7. Mr. David Adamsasked the Prime Minister whether the Nine-Power Treaty over China had any time limit or was regarded as being of a permanent nature; and, if so, whether he will convene a meeting of the signatory Powers to discuss both the present infringements of the Treaty and the future policy to be adopted jointly by those nations still maintaining 2442 the principle of the open door for trade in the Far East?
§ Mr. ButlerThere is no clause in the Nine-Power Treaty limiting the period of its validity. In answer to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 12 of the declaration adopted by the Brussels Conference in November of last year, which provided that the Conference would be called together again whenever its chairman or any two of its members should report that in their opinion its deliberations could be advantageously resumed.
Mr. AdamsDo I understand that the Government are likely to call such a conference at an early date?
§ Mr. ButlerIt is not at present our intention.
§ 10. Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister the nature of the communication made on Japanese economic and trade policy in China in the interview between Mr. Arita, the Japanese Foreign Minister, and Sir Robert Craigie, the British Ambassador, on 8th June in Tokyo; and whether His Majesty's Government and the United States Government have exchanged views on this subject?
§ Mr. ButlerPresumably the conversation to which the hon. Member refers was that which took place on 8th December. It was informal and exploratory in character, and no official communication was made by either side. My Noble Friend understands that the United States Ambassador had had a very similar conversation with the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs shortly before and the two Ambassadors, who keep each other fully informed on all matters of common interest, no doubt exchanged views both before and after their interviews with M. Arita.
§ Mr. HendersonAre His Majesty's Government co-operating with the United States Government in respect of the Japanese policy towards the open door?
§ Mr. ButlerThe hon. Member will see from my reply that contact is maintained in the way I have described.
§ 11 and 18. Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he has yet received a report upon the joint statement issued by the British, French and American Chambers of Commerce 2443 and national associations of eight countries represented at Shanghai complaining that Japanese restrictions on foreign trade can no longer be justified by military necessity; and what action His Majesty's Government have taken in the matter;
(2) whether he can now state what are the specific causes of complaint alleged in the communication from the British Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai relating to Japanese encroachment on British trade in China; and what steps he is taking to provide a redress of the grievances complained of?
§ Mr. ButlerMy Noble Friend has received from His Majesty's Consul-General in Shanghai a despatch enclosing a list of "objectives" adopted by the Joint Committee of the British Chamber of Commerce and the China Association aiming at the removal of the restrictions now hampering British trade in China and at the maintenance of British treaty rights. I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. A similar series of objectives has been adopted by a number of other chambers of commerce and national associations at Shanghai. As the Consul-General's despatch has only just been received, I am not at the moment in a position to make a fuller statement, but the matters raised have already formed the subject of numerous representations to the Japanese authorities. The more important "objectives" relate to Japanese encroachments on the administration of the International Settlement at Shanghai, the restoration of transportation facilities in the Yangtse Valley and elsewhere, abolition of monopolies, cessation of censorship, resumption of operations by the Whangpoo Conservancy Board, maintenance of the principle of equal opportunity in China, and the maintenance of extra-territorial rights.
§ Sir J. Wardlaw-MilneIs it not the case that this is the first time on which all trading associations representing the various countries have joined together in a note of protest at the position of foreigners trading in Shanghai?
§ Mr. ButlerI believe that is so.
§ 13. Mr. R. Morganasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider taking discriminatory trade action, wherever this 2444 may be possible, against Japanese goods until the open door to trade in China is restored, or an absolute guarantee given that this will be the case after the conclusion of hostilities?
§ 44. Mr. Moreingasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing anxiety caused by Japanese encroachment on foreign rights in China, he can now make a statement of the Government's intentions in this matter; and what measures it is proposed to take for the protection of British interests in the Far East?
§ Mr. ButlerHis Majesty's Government have under constant review the question of what steps can be taken to safeguard British interests in China, and are prepared to give consideration to any measures which may be suggested for their protection.
