§ 63. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received information as to whether the bombardment of Nanking by His Majesty's ships and other vessels of war caused any casualties or damage to property; and, if SO, what were the numbers of casualties and the extent of the damage?
§ 66. Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the numbers of killed and wounded of Chinese and foreigners, according to nationality, in connection with the recent disturbances at Nanking?
§ 68. Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information showing what is the total of the Chinese casualties, military and civilian, respectively, due to the recent bombardment at Nanking?
§ 73. Mr. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is known how many Chinese were killed during the firing by the British and American warships at Nanking; how long the firing continued; and whether any part of the city was burnt down in consequence of the bombardment?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI will answer these questions together.
His Majesty's Consul-General at Nanking reports that from information gathered from numerous disinterested Chinese, the general belief among the Chinese is that three civilians only were killed by the bombardment; it is impossible to ascertain the number of military casualties, but these took place solely among the troops engaged in attacking foreigners on Standard Oil Hill. Chiang Kai-shek has, however, told a number of Press correspondents in Shanghai that the estimated casualties suffered by the Chinese were 6 killed and 15 wounded.
The ground within range of the firing was entirely open except for a few foreign-owned houses and the damage done to Chinese property was infinitesimal. No part of the city was set on fire as the area where shelling took place is open agricultural land although situated inside the city wall. Firing continued intermittently for 70 minutes in all, 76 shells being fired by His Majesty's Ship "Emerald" and approximately the same number by the two American destroyers.
The foreign casualties, according to my latest information, were as follow:
I have no accurate information about the Japanese casualties, but it is reported that either two or three were wounded.
- British.— Three killed (Dr. Smith, Mr. Huber and Able-Seaman nox).
- Americans. —One killed and one wounded.
- French, —One killed.
- Italian. —One killed.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I ask, in the first place, whether any firing took place on Pukow, on the opposite side of the river at Nanking, as has been reported; and, secondly, whether any firing took place during the original advance of the Cantonese armies?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir, the answer is in the negative in both cases; but the hon. and gallant Member really ought not to put questions of that kind as supplementary questions, he ought to have them on the Paper.
§ Mr. R. SMITHIn view of the conflict of the evidence which has been put forward from the Chinese side with the statement of the Foreign Secretary, is it not very desirable that we should have some independent inquiry; and, in view of the long drawn out difficulties in China, will not the Foreign Secretary consider putting the League of Nations to use in this matter?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI have a long series of questions relating to these events, and if I have supplementary questions to all of them it may duplicate both inquiries and answers; but there can be no doubt about the facts at Nanking.
§ Mr. W. THORNEHas the right hon. Gentleman seen in the papers the report made by the Foreign Secretary of the Cantonese Government that, for every foreigner killed, there were 100 Chinese killed?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINYes, Sir, I have seen that statement reported, and nothing could be further from the truth.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEBut even if there is no doubt as to the facts, is it not well to establish them in a way that carries conviction everywhere?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThey are established by Chiang Kai-shek's own statement. Perhaps I ought to have added— Well, I refrain. It is obvious.
§ 62. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are in progress concerning the future position of British subjects, and their religious, educational, and commercial interests, in Nanking; whether order has now been 1689 restored in Nanking; and whether there are any foreigners now in the city of Nanking?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINNo negotiations are in progress. The latest report from Nanking is that conditions are becoming more normal as regards the Chinese population, but that the attitude of the Nationalists towards foreigners and foreign property is every day becoming increasingly truculent. British steamers leaving port have been heavily fired on from the water front, and the looting of foreign houses still continues. All foreigners have been brought out of the city
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDoes that apply to every foreigner who was originally in Nanking, or only to our own people?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINNo—all foreigners.
§ 64. Sir B. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any evidence showing that the looting of British property and the murder of British subjects at Nanking by Cantonese troops were caused by the anti-British propaganda of agents of the Soviet Government; and, if so, whether he intends to give effect to his Note of five weeks ago and terminate diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI have no evidence to fix responsibility for recent events at Nanking or elsewhere in China on particular Soviet agents. But the anti-foreign feeling in general and the anti-British feeling in particular has undoubtedly been encouraged and stimulated from Moscow. His Majesty's Government do not think it expedient to take further action on my Note or the Soviet reply at present.
§ Mr. TAYLORMay I ask whether in that reference to Moscow the right hon. Gentleman means the Russian Government or the Third International?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI am unable to distinguish between the responsibilities of the Russian Government and action which they carry out through their different organisations.
Mr. BECKETTDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think the British in- 1690 vasion of China is likely to cause trouble?
§ 70 and 72. Mr. LOOKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he can make any statement as to any contemplated action in respect of the Nanking outrage;
(2) whether he considers he can usefully adopt any course in co-operation with the other Powers which may be of assistance to China in dealing with the menace with which she is now faced?
§ 82. Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has taken any steps, either singly or in conjunction with other Powers, to demand reparations for the outrages by the Cantonese soldiers in Nanking and the punishment of those guilty of the attack on foreign lives and property?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI will answer these questions together. His Majesty's Government are in consultation with the United States, Japanese, French and Italian Governments on these matters.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESIs it intended to set up any joint diplomatic body to deal with the changing circumstances, or does the right hon. Gentleman intend to rely on the slow, cumbrous, ordinary diplomatic machinery to meet these ever-changing circumstances'?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINWe use the machinery that is available to the best advantage that we can.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESMy question was whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to set up any joint diplomatic authority representing all the Powers?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe diplomatic body in Peking has acted in that capacity for a long time past.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that delay in any demand for reparations and punishment is locked up6n as a sign of weakness?
