§ 50. Mr. WELLOCKasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that brothels filled with 15-year old Chinese slave girls have been established by the British military in the settlement at Nanking for British and American troops and that the Kuomintang women's department have protested against this action; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
§ Sir BERTRAM FALLEOn a point of Order. This Question raises a serious allegation against the British military authorities, and may I ask if the hon. Member who has put it down has any grounds for such an allegation?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI assume that the hon. Member would not put the Question on the Paper unless he were personally satisfied on the facts.
Commander WILLIAMSI notice that the Question also brings in the American troops. Is it correct to put a Question of that sort about a friendly Power?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe wording of the Question is "established by the British military."
§ Commodore KINGThere are no British or American troops at Nanking.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSHaving regard to that very definite contradiction of the allegation made in this Question, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what remedy or power we have to find out whether the hon. Member who put down the Question has any foundation at all for such a monstrous aspersion as is contained in the Question?
§ Mr. W. THORNEHave you read the history of China?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the protest that has been made will lead to more care being taken. Where there is a question of doubt, I usually ask the Member concerned if he takes responsibility for the statements which he makes in a Question involving any allegations, and I supposed that the hon. Member had some information or knowledge, or that he was prepared to take some responsbility for the statement; otherwise, he would not put it on the Paper.
§ Mr. CLYNESAlthough it is a very distasteful Question, may I ask, Sir, if, in the event of your ruling that such a Question ought not to be put, you will similarly rule that Questions containing monstrous implications against those on this side of the House should not be permitted either, in the future?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI allowed this Question to go on the Paper assuming that the hon. Member had information, but it frequently happens in different parts of the House that Members may be genuinely misinformed and may, therefore, put down Questions on incorrect information. I am riot proposing to rule Questions out of Order on that ground. I have not the means of doing so.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I ask—
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThe Home Secretary cannot monopolise the House.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSHaving regard to the nature of the reply, which makes it clear that there is absolutely no foundation for the Question, may I ask whether it is in your power, Sir, to inquire from the hon. Member who put down the Question, what were his grounds for making such an allegation?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo, that is not in my power. I have to rely upon hon. Members doing their best to avoid any allegation for which they are not prepared to take personal responsibility.
§ Mr. WELLOCKI put down this Question on definite information given to me. Obviously, there is some mistake in regard to the matter, and I think it is my duty to make definite inquiries further and to make any amends for any mistake that has occurred.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOn the point raised by the Home Secretary. Everyone sympathises with the Home Secretary's point of view, but I want to make this submission on the question of fact—that in the British Colony of Hong Kong which is part of China there have been for many years licensed brothels, about which questions have been raised in this House, and the same applies to Singapore. That is known to any Eastern traveller. I put it to you, Sir, therefore, that the Home Secretary is not in order in imputing any lack of care to hon. Members on this side of the House because of this unfortunate Question.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the statement made by the hon. Member who put the Question is quite in accordance with the traditions of the House.