§ 68. Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the Shanghai precedent, there has been any public expression of regret at the loss of life in the Shameen shootings; and whether any proposal has been made in the official or unofficial negotiations regarding the Canton boycott of any ex gratia. payment as a mark of sympathy with the wounded and with the relatives of those killed at Shameen?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe incident at Shameen differed from that at Shanghai. It was the result of an unprovoked attack by armed Chinese military cadets or soldiers who opened fire upon the foreign concession, foreigners being killed and wounded. The foreign troops in the concession returned the fire, and Chinese military and civilians 1534 were killed. On 11th July His Majesty's Consul-General wrote to the Canton Commissioner for Foreign Affairs expressing heartfelt sympathy with the parents and relatives of the victims of the incident. So far as I am aware, the question of compensation in respect of casualties at Shameen has not been raised by the Cantonese in any recent discussion on the subject of the boycott directed against Hongkong.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the version of the facts which he has given is disputed from the Chinese side? Has there been any inquiry which justifies the right hon. Gentleman in stating the facts as he has stated them with such assurance?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINAnyone can dispute anything, but I think the facts I have stated are correct.