§ 3. Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has consulted with the French and American Governments with regard to the protection of the international settlement at Shanghai; and whether they are taking identical steps to safeguard the lives of its inhabitants?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain)In this matter, as in all other important developments in China, His Majesty's Government have, as required by Article 7 of the Treaty relating to principles and policies concerning China signed at Washington on 6th February, 1922, communicated fully and frankly, not only with the French and United States Governments, but also with all the other Governments parties to that Treaty. Both France and the United States are adopting such measures for the defence of the lives of their nationals as they judge necessary in their respective circumstances.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reports in some newspapers are untrue—that the United States Government are acting independently, or are they acting in co-operation?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThey are taking independently such measures as they think right.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs it the fact that the American forces have not yet been landed?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINAs far as I know, yes.
§ Sir JOSEPH NALLDo we understand that the United States are not co-operating with us?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe United States are acting independently in defence of their own interests, and will take such steps as they think necessary for the protection of their own nationals. There is no rivalry between the United States and ourselves. They are acting as an independent Power as they think proper.
§ Sir J. NALLDoes the right hon. Gentleman's reply indicate that the United States are not prepared to take any action in defence of the nationals of other countries?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir. I have not said that. If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the answers, he will find they are complete. I am a little disinclined to define the attitude of a foreign Power in unconsidered answers to supplementary questions.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI suppose our representatives at Shanghai have received instructions to secure the maximum amount of co-operation possible?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINHis Majesty's Government throughout have endeavoured to act in harmony and in co-operation with other Powers, wherever possible.
§ 8. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that at the end of last week British troops marched out from the international concessions at Shanghai and occupied positions on Chinese territory beyond the boundaries of the concession, he will say what instructions have been given to the general officer commanding the troops and to the senior naval officer regarding the occupation of Chinese territory outside the concessions?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINIt would not be in the public interest to disclose the terms of the instructions issued to the officers commanding the British forces at Shanghai.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDoes the right hon. Gentleman not realise the significance of the fact that our troops are now occupying Chinese territory, and 351 is this House to have no explanation as to how that came about?
§ Mr. LOOKERIs not the presence of British troops in the International Settlement at Shanghai welcomed by all the inhabitants there, including the large Chinese population, as it affords great protection in a difficult time?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I have an answer to my question. Cannot some explanation be given for the occupation of this territory?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThere is another question on the Paper which raises that point more specifically.
§ 10. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before advancing troops beyond the limits of the international concession at Shanghai, any request was made to the Chinese authorities either at Peking, Shanghai, or Hangkow for permission to occupy Chinese territory not leased or occupied in accordance with treaty agreements; and has any protest been received from the representatives of the Chinese nation?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI am not yet in possession of detailed reports on the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I ask whether His Majesty's Government consider that they have a right to land troops in any country where they consider it necessary?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINHis Majesty's Government consider that they have a right to land troops for the protection of British nationals when no protection can he afforded by the Government of the country concerned.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us the difference between this case and the case at Nicaragua? Is not the policy of His Majesty's Government best expressed in Bethmann Hollweg's statement that "necessity knows no law"?
§ 12. Mr. STEPHENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether 352 Chinese troops from the north have entered Shanghai and their General, Marshal Chang Tsung-chang, permitted to take up his headquarters in the international settlement; and whether the Cantonese armies, if they arrive opposite the present British lines, will also be permitted to enter the city?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINSome of General Chang Tsung-ehang's forces have, I understand, entered Shanghai. They have not entered the International Settlement, nor has General Chang established his military headquarters in the settlement. In the contingency foreshadowed in the second part of the question the action of the British forces will continue to be governed by the policy of complete neutrality and impartiality as between the contending Chinese forces which has been the consistent policy of His Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. MOSLEYDoes that mean that the Cantonese forces will be allowed to enter Shanghai?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINIt means what it says, Sir.
§ 15. Mr. WALLHEADasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British troops have occupied Chinese territory outside the limits of the international settlement at Shanghai; and whether the troops of any other nation have occupied territory outside the limits of the settlement?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINIn view of the delicate situation which has arisen at Shanghai, British troops have taken up precautionary positrons along a defensive line partly outside the settlement limits. Italian forces are collaborating with the British forces in this operation, but I am unable to say whether Italian posts have actually been taken up beyond the limits of the settlement. It is this question I had in mind earlier. I thought it would answer the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). The occupation of these particular positions is dictated by the tactical necessities of the case.
§ Mr. WALLHEADIs the dictation military necessity, and, even if it be that, does it not constitute an infringement of territoriality and neutrality?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe purpose of sending troops to China was to protect British lives, and when danger arises the troops must be placed in the position in which they can effectively discharge their duty.
Rear-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALLIs it not a fact chat during the late Government British troops were occupying territory at Tientsin and Peking?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThat was under the old Treaty.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWill the right hon. Gentleman cause a map to be placed in the Library, so that Members of the House may see how far His Majesty's Government are invading Chinese territory?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODMay we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that neither Northern troops nor Southern troops will be allowed within whatever territory is at present occupied by the British troops?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINIt is for the purpose of keeping armed forces or armed individuals, fugitives or stragglers from armies, out of the settlement and therefore avoiding the danger that would be inherent in that state of things to British lives, that these troops are there.
§ Sir BASIL PETOIn replying to these constant questions from the other side, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the sole purport of them is to provide ammunition against the Government?