§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Mr. HOPEOn a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether this Bill should not have been introduced on a Financial Resolution? Its object is to divert to other purposes monies which by Statute are directed to be applied to the New Sinking Fund and it seeks to repeal the provisions of the Finance Act, 1906, which directs that these monies shall be applied to that purpose. By the Act of Sir Stafford Northcote of 1875, ac amended by the Finance Act of last year, it is enacted that a certain definite sum shall be applied to the purpose of the. New Sinking Fund in each year. The withdrawal of monies under this Bill will 1887 cause a deficit in the Sinking Fund, which will have to be made up pro tanto by a further charge upon the Exchequer. Therefore it would appear—though I know the difficulties of this kind of question—that a new charge will be created by this Bill. This is not an ordinary case of interception of revenue. It is not merely an interception of revenue in the ordinary sense. It is an interception of earmarked revenue. The Act of 1906 directs that this revenue shall be applied to the purposes of the New Sinking Fund. The Statute of 1875 and the Statute of last year direct that a certain fixed sum has to be devoted to that Sinking Fund. Therefore by the withdrawal of one source of revenue a gap is created. That cannot be left alone. It has to be made up by Statute by a further charge on the Exchequer. Therefore I would ask you whether, in default of a Financial Resolution, the Bill can proceed.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Bill has been carefully examined from that point of view by my advisers and the opinion arrived at is that a Money Resolution is not required in a case of this kind. The ground is that this deals with monies that have not reached the Exchequer. It is a. practice for which, I am afraid, there are rather numerous precedents in the last 20 years, and I feel bound by what has been done in these various cases. It would be in fact a new departure for me to take at this time of day, to go back, and say that a measure of this character must be founded on a Money Resolution.
§ Mr. HOPEMight I ask whether you have considered this point; whether, in the other cases, it was not merely a question of intercepting revenue and thereby causing the general revenue of the country to be less, whereas in this case it is to create a deficit in a fund which has to be made up by Statute out of the Exchequer, and whether there is any other case where this would apply where the revenue has been earmarked, and so, when it is withdrawn a deficit is created which has by Statute to be made up? The ordinary case of interception of revenue to the Local Taxation Account and similar matters would not have that effect. The revenue might be diminished but that might be made up by curtailment of the estimates. In this case no economy is 1888 possible in the Sinking Fund, because the amount has to be made up by Statute, which is not the case with the ordinary supply of the year.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the financial effect is exactly the same. There was a case, I recollect, on an Amendment moved by Mr. K[...]Kenna, to anticipate some revenue from the Estate Duties, for the purpose of further diminishing the National Debt, and that was held at the time to be in order. It seems to me it would be taken from one fund, and would have to be made up somewhere else, for the purpose of the financial balance sheet. I think the cases are parallel.
§ Mr. HOPEIf I remember that ruling, it caused considerable surprise at the time. Mr. McKenna's proposal was not to diminish the amount that was to go into the Sinking Fund, but it was actually to increase the Sinking Fund by earmarking a portion of the Estate Duties for that purpose. The effect of the present Bill, so far from being analagous with that, is absolutely to divert revenue which is already ear-marked.
§ Mr. PRINGLEMay I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the precedent you have quoted is not on all-fours with the present Bill? On that occasion, as far as my recollection goes, Mr. McKenna's Motion was earmarking the revenues, whereas in this Bill, as I understand it, revenues which are earmarked for a specific purpose are being diverted. I submit that there is no precedent for the diversion of revenues which are specifically earmarked, without a Financial Resolution.
§ Mr. CLIMIEIs it in order for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to take up the time of the House by trying to show their knowledge? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am a new Member, and I want to know whether it is in order for them to take up the time of the House trying to show what they know.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think hon. Members are, rightly, vigilant about the financial rules which have been laid down in this House, because they are really the foundation of our liberties. I am always glad to hear hon. Members put points to me in this way. I am afraid that I am bound by the precedents of the last 20 years, which have caused me to rule that this Bill can proceed without a money Resolution.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill is to make provision for the conversion of money paid on account of the China Boxer indemnity. The British share of the indemnity which the Chinese Government was called upon to pay in 1900 was rather over £7,500,000, which was to bear interest at 4 per cent. per annum, and was to be redeemed by annual instalments spread over 39 years terminating in 1940. By the Finance Act, 1906, the payments were applied to the reduction of the National Debt. In February, 1918, it was agreed by the powers concerned to suspend payments of the indemnity for five years, and no payment has, therefore, been made from 1917 to 1922. The suspended payments were to fall due from 1940 to 1945. In 1922 the question of resuming the suspended payment had to be decided. Germany and Austria forfeited their shares, and the payment of the Russian share ceased. The United States of America were prepared to remit the remaining portion of their share, and France was prepared to utilise her share partly for the Banque Industrielle de China, and partly for the education of Chinese in France. The Japanese Government decided to allocate their share of the indemnity for agricultural purposes in China. It was on 22nd December, 1922, that His Majesty's Representative at Pekin informed the Chinese Government that His Majesty's Government had decided to devote the proceeds of the Boxer indemnity to purposes mutually beneficial to China and Great Britain. This was received with great cordiality and satisfaction, and numerous suggestions were made for the allocation of the fund.
