HL Deb 12 May 1925 vol 61 cc162-76

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

My Lords, in asking you to give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon I need not trespass upon your Lordships' time for more than a very few moments, because I think I can say that the Bill is, practically speaking, an agreed one. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with any long history of the events leading up to its introduction. I can explain the position in two sentences. The payments due in respect of the Indemnity which was imposed upon China after the Boxer Rising of 1900 were, by the Finance Act of 1906, applied to the reduction of the National Debt. This Bill proposes to allocate these funds to purposes beneficial to this country and to China, in so far As the balance of the Indemnity still owing, both principal and interest, is concerned. This sum amounts altogether to £11,186,547. The payments are to be spread over a period of twenty-three years; that is to say, from the year 1923 to the year 1945.

The decision to utilise the funds in this way was taken by Mr. Bonar Law's Government towards the end of 1922, but the Conservative Government fell before it was possible to introduce the Bill in Parliament. The draft, however, of the Bill was in existence and that draft was taken, without alteration, by the successors of Mr. Bonar Law's Government, the late Labour Administration, and it was introduced in the House of Commons on May 26, 1924. It got as far as the Committee stage and passed through that stage in the House of Commons with certain Amendments, the chief of which was the introduction into the Bill of a provision for an Advisory Committee. But again a General Election intervened, and the Bill once more failed to reach the Statute Book. It was re-introduced in the same state by the present Administration on December 11, 1924, and in Committee in another place the only change that was made was that the Advisory Committee set up under the Bill, which you will find set out in Clause 1, subsection (2), was enlarged so as to admit of two Chinese members instead of only one. At the Third Reading, on May 4, this Bill was passed unopposed.

In brief, the purpose of this Bill is to make a gift to the Chinese people of the balance of the Indemnity, which was due in respect of loss and damage caused by the Boxer Rising of 1900. It is desired to make this gift to the Chinese people as a token of our respect and friendship for them, and especially in recognition of the help which the Chinese nation accorded to us during the great war. We wish to retain only so much control over the funds as will ensure that the money is spent in a useful manner, and we have no intention whatsoever of allowing them to be dissipated on selfish objects for the furtherance of purely British interests. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I do not rise to find any fault with what the noble Earl has said, as I am entirely in accordance with the principle of the Bill and the statement that the noble Earl has made as regards the way in which this question of the China Indemnity should be approached; but I want to say one or two words because I have been in communication with some Chinese missionaries, of whom one has spent his life in China for the last twenty-five years and knows more about Chinese life than probably any other man you could find anywhere. Now, his great desire—and I understand that that is the view of the noble Earl opposite—is that the attitude of Great Britain under this Bill should be one of great friendliness towards China, because he says that in his experience as a missionary he found a very large body of anti-British opinion in China, which is to be regretted from every point of view. I have heard that not only from him but from another source also. When, the other day, I came hack from Ceylon with two missionaries who were on their way home from China, both expressed practically the same view, pointing out the difficulties which they encountered owing to the anti-British feeling in existence at the present time.

Of course, we must recollect that the Boxer Rising is looked at in a very different way in China from what it is in Great Britain. We condemn it, and properly condemn it, as regards the tragic incidents which took place in connection therewith, but in China it is looked upon as a legitimate uprising of Chinese opinion against the too great thraldom of the foreigner and of foreign capitalists, and they do not regard our action on this China Indemnity Bill as an act of magnanimity but as an act of justice. That makes it the more important that we should place it on just lines, on which, I think, it is placed by the provisions of the Bill. We have to remember, too—and is important as regards our position in China—that some years ago the action we are now taking was taken by America, and that feet has had an important influence as regards the popularity of America in her dealings with China. In addition, the Chinese feeling at the present time is that we did not adopt a friendly attitude towards them in connection with the Opium Conference at Geneva. That is not a point which I wish to go into in any detail at the present time, but what is said in China is this: You have imposed conditions upon us with which we are unable to comply. I am not now saying how far that is accurate, but it is certain that it is the feeling largely held in China with regard to our attitude on the Opium Conference.

