§ MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley)I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to our position and that of the other Powers in China, and as to the progress of the negotiations with the Government of that country and with the Russian Government.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDWill the noble Lord at the same time state whether there is any foundation for the statement referred to in my question that some of the crew of a tugboat flying the British flag were flogged in a German prison, and, if so, whether any compensation will be asked for from the German Government.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI am afraid that the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Barnsley is of so wide a character that I must ask the indulgence of the House in giving such a 769 reply as may, I hope, be considered adequate. The question really relates to the whole situation in China. There is not much that I have to communicate, but I am aware that the House is anxious for information. The question which has most interested the Government recently in the negotiations with China is the matter of the indemnities; and upon that, as the House is aware, a long time back I had the honour of informing it that, in our view, it was very important to bear in mind, in fixing the amount of the indemnities and the method of paying them, that we should not injure in any way the commercial interests of this country. Our endeavour, therefore, was as far as possible to moderate the demands for indemnities, and that they should not in any way infringe upon the commercial interests of Great Britain, and with that view we have been opposed to raising the Chinese tariff as has been suggested to the figure of 10 per cent. in order to provide the necessary security. On the contrary, we have, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, declined to accede to any such suggestion, and have signified that we should only be ready, on behalf of Great Britain, to consent to the raising of the tariff to that figure upon the commercial improvement of the Chinese fiscal system, such as the abolition of the likin and other matters which I do not propose to trouble the House with. But I would ask the House to recollect that in moderating the demands for the indemnities there are more ways than one of achieving that object, and that the method in which the payment is made has a great deal to do with the burdens of its incidence on the Chinese. That brings me to a question of some little interest, namely, the proposal which has been made that the indemnities should be defrayed by means of a loan, which should be guaranteed by what I may call the concert of the Powers. Undoubtedly the obligation under which the Chinese Government rests to pay an indemnity is a joint obligation, and if it were necessary to use force, which I hope may never be the case, the force which would have to be employed would be the joint force of the Powers. But the objections to a joint guarantee are so obvious that His Majesty's Government will have nothing to do with it. It 770 is quite clear, considering that our interest and credit stand higher than those of any other Power, and that the sum of money which we claim to receive as an indemnity is a very small portion of the whole, that we should have been nothing short of insane if we had agreed to a joint guarantee for the loan. I do not know that there is anything else which will interest the House, except perhaps a word about the punishments. With regard to the punishment of the high-placed delinquents who were responsible for the murder of various Europeans in the attack upon the legations, six have been killed, three have been banished, and two have been deprived of their posthumous honours.
§ MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Isle of Thanet)Killed by whom?
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEThree have been executed and three have been permitted to commit suicide. As regards the provincial criminals, a demand has been made for the punishment of a certain number of individuals; and, considering the awful character of the murders which have been committed, I do not think that the demand can be considered excessive. Various degrees of punishment have been demanded for 107 individuals. That has been a joint demand, with the exception of the Government of Russia, who have not joined in it. On the whole, we may say that matters in China are entering upon a more pacific phase, and we hope that before long there may be an opportunity of withdrawing a large portion of our force. That, of course, must depend upon how far the Chinese Government go in fulfilling the minimum demands of the Powers which have been made; but already over 3,000 troops are under orders to evacuate China, and we hope that before many months have elapsed they will be increased by a still larger body.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire Northwich)That is, our troops?
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEYes. I do not know that there is anything else except the question of the hon. Member for East Clare. I have already informed him that it is a fact that this gunboat was 771 fired on by the German guard, and that the German general has expressed his regret and has informed the British general that no such violence should again occur. The hon. Member asked me whether something beyond the shooting took place, and I believe I am accurate in saying that there was other violence as well.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDFlogging?
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI do not remember that. There was other violence as well, but of course that comes in the general question. [Nationalist laughter.] I do not understand the reason for that laughter.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEThe German general has signified that similar violence will not occur again, and I should have thought hon. Members would be satisfied with that assurance.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)Was the British Government satisfied with that assurance?
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDI wish to know whether it is a fact that a certain number of Chinese sailors, sailing under the British flag, were flogged in a German prison, and, if so, whether the German authorities will be asked for any compensation.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI have no information regarding the hon. Member's statement in the supplementary question. As to whether any compensation is to be claimed, that is, of course, a matter for the aggrieved parties to decide. We are inquiring into that very point at this moment. There is another matter with respect to Tientsin which the House will probably like to hear about. There was a question on the Paper addressed to me in the name of the hon. Member for East Bristol, and, in reply to that, I have to say that the Russian Government, on 20th March, proposed that all questions of title and proprietary rights which had arisen out of the Tientsin incident should be reserved for examination by the two 772 Governments, and that, meanwhile, the troops on both sides should be withdrawn from the disputed point. To this proposal His Majesty's Government assented, and the troops were withdrawn accordingly. On the 18th instant, however, certain notice boards and boundary stones implying possession were reported to us as having been erected by the Russian authorities upon the ground claimed by the Chinese Railway administration. We have no reason to believe that this has been done with the knowledge of the Russian Government; and the House is aware that it not infrequently happens that things are done in China by Russian authorities which, we have every reason to believe, are against the wishes of the Russian Government. The matter has at once been brought under the notice of the Russian Government, and we are waiting their reply. Hitherto the examination of these questions has been deferred until the pressure of more important negotiations upon the time of our representatives should become relaxed; but the settlement will require investigation on the spot into any evidence, documentary or otherwise, which may be forthcoming. Into this we hope soon to enter. I have said all I have to say on the Chinese question, and I hope it will be sufficient for the House at the present moment.