§ 23. Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with Article 7 of the Nine-Power Treaty of 1922 relating to principles and policies to be followed in matters concerning China, by which it was agreed that there should be full and frank communication between the contracting Powers whenever a situation arose which involved the application of the treaty, the Japanese Government, previous to embarking on military activities, either in Manchuria or at Shanghai, informed His Majesty's Government of its intentions; and, if so, what was His Majesty's Government's reply?
§ Sir J. SIMONThe Japanese Government have publicly stated that their original action in Manchuria arose out of a sudden emergency, namely, the destruction of a portion of the South Manchurian railway line. No previous communication, so far as I am aware, as to this action was given.
As regards Shanghai, on the 28th of January, the Japanese Government informed His Majesty's Government that, in order to check anti-Japanese movements in Shanghai, some drastic measures might be necessary. I sent immediate instructions to His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo and I also saw the Japanese representative here to express my grave concern and to draw the attention of the Japanese Government to the international issues and obligations involved?.
§ 24. Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that in October or November last he received an assurance from the Japanese Ambassador that Japanese troops would refrain from occupying Tsitsihar, and that on 18th November, the Japanese forces did occupy that town, any representations on the subject have been made by His Majesty's Government?
§ Sir J. SIMONI received no such assurance.
§ 25. Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that in November last the Japanese Government gave an undertaking not to occupy Chinchow, that in December His Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the Governments of France and the 1262 United States, expressed to Japan the concern which was felt regarding the possibility of a, Japanese attack at Chinchow, and that on 2nd January the Japanese forces occupied Chinchow, he will say whether any representations on the subject have been made by His Majesty's Government?
§ Sir J. SIMONSo far as I am aware, no undertaking was given by the Japanese Government not to occupy Chinchow. The assumption upon which the hon. Gentleman's question is based is, therefore, incorrect, but I may take the opportunity of saying that on all these matters His Majesty's Government have throughout been in close touch both with the other members of the Council of the League and with the Government of the United States of America.
§ Mr. COCKSDoes it not seem that the Japanese Government are very reluctant to comply with the representations of the British Government and of the other Powers?
§ 27. Captain NORTHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the estimated cost to date to this country of the increased military precautions at Shanghai; whether any of it, or all of it, will be recoverable from the combatants; and whether any claim will be made on either Japan or China for damage to British property or injury to British residents?
§ Sir J. SIMONAs regards the first part of the question, I understand that it would not be possible to give figures at the present stage. It is not possible to answer the last two parts of the question at present.
§ Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give to the House regarding the present position at Shanghai; is His Majesty's Government supporting the Chinese appeal for a meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations; will he circulate for the information of the House and the country a copy of the report submitted to the Council of the League of Nations by the Consuls appointed by the League to investigate and report as to the causes and continuance of dispute and war between Japan 1263 and China at Shanghai; and will he state the nature of the reply, if any, received from the Japanese Government to the Note sent to them by His Majesty's Government and other Powers making proposals for a settlement of the dispute?
§ Sir J. SIMONThere has been little change in the situation at Shanghai in the last few days, except for the arrival of Japanese reinforcements, details of which have appeared in the Press. His Majesty's Minister in China reached Shanghai last week, and has been exerting himself in every possible way, in accordance with my instructions, both by using his good offices with the Chinese and Japanese authorities and by consultation with the representatives of other Powers, including the United States, with a view to securing an agreement for a cessation of fighting. I deeply regret that these efforts have not yet borne fruit, but they are being continued.
As regards the second part of the question, Article 15 of the Covenant provides that a dispute which has been submitted to the Council shall be referred to the Assembly at the request of either party to the dispute provided that the request be made within 14 days after the submission of the dispute to the Council. The Chinese representative made this request before the 14 days expired, and, consequently, if he so desires, the dispute is automatically referred to the Assembly; the matter does not in any way depend upon the support of other members of the Council.
As regards the third part of the question, the report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, together with a subsequent report which has now reached Geneva, forms part of the material which is being collected by the Secretary-General for the consideration of the Council. Another portion of the material will be statements by the parties to the dispute of their respective cases, with all relevant facts and papers, and the Article provides that the Council may direct their publication. I cannot, therefore, undertake to make public on my own motion portions of the material now in the Secretary-General's hands, but I will certainly do my best to urge that the documents should be made publicly available at the earliest moment, and I agree 1264 that it would be of advantage if this could be promptly done.
As regards the last part of the question, the reply of the Japanese Government to the proposals made to them on the 2nd February was given on the 4th February, and was published in the Press on the following day.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWith reference to the last answer, there have been several versions of the Japanese reply published in the Press. Would the right hon. Gentleman report to the House the authentic reply, so that the public may know what really is the Japanese official reply to the case? While we are questioning and giving answers in the House events go on. Is any time limit going to be put before action is taken either by the League or by His Majesty's Government in co-operation with other Governments? [Interruption.] I am not asking for war. I am asking for exactly what is provided in the Covenant of the League, to which Japan has put her signature.
§ Sir J. SIMONAs regards the first of the right hon. Gentleman's two supplementary questions, I will gladly take steps to do what he asks. Perhaps he would let me consult him as to what is the most convenient way—either a question put down for to-morrow, which would have an answer published officially, or any other form that he and I find convenient. I quite agree that it is desirable that the official answer should be available. As regards the second question, I can assure him that it is not only the gravity, but the urgency of this matter which is in my mind and in the minds of all members of the Council. I can say that with knowledge, because I have been taking part in their deliberations myself. I trust very much that there may be better news without much longer delay.
§ Mr. COCKSIs it not a fact that, when the Assembly is convened on the initiative of one of the parties to the dispute, the Council automatically ceases to take part in the dispute during the period that continues until the Assembly meets; whereas when the Assembly is convened by the Council itself the Council can continue to deal with the dispute all that time; and, therefore, is it not preferable that the Assembly should be called by the Council instead of leaving it to China to do so?
§ Sir J. SIMONThese are very difficult matters to deal with by question and answer. That is not my understanding. Whether a dispute which is before the Council is referred to the Assembly at the request of one of the parties or by the Council itself, in either event the result is to transfer the matter to the Assembly, and, under Article 15, the Council has no more jurisdiction. It may be an inconvenient result, but that appears to be the result. In fact, China has applied within the 14 days for it to be referred to the Assembly. That was entirely within the right of China, and, of course, no one would think of denying that it is her right. How soon the Assembly can meet, and what it can do when it meets, are questions which naturally have to be carefully considered, because it is not the desire of any responsible body to interpose delays where snore prompt action is possible.
§ Mr. McGOVERNIs it the case that, while the British Government are protesting against this conflict, they are encouraging Japan to go ahead behind the scenes?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not a proper question to ask.
§ Mr. DAVID MASONIs it not the case that, if Japan disregarded Article 15, action could be taken under Article 16?
§ Sir J. SIMONCertainly not. If my hon. Friend will take an opportunity of seeing me, I will point out some things in Article 16 which he has overlooked.
§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWith reference to the publication that the right hon. Gentleman has promised, in publishing the Japanese answer, will he, for the convenience of hon. Members, prefix to it the Note from His Majesty's Government?
§ Sir J. SIMONYes, certainly. That will be a convenient course.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESIs the Council of the League still sitting, and, if so, may we expect a pronouncement from the Council of the League regarding the telegram from Sir John Hope Simpson on Saturday last protesting against the bombardment of the relief camp?
§ Sir J. SIMONThe Council of the League is certainly sitting, and I am hop- 1266 ing to return to Geneva as soon as ever I can to take my part there. A great number of communications are reaching the Council, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. I can assure him that this will not be overlooked.