§ 14. Mr. Morganasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that export permits will not be granted by the Japanese authorities at Tsingtao when the exports have been financed, through foreign bankers, by means of Chinese national currency; and what steps he is taking to stop this deliberate discrimination against foreign trade?
§ Mr. ButlerYes, Sir, and my Noble Friend has this matter under consideration.
§ 19. Sir J. Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the pronouncement of the Japanese Prime Minister, and the Japanese Foreign Office spokesman indicating that it is the desire of the Japanese Government to reject the Nine-Power Treaty as being no longer applicable to the conditions in the Far East, and to insist that the powers shall recognise new realities in China; and whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not consider any alteration of the position as defined by treaty, which has been brought about by unilateral action?
§ Mr. ButlerMy Noble Friend is aware that various statements have appeared in the Press, but no official communication has been received on the subject. The attitude of His Majesty's Government continues to be that they cannot subscribe to any modification of existing treaties by unilateral action.
§ 22. Sir John Haslamasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make a statement in regard to the intention of the Japanese authorities in China to impose extensive restrictions at the Chinese ports under their control analogous to the import restrictions recently introduced into Japan; and what will be the effect of such restrictions on British trade?
§ Mr. ButlerMy Noble Friend has no official confirmation that the Japanese authorities intend to impose such restrictions.
§ 23. Sir J. Haslamasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the rapid expansion of the trade in narcotics in the area of Shanghai occupied by the Japanese; and whether he has made representations to the Japanese Government in the matter?
§ Mr. ButlerThe information in the possession of my Noble Friend leads him to fear that this may be the case. Formal representations to the Japanese Government must depend on the nature of the further evidence, which is being collected.
§ 24. Mr. Chorltonasked the Prime Minister what has been the result of his inquiries into the complaint of British merchants desiring to send export goods to Tientsin from the interior of China that they have to negotiate for railway transport with monopoly transport companies under Japanese control, and that unfair discrimination is exercised in the allocation of space for cargo?
§ Mr. ButlerHis Majesty's Consul-General at Tientsin has reported that the Japanese authorities do exercise a monopoly over freight carried by the railways in North China and that preference is given to Japanese military requirements. Apart from this no specific instances of discrimination have as yet come to his notice or that of my Noble Friend.
§ Mr. ChorltonAre we taking any action to prevent that?
§ 25. Mr. Chorltonasked the Prime Minister what has been the result of his inquiries into the case in which a British firm at Tsingtao were recently prevented by the Japanese Naval Mission from shipping a case of steel samples to their agency in Shanghai, and have been 2446 directed in future to apply for permission to the Japanese Consulate through the British Consul-General?
§ Mr. ButlerMy Noble Friend understands that shipment of the consignment in question was duly effected after the matter had been taken up by His Majesty's Consul-General with his Japanese colleague.
§ 26. Commander Marsdenasked the Prime Minister whether the Japanese authorities have established a shipping monopoly on the inland waterways of the Yangtze Basin similar to that prevailing on the Yangtze River; and what action he has taken for the protection of British shipping?
§ Mr. ButlerMy Noble Friend understands that a company calling itself the Shanghai Inland Navigation Steamship Company has claimed a monopoly of transportation on the inland waterways round Shanghai, and he is calling for a report.
§ 27. Commander Marsdenasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Japanese merchant ships are plying freely on the Yangtze and that no Japanese cargo or passenger has met with misfortune owing to the drifting mines alleged by the Japanese authorities as an objection to reopening the river to British vessels; and when he proposes to take effective action to put an end to this discrimination against British shipping?
§ 32. Captain A. Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Japanese shipping firms through their Chinese agents are publishing advertisements offering to transport goods and passengers to any port on the Yangtze below Kiukiang safely and speedily and that they will obtain all necessary passes from Japanese authorities for their customers; and when British vessels are to be allowed equal facilities?
