§ 16 Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the situation in Manchukuo, and particularly with regard to the military position in Jehol?
§ Sir J. SIMONAs regards the military situation in Jehol, my information is that Kailu was occupied on the 24th of February by Japanese and Manchukuo troops who continued to advance in a south-westerly direction. About 12,000 Chinese troops are stated by the Japanese authorities to have surrendered on the 21st of February, in the above district. The town of Peipiao was occupied on the 21st of February.
§ 20. Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that in February, 1932, the British Ambassador at Tokio was officially informed that the Japanese Government was no more likely to recognise the State of Manchukuo than any other Government and that subsequent British policy was influenced by this declaration, and seeing that in spite of this the Japanese Government proceeded to recognise Manchukuo, any protest has been made by the British Government against this conduct and action?
§ Sir J. SIMONI do not know in what way it can be said that the policy of His Majesty's Government has been influenced by the statement to which the hon. Member refers. The attitude of His 10 Majesty's Government in the matter has been made plain in the policy which they have pursued at Geneva. Apart from that, their feelings and those of other members of the League were expressed by the President of the Council when he stated his regret that the Japanese Government should have recognised the so-called State of Manchukuo before the report of the Lytton Commission had been discussed or even published.
§ Mr. COCKSDoes the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, in an answer in this House last year, he said that, in consequence of that assurance, he did not propose to make any protest against the establishment of this new State?
§ Sir J. SIMONI should like to check that. The hon. Member is usually accurate, and it may be so.
§ 21. Mr. COCKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether relations between Great Britain and Japan are still based on the obligations of full and frank communication, specified in Article 7 of the Washington Treaty of 1922, and upon the informal agreement announced in the House of Commons on 28th November, 1928, that close contact between the two Governments mould be developed by constant consultation between their respective Ministers at Pekin: whether His Majesty's Government has been constantly consulted by Japan during the last 18 months respecting Japanese action in Manchuria, Shanghai and Jehol; and, if not, what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take regarding this apparent breach by Japan of both the Washington Treaty and the informal Anglo-Japanese agreement of 1928?
§ Sir J. SIMONThe obligations of the Washington Treaty naturally remain in force. It is not proposed to take any special action as suggested in the last part of the question.