§ 10. Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reasons why the third Japanese principle, which Mr. Hirota 711 stated to Sir Francis Lindley, namely, that Japan is opposed to any foreign activity in China prejudicial to the peace and order of East Asia, was omitted from the Government statement?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon)The principle quoted by the hon. Member was not contained in the official statement by the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs to Sir Francis Lindley, the whole substance of which I gave to the House on 30th April. It appeared in a later declaration which was, I understand, communicated to the United States Ambassador, and a copy of which was also given subsequently to His Majesty's Ambassador.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONEIs it the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that the reservation made by the Japanese Government does in fact weaken the declaration they made to our Ambassador, Sir Francis Lindley?
§ Sir J. SIMONI think that the statement made was a complete statement, and I reported it most faithfully to the House.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONEThat is not the question I asked. It was whether the supplementary statement made by the Japanese Government to the United States Ambassador in fact weakened the declaration—which, I accept, was fully reported to the House—made to Sir Francis Lindley?
§ Sir J. SIMONI am primarily concerned with the statement made to the representative of our own Government, and the statement of our Government to Japan. I will add, in answer to the supplementary question, that if what is desired is to oppose what is prejudicial to peace and order in East Asia, I should have thought that was the common object of all the signatories of the Nine-Power Treaty.
§ 12. Major Sir ALAN McLEANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether the reassurances given to him recently by the Japanese Government in respect of Japanese policy in China included any reference to the purpose for which the additional accommodation for 712 Japanese troops is being provided by new barracks now under construction at Shanghai?
§ Sir J. SIMONNo, Sir.
§ Sir A. McLEANMay I ask whether inquiries have been made of the Japanese Government as to the peaceful purpose likely to be achieved by the erection of barracks for 9,000 Japanese troops?
§ Sir J. SIMONNo, Sir. I think Japan has had barracks in Shanghai ever since 1927.
§ 9. Sir JOHN HASLAM (for Captain ERSKINE-BOLST)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the special rights possessed by Japan in relation to China which have been recognised by other Powers and not shared by them?
§ Sir J. SIMONThe phrase which my hon. Friend has quoted was employed for the purpose of indicating that any particular policy of His Majesty's Government in China or any particular activity of British subjects could only be successfully challenged by showing that such policy or such activity infringed some special Japanese right recognised by other Powers and not shared by them. There are no rights of a general character that would fall within the category indicated by my hon. Friend. Japan, however, like other countries, has no doubt acquired special rights in China recognised by other Powers but not shared by them, by virtue of agreements relating to particular enterprises. An example would be the Japanese concession in Hankow. I am not in a position to give a list of such agreements nor do I think it necessary to do so, since the responsibility of proving that this or that right comes within the category in question does not rest on His Majesty's Government.