The money is not to be remitted in the sense of handing it over to the Chinese for their uncontrolled use, but is to be at the disposal of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for such purposes as may be considered mutually beneficial to British and Chinese interests. What we have in view are largely educational and cultural purposes. In view of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1906, this Bill becomes necessary. When the Bill has been passed, a committee is to be set up to investigate the 1890 allocation of the funds and to decide the best means of securing their satisfactory administration. We are: approaching several individuals, but we are not yet in a position to announce the names of the committee or of the chairman, but naturally we have invited Chinese co-operation in the disposal of the funds. Under the terms of reference the committee is asked, in view of the decision of His Majesty's Government, to devote the instalments of the Boxer indemnity to purposes mutually beneficial to British and Chinese interests, to investigate the different objects to which such payments should be allocated, and the best means of securing the satisfactory administration of the funds and to make such representations as may seem desirable.
I notice on the Order Paper a notice of an Amendment for the rejection of this Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel), and I think, judging by the questions which he has addressed to the Government on this point, that he wishes to raise the question of the trade marks complication in China. Without minimising at all the importance of that question—and it is an extremely interesting one, which is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government very closely—we do not think that this fund should be used as a lever for the settlement of any questions which are outstanding at the present time. As far as possible we want to confine it to educational and cultural purposes. Perhaps the House would like to know how the other Powers concerned are disposing of their shares of the indemnity. In Japan legislation was passed through the Diet last year, and an advisory committee has been appointed in Tokio. No scheme has been formulated as yet, but we gather that it is the intention to maintain in Pekin and Shanghai educational institutions for Chinese and Japanese students, and to found a medical university. In the United States a. resolution was passed by the Senate, and referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, authorising the President to remit part of the Boxer indemnity in order further to develop the educational and cultural activities of China. France intends to use her balance partly to resuscitate tare Banque Industrielle de Chine, and some is also to be used for 1891 cultural purposes. The Soviet Government lately set aside portion of the indemnity to be devoted to education among the Chinese people. One can see by that that in all these cases the mutual advantages of the Chinese and the countries concerned are taken fully into account, and that this idea of education is permanently before them. I would like to quote a passage from the writings of a Chinese gentleman representing Chinese associations so as to show the enthusiasm with which the proposal is being received in China. He says:
Our British friends may well rest assured that they have done an act more significant, morally as well as otherwise, than, perhaps, they themselves have up to the present realised. This example set by Great Britain is, in fact, a real step taken towards the promotion of international peace. Nothing is better than one individual example, and the example of this Power is bound to have a far-reaching effect and influence.We have had many legacies and commitments left to us by our predecessors—legacies which we have brought forward sometimes with reluctance and often with very little enthusiasm. But I can safely say that in this case I recommend this Measure to the acceptance of the House with the utmost confidence in its wisdom and in the undoubted beneficent results which may be expected from its operation.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREAs I was a member of the Foreign Office Committee which inquired into this question two years ago, I wish to make one or two observations. The Committee inquired at some length into the question of the using of the whole of the Boxer Indemnity, or some part of it, for the stimulation of Chinese education on British lines. I do net know why the report of that Committee has never been published. I should have thought that. it would have been a very good thing to have had the report published now, particularly in view of the fact that the Under-Secretary has stated that he contemplates the setting up of a further Committee, apparently to go over much the same ground and to make further recommendations. Whilst I agree generally with the principle of using at any rate some part of the Indemnity for the encouragement of Chinese education on British lines, the views of the people best qualified to judge two years ago were by no means unani 1892 Mous. More than one of them expressed a doubt whether the contemplated ex-penditure would be as satisfactory in results as many of us hoped it would be. We have behaved very generously to China in recent years, and that fact should not be forgotten. In 1917 we allowed China a moratorium of five years, during which time no indemnity instalments were required from her. At the end of that period we went further than many of the other great Powers in accepting an arrangement under which the. back payments due during the moratorium would not be payable until 1940. The House should remember that fact in considering this further request for an extension of generous treatment to Republic. Speaking fer myself, I do not object in principle to the proposal of this Bill: but there is one objection in detail which I hold very strongly. The Government are asking the House to give. them a, free hand to