I understood the noble Earl to say that there were to be two representatives of China on the Advisory Committee. Originally there was only one; now there are to be two. That is a great advantage. The missionaries to whom I have referred were desirous that, if possible, there should be equal representation of the Chinese upon the Committee, but it is a distinct advantage that there should be two representatives as against the one which was suggested in the first instance. The purposes for which this Boxer Indemnity Fund is to be used are indicated in the Bill itself, and I am glad that they are not indicated too exclusively. I think the general view, particularly of missionaries in China, is that this Indemnity could most properly be used for educational purposes. I have had schemes brought to my notice, both with regard to its use for what we know as elementary education, and also with regard to its use for technical education—on the second point, particularly, on the footing that after sufficient education of that kind it would be possible for the head of a Chinese household to provide sufficiently for the whole of the household without undue weight being thrown upon them and without employment of children at too early an age. This is the basis of the whole matter. We ought to have co-operation and a very friendly attitude, as regards this Indemnity money, between China and Great Britain, and if we have that it will be not only to the advantage of China but also to the advantage of a number of British people who are resident in China, particularly those who are there as missionaries, or who are teaching English in the schools. I do not propose to say anything more on the present occasion. Anything that has to be added on behalf of the Party that I represent will be stated by my noble friend, Lord Arnold.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I desire to congratulate His Majesty's Government upon having reached what I hope is the last stage in this matter, which has been going backwards and forwards in the ether House of Parliament for a long time past. I imagine that we have at last reached a point at which we can bring it to a final conclusion. And it is well, because I think that everybody in this House and most people in the country approve altogether of the purposes of this Bill, which has now got the hacking of the successive Governments of Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and the present Prime Minister. But I do not propose to touch upon the past history of this question, to which the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, has drawn our attention. There is no objection to our doing so, but I do not think there is very much gain now.

Since the time when the obligation was undertaken, and willingly undertaken, or at all events stoutly undertaken, by China to pay this Indemnity there has been so complete a re-arrangement of the whole international conditions and of the whole positions of various nations concerned, that it is impossible to carry ourselves back to the year 1900 without feeling that we are in a different international situation altogether. The rearrangement has been necessary and right among all the nations concerned, on whichever side they then stood or stand to-day. Further, since this obligation was undertaken there has, in the last few years, been a resolve, put into practice on the part of most of the recipients of the Indemnity, that the money should not be put to their credit in the ordinary way but that it should be given back, under proper control, to China, for China's good. There are those in China and, probably, elsewhere who say it would be better to wipe out the obligation altogether—a mere cancellation, The spokesmen on behalf of this Bill, on either side, have reiterated the assurance, in which I entirely concur, that that would be an undesirable thing to do, because China wants to fulfil honourably an obligation which is hers and we want to help her honourably to do it. But we desire that when China does thus fulfil her obligation the result shall be that China herself will be the gainer. We desire that the money should be used in China under China's direction—I do not mean without any control from this country, but under China's direct management and for China's good.

That is the line taken by the United States, by Japan, to some extent by France (though that must be qualified a little, I think), and, in theory at least, by Russia. Some of the other nations, which received less considerable sums, have not undertaken to adopt the course we desire to take, and have not themselves paid the money back. But we desire to adopt it and that attitude is supported on all sides in this country and overseas. The only substantial difference is as regards the manner in which the money thus refunded should be applied. There are certain words in Clause 1 of the Bill which have been the subject of a good deal of change and controversy from time to time in the desire to see how we can best help China. As the words now stand, we are definitely pledged to give the money to be applied to such educational or other purposes, being purposes which are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs beneficial to the mutual interests of His Majesty and of the Republic of China, as the said Secretary of State, after consultation with the advisory committee to be established under this Act, may from time to time determine. There is practically no difference of opinion among those who have the interests of China at heart in thinking that education is the thing which China at this moment most desires and can most practically bring about, and when we are told that the chaotic condition of matters in China, owing to the wars and the rest, makes it almost absurd to give money for educational purposes, because it will not be peaceably or nationally spent, I think the contention betokens a lack of knowledge of the facts with regard to China.

