendance when Mr. Ramsay Mae Donald initiated a debate on China. He said no one could say what was going to happen. The dispatch of the Shanghai defence force had undoubted* ly, increased our difficulties in negotiation, without increasing the protection for Britons outside Shanghai. It haxl also fed the traditional Chinese Suspicion, though he believed tlxi; was without foundation. Not Shanghai, but the whole of Chin , was the immediate test of our policy. Nobody could say before an inquiry what had happened in Nanking, therefore he urged the Government to use the League method of inquiry. Personally he zas most glad that Britain, America and Japan to-day were presenting Notes, not ultimata. There should be a clear statement that we still stood where we were 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 kxiow 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 bax ; red by prejudice and illwill. The Chinese bad learned the power of the boycott. Mr. R. Mitchell Banks (Conservative) said Mr. MacDonald’s speech recalled the proverb that in the kingdom of the blind a one-eyed man wae king. He wished Mr. Mae Donald could give some vision to his party, but unfortunately his kingdom was governed not from the throne, but from the ante-chamber. “LABOUR SPREADS SUSPICION.” Mr. MacDonald had said that the revolutionary' propaganda in the East was based on history, but Mr. Mitchell Banks declared that the Independent Labour Party was busy preparing the history upon which to base propaganda. If anybody spread suspicion it was the Labour Party, by meetings and resolutions, and if there should be a disaster they 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 Commander Wedgwood (Labour) had spoken there were loud eries for Sir Austen Chamberlain. The Deputy-Speaker called on Sir Alfred Mond, but the interruption continued. Mr. Mosley (Labour) shouted: “We are debating the Government’s policy without hearing what it is.” Sir A. Mond began amidst a chorus of Laboui' interruptions and cries of “poison gas.” The Speaker warned both Messrs. Purcell and Beckett, who consistently interrupted Sir A. Mond. Sir Austen Chamberlain, replying, said the whole city of Shanghai had been created by foreigners, and it existed and prospered because of foreigners. Britain was ready to negotiate to meet the Nationalist aspirations and to remove the special conditions rendered necessary by the past conditions as soon as China could give foreigners the same justice and secxxrity as the Chinese obtained 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 Briton going ashore would be shot. Similar incidents had occurred at Chekiang, lehan ’, and in other places under the control of the Nationalists. While Sir A. Chamberlain was reading the report on lehang, Mr. Wallhead (Labour) interjected: “It sounds like a students’ rag day.” This was followed by cries of “Order.” Sir A. Chamberlain asked: “What interest does the member serve by minimising these outrages?” “NOTHING TO JUSTIFY WAR.” Mr. Wallhead: “Nothing I have heard justifies war.” Sil' A. Chamberlain continued that Britain must know the attitude of the responsibl. Chinese authorities towards the outrages. lie believed all the Powers were in substantial agreement 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 Peking, but was not absolutely certain regarding the attitude of their Government on the matter. AU the indications were that Japan, the United States and ourselves were not merely in agreement on the matter of asking for reparations, but regarding what reparations should be asked. Sir Austen Chamberlain said the Nationalist authorities must understand that its 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 t’ ' looti-.g was continuing there without the Chinese authorities attempting to interfere. A similar state of affairs prevailed in every place undex - the Nationalists’ control, including looting and outrages in the hospitals. These attacks were not confined to British subjects, ox' interests. The most significant feature of the present debate. was that the Labour members, unmoved, were again demanding the recall of the defence force. Did the Labour Party desire to expose Britons in Shanghai to the dangers realised in Nanking? The Government was pursuing a policy of conciliation and adjustment to meet the new Chinese aspirations. Six' A. Chamberlain concluded, amidst cheers: “But we are not prepared to hustle out of China, to withdraw our nationals from Shanghai and other places, ox - allow them to be treated as though the lives of our people were of no account.”

Mr. Lloyd George paid tribute to the courage with which Six' A. Chamberlain faced a difficult task and continued to pursue the policy specifically laid down a few months ago. Mr. Trevelyan said that if we went to wax' against China we should probably do so alone, and oui' trade would pass into the hands of the Powers standing aloof. The Labourites forced a division on the motion for the adjournment of the debate, which was defeated by 277 votes to 177..