§ 78. Mr. DALTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the offer of General Chiang-Kai-Shek, on behalf of the Cantonese Government, to pay for any damage at Nanking which can be 1691 traced to Cantonese soldiers; and whether His Majesty's Government is willing to submit the question of responsibility to impartial arbitration?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINYes, Sir. An official who claims to be Commisioner for Foreign Affairs, appointed by General Chiang Kai-shek as commander of the Nationalist forces, called on His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai on 1st April, and said that he came on behalf of Chiang Kai-shek to express regret at the events at Nanking for which Chiang assumed responsibility, and for which he would afford satisfaction in due course, although he reserved the right to protest against the bombardment. As regards the second part, I am not prepared at this stage to make any statement as to the steps which His Majesty's Government may think it proper to take after consultation with other Governments.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs it not proposed to take advantage of the offer to indemnify our people who have suffered loss?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the last part of my reply.
§ Mr. LOOKERCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether General Chiang-Kai-shek is speaking for himself or for the Nationalist Government?
§ 81. Mr. MOSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state from what sources he derived his information concerning the recent incidents at Nanking?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe information I have given to the House about the Nanking outrages was drawn in part from Reports from the British authorities in China, based upon their own experience and upon statements of eye-witnesses, and in part from similar United States and Japanese reports communicated to the British authorities.
§ Mr. DUFF COOPERHas the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the poster displayed by "Lansbury's Weekly" this morning, which states that the Conservative party are responsible for the massacre at Nanking?
§ Mr. LANSBURYSo they are. I repeat in this House that they are.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINMy attention has not been called to that, but I cannot conceive with what purpose a British citizen can publish so libellous a statement.
§ Sir WALTER de FRECE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the issue of statements in this country declaring that the British bombardment at Nanking was carried out by incendiary shells which destroyed more than half the city; that over 2,000 of the population have been killed, and that the Cantonese troops had nothing to do with the attack on Europeans, but that it was carried out by Northerners encouraged by White Russians, and whether he has any information to corroborate or refute ' any of these statements?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINYes, Sir. My attention has been called to these reports. I have already given to the House information which entirely refutes the statements so far as they concern casualties to the Chinese and the destruction of Chinese property. As regards the question of responsibility for these outrages, I have received a telegram from His Majesty's Consul-General at Nanking in which he states that the outstanding fact which can be proved beyond question is that the looting and killing were the work of Hunanese Nationalist soldiers in uniform. He adds that it is an established fact that foreigners were shot down in cold blood by Nationalist soldiers, and that it is equally established that practically every foreign house, including three Consulates, were gutted, and at least eight foreign houses burnt down, all by Nationalist soldiers. Looting continued for several days after 24th March, upon which day the casualties occurred. I think I might add that, as shown by previous answers, the information received from Japanese and American sources entirely confirms the information received from British sources, as to the origin and character of these outrages.
§ Mr. THURTLEWith regard to the point about the Cantonese soldiers, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Chen, the Cantonese Foreign Secretary, 1693 dealing with that specific point, has said that it was not the Cantonese soldiers, but other brigands and troops who had borrowed the Cantonese uniform?[Interruption,]
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINIf Mr. Chen said that, he said that which was contrary to the fact.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask whether, in view of the direct conflict between the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made and the statement made by Mr. Chen, with whom the right hon. Gentleman allowed British representatives to negotiate and sign a Treaty, it is not imperative that an independent Commission should inquire into these outrages; and whether, in similar circumstances, that would not be the procedure with any other country in the world?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI do not think it is my duty, as, apparently, does the hon. Member, to disbelieve every British representative. [Interruption.']
§ Mr. LANSBURYrose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Gentleman rise to a point of Order?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI have not finished my answer, Sir.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think it is a point of Order.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI want to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has a right to make such an insulting charge?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not a point of Order.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI leave it there, Sir.
§ Mr. PALINGThe best thing you can do, too!
§ Sir FRANK NELSONDo His Majesty's Government contemplate taking any suitable action against those responsible for disseminating false information in regard to recent happenings in Nanking?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINAs far as the dissemination of false information is concerned, that is not a matter for the Foreign Office.
§ Sir F. NELSONMay I put the same question to the Home Secretary?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement, alleged to have been made by Mr. Chen, is so far regarded as authentic that a leading newspaper like the "Manchester Guardian" accepts it as such?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINNo; that is not my reading of the "Manchester Guardian" article, and I do not think the editor of that paper would be grateful to the hon. Member.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDoes not the right hon. Gentleman see that the statement of our Consul-General may be perfectly accurate relating to a certain number of days, and that afterwards, when order was restored, steps were taken to punish the people concerned? In that case, would it not be as well to accept the offer to pay compensation to our people, and try to settle this unfortunate business by negotiation?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat arises out of an earlier question.
§ Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRIs it not a fact that the description of the outrages in Nanking has been corroborated by American, Japanese, British and other other authorities, including the Chinese authority, General Chiang Kai-shek, and the only authority which disputes this description of the outbreak, Mr. Chen, has not been within hundreds of miles of it?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, and I have given the House information from all those sources.
§ Mr. RILEYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a reputable statesman as M. Briand is reported in the "Manchester Guardian" to-day as having said that the reports of the casualties at Nanking were grossly exaggerated.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI am not aware that M. Briand said so, but it is quite clearly the case. "Grossly exaggerated" is an understatement of the inaccuracies to which currency has been given even this afternoon.