distribute the money exactly as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs may desire. I think that is an objectionable way of dealing with the money. The Under-Secretary has said that he contemplates a Committee for advising the Government as to how this money should he spent. Either that Committee should be a statutory Committee under the terms of the Bill or the details of the expenditure should be set out in the Schedule. As a Member of the former Committee. I heard a. great deal of evidence from Sir John Jordan, the Vice-Chancellor of Hong Kong University and other experts as to how money could best be spent in stimulating Chinese education. Before this Bill roaches the Statute Book some details of methods of expenditure should be incorporated in it. My own view is that while we should allow the Bill to get a Second Reading to-night, we should. during the Committee stage insist either on the details being included or on the Committee to which the Under-Secretary referred being made a statutory Committee with powers definitely assigned to it in reference to the spending of the money. I am in favour of the general principle of the Bill and hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
§ Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELI beg to move to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
1893 As the Under-Secretary has said I put some questions in reference to this Bill before putting down the Motion for its rejection. As far as the Bill itself is concerned, there is no doubt the extension of education in China would do an immense amount of good but the Under-Secretary forgets that the other countries which have already consented to the distribution of the indemnity did so before they were aware of the action which the Chinese Government was taking in reference to commercial interests in China, and circumstances alter cases. During the interval since our Allies and friends disposed of the Boxer indemnity to China, the Chinese Government introduced a Measure—the Chinese trade mark law—which has allowed Chinese merchants and manufacturers to pirate the trade marks of British merchants and manufacturers—marks which have been established in the China market for 100 years. The House should realise that the people in that vast country do not examine goods before buying because they know the reliability of the "chop" of the British firm. They buy Manchester goods 1,000 miles away from a port with, say, the "white horse" brand upon them or steel branded with the well-known British marks. I am informed that these marks for Manchester goods, steel goods, tin plates and other articles produced in this country are being registered in the Chinese office, wherever it may be at the present time, in the names of Chinese subjects. I am speaking from the experience which we had in Japan 20 years ago in regard to a similar trade marks law under which the Japanese at once registered the marks of the various British firms, and they had great difficulty in getting them back. They only did so by the payment of very large sums. It is important for the public and for Members of this House to know what are the difficulties of merchants and manufacturers in trading in China. These Chinese industries may make inferior articles, and irretrievably damage the good reputation of the British manufacturers before they could get their own trade marks back. This House has passed a Bill to give facilities for British trade by the granting of large credits; but I am asking the House to do something to protect the 1894 merchants and manufacturers of this country in a way which will not cost a penny to this country. I do not ask for the rejection of this Bill. What I asked the Prime Minister in my question was, whether he would postpone the introduction of this Bill so as to be able to negotiate with the Chinese Government, and say to them that public opinion, and the; opinion of the House of Commons, made it impossible to get the Bill through unless the Chinese Government were prepared to deal fairly and properly with the industrialists and merchants of this country.
We have been told that the Americans have given the amount of their indemnity for purposes of education in China. I do not want to say anything against our American friends, but the Americans have schools in China, and we do not know that the amount which they are giving for education may not be allotted to the American schools. We know perfectly well that in the past many of the large American industrials, especially in the engineering trade, have been in the habit of educating Chinese in the universities. They have brought them into their works and educated them as engineers, and when they went back to China it was as the emissaries of the industrials in the United 'States. When we are asked to tender, say, for certain works, we invariably find that the Chinese engineer has drawn up the specification in such a form as to render it impossible for us to get an order, for it has been drawn to suit the factory in which he had been educated in America. We may find that the American indemnity has been allocated as the money was allocated in the case of Japan. I suppose the Americans raised the largest sum of any nation for the Japanese earthquake fund, but the bulk of that money was given, not for the benefit of the Japanese, but for the benefit of Americans resident in Japan, so that they might reinstate their property and restore their industries. I know perfectly well it is useless to divide on this The object of my protest against this Bill is to insist that we should have something to negotiate with. None of the other countries who have given their consent had before them a grievance like ours, in the pirating of British trade marks and patents. It is a great injustice to British industry, and to the merchants who have created British trade in 1895 China, that they should be thrown over in this way by the Government, who ought to have in view the interests of the working classes of this country.