I am necessarily in touch quite constantly with those who can speak from first-hand experience about China, both Chinese themselves and some of our own fellow-subjects who are working in one way or another in China, and I am surprised to learn how possible it is for this kind of thing to go forward without the ordinary life of China being really interrupted by what would seem to us, if we judged simply by the newspaper accounts, to be the raging of a bloodthirsty war in every part of the country. It reminds us of what the historians tell us took place during the Wars of the Roses in England, when war went on from county to county, with all kinds of troubles happening from time to time, and all the while the ordinary affairs of the country, its agriculture and its education, proceeded very much as usual. That seems to be the case in China. I do claim to know something about educational progress in China, what is planned and what is being accomplished. I say without hesitation that I believe the money will be well spent in promoting education in China, and that Chinese co-operation with us will be wisely and intelligently given and for the benefit of China as a whole. Therefore, I am entirely in favour of the educational objects.

When, however, it comes to the "other purposes" the matter is not quite so simple, because all of us are aware that there are schools of thought, or schools of action and ambition, in China which have other ideas quite different from educational ideas. These are speaking of railway development and things of chat kind, which, though they would undoubtedly be for the good of China, stand upon a different level, inasmuch as they concern the interests of some who are not Chinese quite as closely as they do the interests of the Chinese themselves. I shall therefore hope that when we come to Committee the question of these words may be considered and that the clause, either by the addition or omission of words, may be somewhat altered and modified. Those words have a curious history, and any one who is interested in the psychology of politics will find it interesting to turn to the Report of the debates which took place in Committee of the House of Commons in 1924, and compare it with what took place last week.

In 1924 the Minister in charge of the measure was the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ponsonby. He was opposed by the present Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Ronald McNeill, who moved an Amendment to omit the words "or other" in order to bring back the Bill to its educational character. This was stoutly opposed by the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Ponsonby. Months passed and the thing has gone round, and now we have these two gentlemen on opposite sides of the House from those where they sat before, occupying exactly similar positions mutatis mutandis to those which their opponents occupied before. Thus we find on this occasion that the Amendment which was moved last year by Mr. McNeill is this year, in a slightly different form, moved by Mr. Ponsonby, but it is opposed by Mr. McNeill on the ground that, though he proposed a similar Amendment on the former occasion, it is an undesirable Amendment to carry. That, I say, is rather a curious example of the psychology of politics, showing the effect of the standpoint from which opinions are delivered or the conclusions reached.

That matter is the only subject which, so far as I know, is likely to be in the least controversial in regard to our giving, as we hope we are giving, effect to this Bill by passing it now. What we really care for, what I certainly care for, and what I think your Lordships care for, is that we should give evidence publicly in this way to the whole world to show that our attitude is not for the sake of commerce, nor for our own gain, not for our own advantage, but for the good of China, and that we should give effect to what it is now in our power to give effect to in order to promote the interests of China in regard to education or kindred work.

I shall probably find that it will be said, not perhaps in this House but elsewhere: "It is all very well for those who speak as the Archbishop does about education and to advocate it in China. We know that most of them think it will be a subsidy for missionary schools. There are missionary schools in China and they think they will get a subsidy out of this money." The best answer to that is that our foremost missionary society has passed a resolution in which they say that if anything of that sort is proposed they will not touch any of this money for the augmentation or advantage of the missionary schools which they control, and will not them elves share in the commission or controlling power of those who regulate the expenditure of this money, because they want to throw all the emphasis they can upon the policy that we desire to pursue of acting for China's good and through Chinese influence and Chinese agencies in the doing of it, in the largest and most generous way in which it can possibly be done, with no thought of advancing, except indirectly, the particular branch of educational progress with which they are identified. The missionary societies have nothing whatever to do with getting this money, or with the speeding of it.

I believe this gift that we are giving may affect for good or ill our whole relations with China for years to come, and I earnestly hope that we shall wholeheartedly vote for this Bill and thus bring to China a message, which I hope will be heard not in China only but throughout the world, of our desire to offer her this token or good will as evidence of our high hopes for her future. What is worth doing is worth doing well. Let us do it thoroughly. Let us give this money wholeheartedly. Let us see that it is expended to the advantage of China and show the Chinese that we are giving this money back to them for their own country's good.