§ Mr. ButlerAdvertisements and notices of sailings have appeared in the Chinese language press at Shanghai which provide evidence of Japanese steamers trading on the Yangtze. The Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs has now undertaken to give further consideration to the matter in the light of this fresh evidence which His Majesty's Ambassador has put before him. The Japanese Government in their 2447 note of 14th November stated that a Japanese transport had lately been sunk by drifting mines, but this appears to have been an isolated instance.
§ 28. Mr. R. Morganasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to stop the tampering with British mails by the Japanese censor at Tientsin?
§ Mr. ButlerLetter mail does not appear to have been interfered with, but my Noble Friend has received reports of the detention of certain Shanghai British newspapers by the postal authorities at Tientsin. His Majesty's Ambassador in China has been asked to report on what action is best calculated to resolve the difficulty.
§ Mr. R. AclandIs not all this precisely what the Opposition said in 1932 would happen?
§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillanIn view of the poor information which the hon. Gentleman has on Eastern affairs, is it possible that the Japanese are tampering with that information?
§ 36. Mr. Hamilton Kerrasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the large trade in narcotics which has been developed by 18 factories in the Peking and Tientsin area of China; whether his information shows that such trade is sanctioned or encouraged by the Japanese military authorities who are in control of the territory in question; and whether he will bring to the notice of the League of Nations the need for investigating the distribution of these drugs against the wishes and the well-being of the Chinese people?
§ Mr. ButlerMy Noble Friend is aware of the existence of these factories, but has no evidence on the attitude of the Japanese military authorities towards them. The League of Nations is fully informed on the drug situation in China and the Far East.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerIs it not a fact that wherever Japanese are in control, the traffic in drugs is developing; and will His Majesty's Government, in British interests, make representations to Tokyo that this practice should cease?
§ Mr. ButlerPerhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me any further informa- 2448 tion he has in his possession. Our information tends to show that in some cases what he says may be correct.
§ 39. Mr. Moreingasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the serious loss to British shipping caused by the refusal of landing facilities in North China ports controlled by the Japanese; and what action he has taken in the matter?
§ 6. Captain Alan Grahamasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British shipowners who are refused permission to berth alongside the wharves at Tsingtao on the grounds that the wharf-age is fully occupied by vessels discharging military stores, are yet able to arrange on terms to ship their cargo on Japanese ships and discharge at the wharves to which British ships are refused access; and how long he is going to submit to these Japanese encroachments on British trade?
§ Mr. ButlerMy Noble Friend understands that in certain cases British-owned cargo has been shipped in Japanese in preference to British steamers. As I informed my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming) on 12th December, representations were made to the Japanese Government on 1st December, and His Majesty's Government will continue to press the matter until discrimination against British shipping has been removed.
§ Mr. MoreingOn a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which causes some difficulty to hon. Members. Question 39 which I have just asked, was originally put down to the President of the Board of Trade, because I considered it a question concerning losses to British shipping and so one which largely came under his Department. I received a very courteous letter from the right hon. Gentleman's secretary, informing me that the question had been transferred to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it has just been answered in conjunction with Question 6. I submit, with all due respect, that my Question 39 does not deal with local or individual incidents in a single town in China, but with losses which affect British shipping and British trade generally. I feel that it would be to the advantage of the House if we could 2449 have a Ruling on the allocation of Questions between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. On this particular question, I wished to have an answer from the Board of Trade and I have, if I may so put it, been fobbed off with an answer from the Foreign Office.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is a point on which I have often ruled before. Questions are handed in addressed to particular Departments, but if a Department finds that some other Department is the proper one to deal with a question, that question is transferred accordingly.
§ Sir Percy HarrisDoes not the reply indicate that the Board of Trade has now divorced itself from any interest in British trade in China, because of its incapacity to assert itself in any way?
§ Mr. Malcolm MacMillanIs it not the case that losses to British shipping are largely affected by the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government?