§ Sir FREDRIC WISEI beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel) in what he has said with regard to China and trade of that country. I feel that we do not sufficienty realise the mountainous chaotic position of China at the present time. Any additional benefit we may give that country might easily be squandered. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has stated that the Chinese Republic are enthusiastic over this Bill. But I do not think he mentioned the amount we were actually giving in the rebate to the new Sinking Fund. I find, on looking at the figures, that in 1914 we placed £571,000 in the Sinking Fund; in 1915, £332,000; in 1916, £388,000; in 1917, £407,000; and in 1918, £378,000. I really think that before this Bill is passed we should consider our position. Only recently we passed resolutions giving Kenya and the Dominions interest on various loans. We really cannot afford to give these amounts away. I should be far more in favour of giving up the amounts to our Dominions than handing over this sum to China. I noticed in last Saturday's "Times," in a description of the Chinese Republic, that a hope was expressed that the money which was going to be given up by the British would be devoted to the development of Chinese railways. Surely if we are going to give up any amount, we might well follow the example of France. I understood the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say that France was going to put the money into a bank. Why should we not do that, and thereby encourage our commerce? It would help the hon. Member for Putney to develop trade between this country and China. Although I am anxious to spend as mulch as we can afford on Education, I do urge the Government to carefully consider the question of how this money to be given up to China ought to be used, especially in the chaotic position of that Republic.
§ 12 M.
Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARDI rise to support the Amendment, and I do so because we have had very little in- 1896 formation vouchsafed us by the Under-Secretary on one or two very vital points. The hon. Gentleman, for instance, did not give us any idea as to the actual amount we were sacrificing—the sum which the taxpayers of this country were to be called upon to pay for education in China. The principal of the indemnity has been given at £7,500,000 altogether. Since then it has been stated that the German and Austrian shares have lapsed. What is meant by that? Have the amounts lapsed back to the Chinese Government, or are they to be applied for the benefit of the creditors of these two countries in settlement of long overdue War indemnities? In any case it seems we are making a considerable sacrifice. The United States of America have made a clean sweep of the whole thing and handed it over to China, but the United States are in a very much better position for making a sacrifice of that kind than we are. To begin with, they have £45,000,000 a year of our money to pay with, money which we had to borrow to finance our Allies during the War, and upon which our Allies are not hitherto paying us any interest, and, therefore, we are not in the same fortunate position as the United States of America. What are the French doing? They' are reconstructing this French bank in China, and, according to the Under-Secretary, they are instituting schools in France, I understood, for the education of Chinese who are, already, or who may be hereafter, in France. As far as I can make out, we are to institute schools in China, which is a totally different state of affairs, and it seems to me that we can scarcely afford to do it.
Mr. EDMUND HARVEYI very much hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel) and his colleagues will not press this Amendment to a division. I recognise that there is a just grievance in the waiter of British trade marks in China, a grievance which I hope will -be remedied by the, Chinese Government, but it would take all the grace and all the value out of the action which our Government are now proposing if we made it a matter of bargaining. If we take a long view of this question, although it seems a large expenditure, I believe it will have the most beneficial effects in promoting good relations between this country and China, and 1897 ultimately, no doubt, in increasing very considerably British trade as well as British prestige. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) referred to the question of the way in which the French have decided to spend their share, and he asked why we should not spend ours on a British bank. Happily, we have not the same reason for doing so. The position was that the Banque Industrielle de Chine had failed in very lamentable circumstances, and hundreds and thousands of Chinese who had trusted the good name of France were in danger of losing their investments. The French Government very properly felt that they must redeem the honour of the French name, and so they propose to use part of the indemnity to float again the Banque Industrielle de Chine. Happily, we have no need to come to the aid of a British bank in China in similar circumstances, but we can follow the example that the United States of America have been carrying out. For years they have had a series of Chinese students attending their universities out of bursaries provided by the indemnity. These students have gone back to China enthusiastic for America, keen on preserving their American friendships, and they have taken their technical knowledge from America and, of course, promoted trade between America and China. If the Government carry this Bill, I have no doubt that one consequence will be that a considerable number of Chinese students will come specially to study technical subjects in our technical colleges and in our universities, and they will go back to China with special relationships with this country, accustomed to the technical processes which they will have learned here, and the result will be an increase of good will and of trade between the two countries. It will ultimately be to the material benefit of this country, but I do not plead for the Bill simply on that ground.
There is a wider and a deeper issue, and that is the whole relationship of the two countries. This indemnity rankles—and we can understand it—in the minds of thoughtful people in China. They have seen America not only spend the money on scholarships but finally surrender altogether her claim on the indemnity, they have seen even Bolshevist Russia make a surrender to them, they have seen France 1898 take action, and surely we are not going to fall behind. We, too, want to show ourselves the friends of China, and I appeal to the Government that, in forming this Committee, they should take some steps to associate Chinese opinion with the decision, that they should definitely make it part of the duty of the Committee to consult, with the best Chinese opinion as to the way in which this money should be spent. The object of the Bill is that it should be spent for the mutual advantage of China and Great Britain, and that object cannot be achieved if we simply force British ideas of education upon China and do not consult their best opinion and take advantage of it. I, therefore, make an earnest plea that the Government should associate Chinese opinion with this decision in some way, either in the formation or in the work of this Committee. I very much hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill.
§ Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEI rise to support the Amendment, of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Samuel Samuel). The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. E Harvey) said that fortunately we had riot to support any bank in China such as France had to do, but we have a much bigger thing to support, and that is the manufactures of this country. In China our trade marks and patents are at present of no value. Our manufacturers to a very great extent do their business in the East, in China and Japan, by their name and reputation, by their trade marks and patents, and by the quality of the goods they supply. If these goods are imitated by Chinese manufacturers, it will do our manufacturers in this country a great deal of harm, and a lasting harm, and, while I have every sympathy with the education of the Chinese, I have a still greater sympathy for the unemployed workmen of this country. If this country is going to lose her foreign trade, her trade with China, it will throw even more skilled workmen out of work in this country. I think it is time that this country made a business gesture to the Chinese, and asked for a small quid pro quo, if this Bill is passed, that. British trade marks and patents should be considered and respected in China.
§ Major MOULTONI do not think the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs has made out such a case as would 1899 justify us in giving the very large sum needed for carrying out the objects of this Bill, and I personally can think of a great many better things to which this sum could be applied. It seems to me that all the things which my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. E. Harvey) mentioned are almost entirely in favour of China, and I cannot see where the mutual advantage of which we have heard comes in at all. I could understand it if some of these schemes provided for the education of our commercial travellers in Chinese, but it seems to me that we are asked to carry our sacrifice to too high a point. I really do not see why we should give up this sum in the way suggested. As to the United States they have got plenty of money and may be perfectly justified in what they are doing; we have not got the money. Personally, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Bill if no better reason than has been given can be put forward for supporting it.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELThose who know me know that I am the last man in the world to boggle at any generous or gracious action on the part of the Government towards a friendly Power. But there is a wider and deeper issue in this matter then has yet been put forward, and it is this: We ought to bring home to the Chinese, who have always had the reputation of being an extremely honourable people that we consider their action in the matter of trade marks dishonourable and wrong. If we can bring it home to them that we look upon this thing in a bad light, and that we shall require it to be put right, I see no reason why we should not pass this Bill. I am very much astonished to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade sitting and saying no word on this matter. The second hon. Gentleman represents a Sheffield constituency. I do not; but I know something—perhaps a great deal—of what is going on through my connection with the Associated Chambers of Commerce: and something should be said.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has told us in a light sort of way that the Government are giving this money for education, 400,000 for about 20 years. Does the 1900 House realise that? It is a very large sum. As the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, we do not know—for we have not been told—how the fund that is to be created is to be spent—whether on the education of the Chinese in China, or the education of young Chinese gentlemen in England.
There is still another wider and deeper issue. That is, that quite recently the Chinese Government borrowed money from this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] I am not quite sure; but since the great Wa[...] I did not know this Bill was coming on, and, therefore, I did not prepare myself specially. But I do know that the Chinese borrowed money from England—borrowed the savings of the British people on an Eight per cent. loan. I believe the whole of the interest on that loan is in default! Why we should betray such magnanimity as to pay this money over to the Chinese under these circumstances, and so relieve the Chinese, while for some years the Chinese Government have failed to meet their obligations to our lenders, I do not know. I do not object to the people in this country who have money investing it in foreign countries we are told that it is a good thing, and for the reason—although I do not agree in toto with it—that such loans go out of this country in the form of goods, and, therefore—if so—it must help the general body of our workpeople. I am not going to allow this Bill to go through without protest, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) will follow up his protest I will tell with him against the Bill.
§ Mr. D. HERBERTI think there is very doubtful wisdom in pushing this Bill through the House of Commons at the present time when these questions remain to be dealt with by the Chinese Government and our Government. If this Bill is kept back for a short time, there should be no obstacle placed in the way of carrying on those negotiations, not only in a firm but in a friendly way. I appeal to the Government not to press for the Second Reading and that they should try to get a little further on this question of the trade marks and designs in China. They should tell us a little more about it and say that it will have further consideration. If the Government will give us dome reason to hope that they are not only in earnest but have some chance of success, then we will do all we can to help 1901 this Measure through. If we are to use this money to teach the Chinese, let us remember that one of the most important lessons we have to teach them is to realise British standards of honesty. I agree that there are no more honest people in the world than the Chinese according to their own particular standard. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh apparently do not realise the extraordinary difference there is between the Chinese system of civilisation and our own. The Chinese standard of honour is high, as is proved by the life assurance companies who are able to carry on business successfully on the word of a Chinaman, but hon. Members know that there are other ways in which you cannot rely upon what we should call the honesty of Chinamen in the same way as we can rely upon Englishmen, and that is proved by the collection of Customs and Taxes in China.