LORD ARNOLD

My Lords, I would like to intervene for a moment or two before this Bill receives its Second Reading, and I believe I may be able to say something to make clear the position of the Labour Party in regard to the Amendment about which the most rev. Primate has spoken. As the noble Earl indicated, the Bill has been very much delayed owing to political happenings in this country in the last two or three years. Successive General Elections have intervened; otherwise this Bill would have been on the Statute Book at least two years ago. Circumstances, however, ruled otherwise. There is just the possibility of a misunderstanding on that account. We in this country understand the circumstances connected with these General Elections. We may not like General Elections, but we understand all about them. In China there is the risk that these delays will not be equally well understood and, therefore, our good faith in this matter may be suspected.

I think it is a matter for satisfaction that this Bill has now reached its final stages. This is a matter on which there may be certain differences of opinion, but for my part I should like to support the views of the most rev. Primate so far as they were directed to the application of this money to educational purposes. It has been said before, and I say again, that this Bill is really a gesture of friendliness from this country to China, and I think it will have its maximum effect in promoting good relations between the two countries if the money is used for education, and if it is made perfectly clear that there is no intention of using any of it for the commercial profit of Great Britain.

As regards the Amendment which was moved in another place, that Amendment was to confine the application of the money to educational purposes only, and to leave out the words "and other." It is true, as the most rev. Primate has said, that last year the Labour Government supported the Bill leaving the words "and other" in; that is to say, that the money was to be used for educational and other purposes. But the position has changed since then. In the first place, the composition of the Advisory Committee has been altered, and that makes a rather material difference to the prospects of what should be done with the money. In the second place, since last year there has been evidence of pressure for some of this money to be used for purposes which were not educational and were not, strictly speaking, social. I regret that the Government did not accept this Amendment, but I am glad to know it is their avowed intention, as stated in another place, to use at any rate the major portion of the money for education and that the balance shall he applied to objects which, at any rate broadly, are social objects.

At the same time, I cannot help thinking that the most has not been made of this occasion, for this is a golden opportunity, and that the maximum effect would have been gained in promoting good relations between ourselves and China by stating, without any reservation or qualification, that the money would be used for educational purposes, or, at any rate, for educational and cultural purposes. After all, the amount at stake is not very large. It is £400,000 for twenty-three years. That may seem fairly substantial until you consider that there are about 400,000,000 people in China. A very little statistical calculation would show that £400,000 a year spread amongst 400,000,000 people would amount, I think I am right in saying, to about a farthing each. So that there is not a great deal that can be done with this money, and I think that is an argument for applying it exclusively to educational and cultural purposes. Moreover, as the most rev. Primate has pointed out, the United States decided some time ago that this should be done so far as their money was concerned, and Japan has made a similar decision. But I think—and this is my final word—that there is still an opportunity of which I hope advantage will be taken, to see that that part of the British Indemnity money which is devoted to education shall not be spent only in Pekin, but that some of it shall be apportioned to and used by the provinces and provincial capitals. I think with this immense population of 400,000,000 persons all the money should not be used in Pekin but should be spread over a wider area.

Before I sit down, I should like to express my satisfaction that the Government have altered the composition of the Advisory Committee by the addition of another Chinese member. I will not say anything about the other alteration they made, because that is over. I think this is a very distinct gain, and I am sure it will meet with support in all quarters of your Lordships' House. I think it is a matter of general satisfaction that the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, has agreed to be the Chairman of this Committee. I hope the views I have ventured to express as to the money being used for educational purposes will be seriously considered by the Government. There is a large body of people in this country who take that view because they feel it is only in that way that the best can be made of the present opportunity.

THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER

My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate had I not been asked to do so by the Secretary of the Chinese Association for the Promotion of Education. The words "and other," in reference to the purposes for which the money is to be used, have apparently produced in China a very considerable feeling or doubt as to the bona fides of the British intentions. There is a real fear that they conceal a purpose of giving China fair words and of securing that the bulk of the money shall be used for the promotion of British and not of Chinese interests. I am very glad indeed that it has been said again and again—one hopes that it will reach China and that it will be well understood—that our purpose is really to benefit China and not to benefit England. Yet I would press upon your Lordships, that in benefiting China you are benefiting not only England also but the whole world. That, I think, is an aspect of this question which has not been sufficiently understood or realised by many thinking people.

