§ 32. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the total area in acres of the international settlement at Shanghai; its total population; the rateable value of the property of the international settlement; and the average revenue for the last three years?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe area of the international settlement at Shanghai is 5,584 acres; its total population, according to the latest census, which was taken on 21st October, 1925, is 832,831. The total assessed value of land in the settlement is Taels 337,564,500, equivalent at the current rate of exchange to £42,195,562. The assessed gross rental of rateable houses, without allowance for vacant houses, is Taels 30,580,000 (£3,822,,500). The average municipal revenue, exclusive of loans and debentures for the' years 1923–1925, was Taels 8,128,343, equivalent at the average rate of exchange for those years to £1,295,450.
§ Sir H. BRITTAINWhat area would have been left if the right hon. Gentleman had followed the Labour party into the Division Lobby?
Rear-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALLIs it not a fact that the majority of the 855 capital of the international settlement at Shanghai has been bought and paid for?
§ Mr. CAMPBELLDoes the rateable value include the Soviet Embassy?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must give notice of that question.
Lord ERSKINE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make a statement as to any negotiations in reference to the future of Shanghai?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINAs I have more than once stated, there is no British Concession at Shanghai. Our interests centre in the International Settlement and the future of that Settlement can be determined only in consultation with the other Powers interested. No negotiations in regard to it are in progress at the present time, nor is it possible to negotiate fruitfully in the present anarchial conditions.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIn view of the fact that the predominance of the property in Shanghai is British, may I ask whether, in our own interests, the right hon. Gentleman would not consider opening negotiations immediately with the Cantonese authorities? What harm could be done by negotiating with the Cantonese Government?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI think there are two observations to be made in regard to the question which the hon. and gallant Member puts to me. In the first place, when you are dealing with joint property, you must consult all the parties interested. One party cannot dispose of property in which others have a right, without any communication with those others. The second observation is, that we have dealt in a most liberal and, I might even say, in a confiding spirit with our property in the British Concession at Hankow and we must be sure that conditions are such that the Chinese authority, whatever it is, can preserve order where that authority extends before we make further surrender of British interests and property.
§ Mr. LOOKEROn a point of Order. I have no desire, Sir, to endeavour to ask as a supplementary question a question which you have ruled out of order as a Private Notice question, but I should like, if I am in order, to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any representations on the subject of the future position in Shanghai from the Bar Committee there: and, if so, what is their nature?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member offered that as a Private Notice question, which I was not table to accept. It appears to refer to a private body in Shanghai, and if we were to have a question of that kind put in this House as regards one such body, we should have other questions regarding many other associations of a different character.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI have answered similar questions which you have allowed as to other representations from different bodies in Shanghai. I can answer this question.
§ Mr. LOOKERIn those circumstances perhaps, Sir, you will see your way to allow the Question.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not recollect any parallel circumstances. I have to think of what such a question may lead to in regard to all kinds of bodies and societies in Shanghai. I would like to see the question handed in at the Table in the proper way.
Captain GARRO-JGNESIn view of the desirability of taking advantage of any opportunity for negotiations which may occur, has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to secure the establishment of a joint negotiating body?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI am afraid I do not understand the question.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESHas the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to secure the establishment of a joint negotiating body—that is, a body empowered to speak for all the Powers collectively?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe body primarily empowered to speak for the Powers collectively is the Diplomatic Body in Peking.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESWill that body be authorised to take any oppor- 857 tunity which may arise to negotiate with the Cantonese Forces? Will they be explicitly authorised to negotiate.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI cannot say, Sir, what will be the instructions given by the different Powers—I do not know how many Powers there are exactly, but I think there are about 15—to their representatives.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESHow can any negotiations come about if no one takes the initiative to empower any body to negotiate collectively; and does not some responsibility rest on the right hon. Gentleman to see that negotiations should not fail owing to the fact that no body plieitly authorised to negotiate?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI do not think it will be difficult for the Powers concerned to negotiate when there is a single Chinese authority exercising power throughout China with which they can negotiate.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIs there any approach by any Chinese authority asking for negotiations? If they are the attacking party at Hankow and Shanghai, are not they the party to make the first approach?
§ Mr. SPEAKERHon. Members seem to be answering one another.