I want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that one thing we want to try to teach the Chinaman is to understand our ideas of honesty, which extend somewhat beyond present Chinese ideas, and if we are to teach them that lesson, one of the best ways of doing it would be to teach them when they enter into obligations to pay interest on borrowed money it should be paid. A very useful method of making use of some of this money would be to ensure the payment of the interest which is in default on those bonds or notes, which are held by all sorts of members of the public in this country, and which have been in default for some time past. To return to the original point on which the opposition to this Bill was based, I do earnestly appeal to the Government to keep back the Second Reading of the Bill until they can tell us a little more of the progress they have made in dealing with the scandalous position of affairs in regard to trade marks and designs.
§ Mr. PONSONBYI have listened very carefully to all the speeches that have been made on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) suggested that the Committee should be made into a statutory Committee, but that is not provided for in the Bill, and I am afraid it is too late to entertain that suggestion now. The Committee will be in the nature of an advisory Committee—
§ Sir S. HOAREIs there any reason why the Government should not propose an Amendment in Committee making the Committee a Statutory Committee? Will they do that?
§ Mr. PONSONBYThere is no reason why that should slot be done, and the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion will be borne in mind when we reach that stage. But I would point out to the right, hon. Gentleman that Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill makes this provision:
The said Secretary of State shall cause to be prepared…in respect of each financial year an account showing the receipts and expenditure M that year in respect of the China Indemnity Fund, and the said account shall be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and shall, together with his report thereon, be laid before the House of Commons.Full Parliamentary control, therefore, will be kept over this money,
§ Mr. HERBERTAfter it is done.
§ Mr. PONSONBYI may say that this Bill was drafted by our predecessors, and yet the greater part of the opposition to it comes from hon. Members opposite. I have given very careful attention to their arguments, and especially to those of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. The argument is that this indemnity should be used as a weapon. One hon. Member said we must get a quid pro quo—we must make a bargain, we must insist on getting something out of this. Speaking for myself, I must say I think it is rather refreshing to be able to deal with foreign countries not always on the ground of commerce or of bargaining, but on the basis of education and mutual benefit, and I think we ought not to lose sight of this, which, I admit, is, perhaps, rather a new departure. Hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill have suggested a different object to which the money might be devoted. Some have said that it should be used to pay bonds that are in default—
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUELI must really protest against that. I did not say that it should be used for that purpose. What I said was that, if we are going to be magnanimous towards the Chinese, then, before we give this Bill a Second Reading—which we are quite willing to do—we should at any rate say to them, "Mark you well, the Chinese Government must 1903 make up its mind that at least it will do the honest thing by us," although we make no bargain as to the transfer of the money.
§ Mr. PONSONBYI was not referring to the hon. Member, but to some others who made various suggestions as to the constitution of a bank, or, as I have said, the payment of bonds in default, or bargaining with the Chinese in order that they may come to terms on the question of trade marks. There are many outstanding questions with every country, and especially with China, and if we are going to withhold payment of this indemnity for the purpose designed by the Government until all outstanding questions with China have been settled, I am afraid it would be deferred for very many years to come. We do not intend to use it as a weapon or lever, as part of a bargain. We intend it to be a remission for the mutual benefit of both countries. An hon. Member below the Gangway made a suggestion with regard to commercial travellers in China, and that is a kind of suggestion which will be brought. before the Committee, and will probably meet- with their approval, because, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) reminded us, the Chinese have a great deal to learn from us, and at the same time there are many ways in which we can learn from them. We must not forget that the Chinese were the inventors of printing centuries before ourselves, and I think it was they who invented the mariner's compass. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward) asked what was the position of Germany and Austria when war was declared between those countries and China? The position was that the payments ceased and the money went back to the Chinese Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Member also suggested that the money was to be used for educating Chinese in France, but that is not so; it is to be used for purposes of culture in China. An hon. Member below the Gangway proposed that we should consult with the Chinese, but perhaps he did not hear me say, in my opening remarks, that we propose to have a Chinese representative on the Committee. I hope it will be possible to announce the names of the Committee in the near future. I hope very much that 1904 the Amendment will not be pressed, because I think that fundamentally the House is agreed that this is devoting the money to a good purpose. We are carrying on what the last Government intended to do, and we are doing it in the confident belief that it will be beneficial both to China and to ourselves
§ Sir F. WISEWould it be used for railway building, as mentioned in the Parliament of the Chinese Republic only on Saturday last?
§ Mr. PONSONBYNo, Sir.
§ Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEThis Bill exhibits the very peculiar phenomenon of a Bill drafted, apparently, by the Conservative party, to which the opposition, with one exception so far, has come from the benches opposite,. At the same time I can well understand the rather natural reluctance of the Under-Secretary to push a Measure of the party opposite, and he has put forward an extraordinarily weak case so far as the Bill itself is concerned. Most hon. Members will be in agreement with the general principle of the Bill, but with the Bill itself as drafted I can hardly conceive any hon. Member who has read it being in agreement at all. I listened with interest and acquiescence to the, speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), of which the only portion that I regretted was that in which he urged the acceptance of the Second Reading of the Bill. I fully agree with him that the money which is to be spent on these objects should be put in a schedule with the objects on which it is to be spent. This is a very large sum indeed. Hon. Members may take little note of £400,000, being accustomed to swelling figures in these days. If it were applied to some novel form of education in this country it would be the subject of considerable criticism. I cannot think that the allocation of revenue justly due to His Majesty's Treasury to indeterminate and indiscriminating education of Chinese subjects, without proper revision and examination by this House, ought to be lightly consented to at this hour of the morning. I do suggest that the Under-Secretary should accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chelsea that there should be a statutory committee. The Under-Secretary quoted a Sub-section of 1905 the Bill regarding the report of the Auditor-General. The fact that that report would be laid before the House of Commons meets none of the objections to the expenditure. The report will show only how the money has been expended. There will be no control because the money will have been spent at the sole discretion of the Secretary of State. There should be in the Bill a schedule showing on what schemes this money is to he expended. It is very plausible to say there is an advisory committee, with a Chinese member to advise the Secretary of State. But more than that is needed, for the sum is large.
Although some hon. Members may have a perfect trust in the Secretary of State and the Committee, cases are known in which expenditure has been incurred by Secretaries of State, and even by committees, which has not met with the approval of the House of Commons or the country. The Under-Secretary should accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Chelsea or, alternatively, he should withdraw the Bill and postpone it. This is a very considerable matter which, if it had not concerned China, would perhaps not meet with such ready acquiescence as it does. If we were asked to expend £400,000 on a scheme in this country, of which nobody knew the details, there would be a full dress Debate; alternative suggestions, hundreds of Amendments and close financial criticism. Bat we are asked to pass this after an hour's discussion and to allocate this to objects of which we are in perfect ignorance. The money belongs to the Treasury, and, so far as it does, it belongs to this country. Therefore the House should not give a Second Reading to the Bill without further disclosure, by the Under-Secretary of State, of the objects on which this money is to be spent.
§ Mr. BALFOURI beg to move. "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ I listened very carefully to the statement made in reply to the Debate, and I did not notice one word in that reply which dealt with the criticism made on this side of the House or on the opposite side of the House below the Gangway. In particular, I noticed there was not one word in reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel), in whose name the Amendment, stands. I think it would be in harmony with the feelings of the majority of the Members of the House if the Under-Secretary would accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate in order that the Government may have an opportunity of modifying the Bill in such a manner that it will give no offence to our friends in China and receive universal acceptance in this House.
§ Mr. REMERI beg to second the Motion.
I am not satisfied with the speech which has just been made by the Under-Secretary. He never gave one single. reply to the very careful figures given during the Debate for this reason—he was utterly unprepared to deal with the Bill when he came here to-night. I think it is an absolute disgrace. I second the Motion in order that the Under-Secretary may become more fully acquainted with the subject.
§ Mr. PONSONBYI hope hon. Members will not press this Motion. I think they should be prepared to accept a division on the Bill itself. It is riot quite fair to say I gave no information. I dealt with the points raised by the hon. Members opposite. At any rate, I think it would be more satisfactory for the House to go to a division, and if they want to throw out the Bill—[Interruption.] This Bill was drafted and prepared by the late Government.
§ Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 115.