You have been reminded this afternoon that China has a population of 400,000,000. I would also remind you that the Chinese are the most skilful of races, and that when they have been brought into competition with white labour they have excelled it. The reason of their exclusion from California, from Australia and from British Columbia, is not that they are inefficient workmen, but that they are efficient. You cannot exclude the Chinese from China. China has rich coal mines, she has iron of exceptional purity, and she must, with her great population, become an essential part of our great industrial system. Moreover, the Chinese have a quality which white men have not. They are very tolerant of monotonous toil. We are always reading about, and have the greatest sympathy with, the complaints that the great burden of the worker here is the monotony of his toil, that he never sees anything completed, but repeats the same small piece of work over and over again. That, no doubt, is a grievous burden to the white man, but to the Chinese it is an attraction.

Surely a race like that must become an essential part of our great industrial organisation. One part of the industrial workers has one standard of ethics, one standard of comfort, and one set of ideals, and another part has a different and a higher standard of ethics comfort, and a higher level of education. Will it not be inevitable that the lower will tend to degrade the upper? Are we not beginning the first chapter of a very difficult period of our history—competition between Asia and Europe? Surely this is a time when every effort should be made to bring up the level of civilisation in Asia to that of Europe. I would press upon the Government to give the money to those forms of education which help men to think more. There is always a danger that education will become mere technical education, that the man shall be improved as a producer of things and not as a thinker. I would urge very earnestly on the Government that the education which China needs now is the education to make men able to think and understand the great problems which must open before that great country the moment there is anything like peace and order.

At present the greater part of the education of China, as you have been told, is under the control of America. That is owing to America's national and personal generosity. The generosity of America to China has been perhaps unprecedented in the whole history of the world, but it has had one or two unfortunate results. I remember that, owing to a misunderstanding, I was left for some time in a Chinese school, and I read the books which the Chinese boys were reading. They were in English, and the school was being taught in English. It was a school wholly staffed by Americans. The history that was presented consisted of just a reference to Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror and to the foundation of America, and then you came to the great fact, which to the Chinese seemed the greatest fact in the whole history of Europe, the rebellion of the American Colonies against England. The influence of a great deal of that teaching has been to persuade the Chinese that they must proceed through revolution. The Americans always speak of the secession as a revolution.

I think it is most unfortunate that English influence and education have not been more felt and that we have not been able to give the Chinese what I believe is the great message which England can give to all countries—that a country can develop without any catastrophic changes by peaceful methods, and, above all, by steadily maintaining a high ethical outlook. I should be betraying my trust in my religion if I did not say at once that I believe the foundation of our national greatness and that of Europe has been in our religion; yet I would not for a moment have our religion taught to the Chinese by being forced upon them. I feel most strongly that the essential difference of outlook in China and in England on the industrial question depends really on the religious teachers of the two nations. The Chinese revere Confucius the Sage, just as we revere Jesus Christ the Carpenter, and that Carpenter has built a house which has sheltered all men in difficulties in many callings, and has enabled the industrial system of the West to develop in the healthy way it has done; where it has developed in an unhealthy way it is because His teachings have been disregarded.

THE EARL OF CLARENDON

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one or two more words at the conclusion of the debate. I think it may be taken that, so far as the Bill is concerned, all those who have spoken have blessed the Bill. Everything that has fallen from noble Lords will be brought to the notice of the Government. All the speakers have dealt with one point in connection with this Bill, and that is to plead that the fund should be applied for the purposes of education in China. I must remind your Lordships that this point was debated very fully in another place, and as a result the words in the Bill were not altered; that is to say, the Bill now contains the words which have been criticised by the four speakers this afternoon, the words "educational or other purposes."

There is, of course, nothing to prevent any noble Lord, when we reach the Committee stage, proposing an Amendment to leave out the words "or other purposes," but I do make a strong plea to noble Lords that this should not be done. In the opinion of the Foreign Office it is not desirable that the scope of the Advisory Committee's work should be limited in this way. We are quite ready and anxious that a large proportion of this money should be spent upon educational purposes; we desire to encourage that object; but in view of the fact that the alteration of these words in the Committee stage of the House of Commons was not pressed unduly and that the Bill has reached us with the words "or other purposes" included, it is highly undesirable to have a controversy with the House of Commons on this subject. I am advised that an Amendment of this kind is undoubtedly privileged and would be rejected in another place.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.