9. Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the value of the leases in Chinese treaty ports which were conceded to Great Britain by the Chinese Government between 1851 and 1861, and which are now to be given up; whether the interests in question were acquired by purchase; if so, on what terms; how many separate properties are affected; whether all of these are now in the hands of British subjects; whether the terms of surrender will provide for the properties not being disposed of in any way that might be detrimental to British interests; and whether other foreign Powers are adopting a similar policy in this matter?
§ 32. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works what Crown property he holds on Chinese territory; what is the total estimated value at present prices of this property; whether it is being disposed of; if so, at what price; and what is the reason for this sale, surrender, or gift of national property?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINMost of the information asked for will be found in the Treasury Minute dated the 7th December, which has been presented to the House. The value of the leases 382 cannot be accurately assessed at the present moment; but, according to a valuation made in 1922, previous to the outbreak of the anti-foreign agitations in China, the worth of the reversionary interest in the land and buildings held under leases with an unexpired term of approximately 30 years was £730,000; at a later date it was anticipated that these reversionary interests might have realised about £400,000. The position in China, however, renders it impossible to proceed with the scheme for the sale of these interests without guarantees of tenure which would be wholly inconsistent with the policy of His Majesty's Government. The land was acquired under perpetual lease from the Chinese Government, to whom a fixed ground rent continues to be paid, and concurrently by purchase from the actual Chinese owners. The concession areas are situated at Tientsin, Hankow, Kiukiang, Chinkiang, Amoy and Canton; they consist of a total of 232 acres divided into 234 lots. These properties are chiefly in British but partly in other hands. They are to be transferred to the present lot-holders without payment and unconditionally except for the proviso that the lot-holders shall bear any expenses arising from the assignments. As regards future ownership, I have no reason to anticipate any change likely to be detrimental to British interests, but I must remind the hon. and gallant Members that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to relax rather than to extend British control in the administration of these municipal areas. Other foreign Powers had immediately transferred their perpetual leases to their respective lot-holders; and in no other case was a foreign Government ground landlord of any similar area in Chinese territory.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDo I understand that we are getting no return from these tenants for the giving up of Crown property worth £400,000?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI should be very sorry to assess the value of the property to be transferred at £400,000, or anything like that figure, to-day. You cannot sell a property unless you are prepared to give a good title, and, as we are not prepared to guarantee the future of these properties, their value in the market is practically nil. It is really not possible that His Majesty's Govern- 383 ment should, in the altered conditions, remain ground landlords in Chinese territory.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYWill it not make it more difficult in the future, if we give us this property to the tenants, to negotiate with the Chinese authorities?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINNo, I think not; I think the contrary will be the case.
Sir F. HALLAm I right in assuming that no ground rent is being paid to the Chinese authorities, seeing that we have not possession?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI think I told my hon. and gallant Friend—
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI said:
to whom a fixed ground rent continues to be paid.A ground rent will be payable by the lot-holders to whom the property is transferred.
Sir F. HALLIs it equitable that ground rents should still be paid, and yet at the same time the lease-holders of the properties may have no value in them at all?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINMy hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in saying that the property has no value to them. It has not a marketable value which we could sell in the present circumstances, but, of course, it has a value to the lot-holder.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODArising out of the original answer, is the Foreign Secretary aware that the same kind of negotiation that is now being carried through with this company in China was going on during the Labour Government's tenure of office, and that the Labour Government turned it down, the reason being that we have no claim on this land at all, and yet, if anything happens in China, our Forces will be sent out to defend this land, which is not ours at all, but which belongs to the Chinese. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I would like a reply.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI do not know whether this is the proper time for a Debate; I must not make a speech in answer to the one which the hon. Gentle- 384 man has just delivered. I do not know to what he is referring when he talks about "this company." It is for the very reason that we are not prepared to employ our Forces in guarding this property that we are unable to sell it with a marketable title.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? In the first place, why are we not having a continuous policy in this matter; and, secondly, is it not the fact that these leaseholders have bought and sold their title to the land for a long period of years, always subject to the British Government's right of reversion? Has not this right of reversion entered into every transaction concerning this land, and why are we now surrendering it?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINWe are surrendering the right of reversion because His Majesty's Government feel that it is incompatible with the newer conditions in China that we should continue to occupy the position of ground landlords in that country.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODrose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe must not continue to debate the matter.