1907| Division No. 95.] | AYES. | [12.40 a.m. |
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Comyns-Carr, A. S. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Cope, Major William | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Becker, Harry | Dixey, A. C. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Brass, Captain W. | Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Briscoe, Captain Richard George | Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) |
| Brunner, Sir J. | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Kay, Sir R. Newbald |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Gorman, William | Kindersley, Major G. M. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Greene, W. P. Crawford | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull) |
| McLean, Major A. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Wheler, Lleut.-Col. Granville C. H. |
| Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby) |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Willison, H. |
| Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley) | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern) | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Phillpson, Mabel | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness) | |
| Pringle, W. M. R. | Spero, Dr. G. E. | TELLERS FOB THE AYES.— |
| Raine, W. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Mr. Ballour and Mr. Remer. |
| Rhys, Hon. C. A. U | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ackroyd, T. R. | Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex, Enfield) | Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. G. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hindle, F. | Scurr, John |
| Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillebro') | Hoffman, P. C. | Sherwood, George Henry |
| Amman, Charles George | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) | Smith, T. (Pontetract) |
| Barclay, R. Noton | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Black, J. W. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Snell, Harry |
| Bonwick, A. | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.) | Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. |
| Broad, F. A. | Kirkwood, D. | Spence, R. |
| Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) | Lansbury, George | Spoor, B. G. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lawson, John James | Stephen, Campbell |
| Buckle, J. | Leach, W. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Charteton, H. C. | Lessing, E. | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Church, Major A. G. | Loverseed, J. F. | Sullivan, J. |
| Clarke, A. | Lunn, William | Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay) |
| Cluse, W. S. | McEntee, V. L. | Thornton, Maxwell B. |
| Compton, Joseph | Maden, H. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Dickson, T. | March, S. | Toole, J. |
| Dodds, S. R. | Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton) | Tout, W. J. |
| Dukes, C. | Maxton, James | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Dunnico, H. | Middleton, G. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Murray, Robert | Warne, G. H. |
| Egan, W. H. | Oliver, George Harold | Watson, w. M. (Dunfermllne) |
| Falconer, J. | Owen, Major G. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Finney, V. H. | Paling, W. | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Fletcher, Lieut.-Commander R. T. H. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Weir, L. M. |
| George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) | welsh, J. C. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Westwood, J. |
| Gillett, George M. | Phillipps, Vivian | White, H. G. (BIrkenhead, E.) |
| Gosling, Harry | Ponsonby, Arthur | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome) | Potts, John S. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Richards, R. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennlngton) |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Ritson, J. | Windsor, Walter |
| Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich) | |
| Hastings, Somerville (Reading) | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Haycock, A. W. | Romeril, H. G. | Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Royce, William Stapleton | Kennedy. |
| Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) | Royle, C. |
§ Question put "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
1908§ The House divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 56.
1909| Division No. 96.] | AYES. | [12.46 a.m. |
| Ackroyd, T. R. | Egan, W. H. | Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Elliot, Walter E. | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Falconer, J. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Finney, V. H. | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Fletcher, Lieut-Commander R. T. H. | Kay, Sir R. Newbald |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) | Kirkwood, D. |
| Barclay, R. Noton | Gibbins, Joseph | Lansbury, George |
| Black, J. W. | Gillett, George M. | Lawson, John James. |
| Bonwick, A. | Gorman, William | Leach, W. |
| Broad, F. A. | Gosling, Harry | Lessing, E. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome) | Loverseed, J. F. |
| Buckle, J. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lunn, William |
| Charleton, H. C. | Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) | McEntee, V. L. |
| Church, Major A. G. | Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury) | Maden, H. |
| Clarke, A. | Hastings, Somerville (Reading) | March, S. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Haycock, A. W. | Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton) |
| Compton, Joseph | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Maxton, James |
| Comyns-Carr, A. S. | Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) | Middleton, G. |
| Dickson, T. | Henderson, W. W.(Middlesex,Enfield) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. |
| Dodds, S. R. | Hindle, F. | Murray, Robert |
| Dukes, C. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Oliver, George Harold |
| Dunnico, H. | Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston) | Owen, Major G. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hoffman, P. C. | Paling, W. |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Smith, T. (Pontefract) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Phillipps, Vivian | Snell, Harry | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Spence, R. | Weir, L. M. |
| Potts, John S. | Spoor, B. G. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Richards, R. | Stephen, Campbell | West wood J. |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | White, H. G. (Blrkenhead, E.) |
| Ritson, J. | Sturrock, J. Leng | Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby) |
| Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich) | Sullivan, J. | Williams, David (Swansea, E.) |
| Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) | Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Romeril, H. G. | Thornton, Maxwell R. | Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kennington) |
| Royce, William Stapleton | Tinker, John Joseph | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Royle, C. | Tools, J. | Windsor, Walter |
| Scurr, John | Tout, W. J. | |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Sherwood, George Henry | Variey, Frank B. | Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Kennedy. |
| Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Warne, G. H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Banks, Reginald Mitchell | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey) |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Rounded, Colonel R. F. |
| Barnston, Major Sir Harry | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C. |
| Becker, Harry | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Blundell, F. N. | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Sandeman, A. Stewart |
| Brass, Captain W. | Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) | Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern) |
| Briscoe, Captain Richard George | Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) | Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss) |
| Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Spero, Dr. G. E. |
| Brunner, Sir J. | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | McLean, Major A. | Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingstonon-Hull) |
| Cope, Major William | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw | Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H. |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley) | Willison, H. |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Pattinson, S. (Horncastle) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Dixey, A. C. | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J | Philipson, Mabel | |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Pringle, W. M. R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. | Raine, W. | Mr. Samuel Samuel and Mr. Balfour. |
| Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | Remer, J. R. |
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.