CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL. (Hansard, 19 May 1925)

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
My Lords, I understand that this is the moment when I may intervene with a word upon this Bill. I understand that the Amendment which appears upon the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Parmoor—to omit the words "or other purposes" from 307 Clause 1 (1)—will not be moved, because the noble Lord is not present. In that case I suppose there will be no other opportunity of discussing the point which this Amendment would have raised. So far as I can at present see, I should not have been prepared to support Lord Parmoor's Amendment. My only reason for that attitude is that I am satisfied, and will perhaps be yet more satisfied, that the Government does intend that the reference to education shall have full emphasis, and that the words "educational or other purposes" shall not be taken as meaning that the money may be used for any purpose on earth that the Secretary of State for the moment may think desirable.
I am quite certain that what we want is educational progress, in the large sense of the words, and that the mass of the money which we are giving back again to China shall be used by the Chinese Committee for that purpose. I hope, now, that there is no question that the actual administration of that money will be committed to people in China and that, although a Statutory Committee is established in this country, the actual administration of the money and the application of the funds available shall be, as in the case of money given back by America and others, applied by the Chinese themselves upon the spot. That seems to me to be quite vital, and I earnestly hope that the mere fact of putting one or two Chinese members upon the Committee in this country will not be regarded as relieving us of the responsibility for seeing that this money is used by the Chinese themselves in accordance with the best type of Chinese wishes. We shall have control over what form that takes, but I cannot help hoping that the Chinese themselves will have the actual administration of the money.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
May I ask the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, whether it is not unusual, as is provided in subsection (4) of Clause 1, to provide that a Report shall be laid before the House of Commons only, and to omit any mention of your Lordships' House? Surely the Report should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, because, although this is a financial matter, yet we may discuss things even if we cannot vote upon, or determine, them.

§ THE EARL OF CLARENDON
In reply to my noble friend, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that during the Second Reading debate in this House, I made some inquiries and ascertained that the Amendment which was going to be moved by Lord Parmoor was really a privileged Amendment. To-day I have made further inquiries and find that as this is a Bill dealing with money, that is the reason why the Report is only to be laid before the House of Commons.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
I should have thought that, even so, it should be laid before both Houses. Surely we may discuss it, although we may not amend it.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)
Your Lordships are accustomed to Resolutions being laid before both Houses of Parliament, and I have been instrumental in suggesting that it would be wise to insert the House of Lords even where that Assembly has been left out, but I do not know whether, looked at very carefully and taking the Bill as it stands, this is a Report which should be laid before the House of Lords. Your Lordships will see that it is a question of an account to be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and to be laid, together with his Report thereon, before the House of Commons. I do not think that any of your Lordships have ever claimed to have any influence over the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is an official of the greatest importance, but who has dealings with the other House of Parliament only, because he has to do with matters of pure finance. I should not like to put my scanty authority on the matter before 309 your Lordships in any form, bat I should think that it would be very unusual for a Report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be specially laid before your Lordships' House.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
I will remain satisfied with having called your Lordships' attention to the matter.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
I am glad that attention has been again directed to what has been called a question of privilege, but it seems to me that it is stretching the question of privilege in the widest possible way if, when we are giving vast sums of money back to China, no opinion is to be expressed by this House upon the way in which the Chinese are to administer the funds. It may be that it is a question of privilege, but, if so, it reaches an extent of privilege which I should find it very difficult to explain and certainly extremely difficult to justify. I do not, however, claim to be an expert in the matter, and I suppose the matter has been thoroughly considered. I should like to know, however, whether the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who has often raised these questions, really feels that when this money is to be spent in China by the Chinese only, under the general control of the Secretary of State, this House should be precluded from expressing an opinion as to the objects to which these funds should be devoted. If it is a matter of privilege, then privilege covers a very large field indeed.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
The most rev. Primate has appealed to me, and I should be sorry to lay down any such principle. It is, however, a much wider question than that raised by my noble friend, but as there may be some doubt about laying this Report before one House only, may I enter into this engagement—namely, that the point shall be properly considered before the Third Reading, and if any reason is found why the Report should be laid before your Lordships' House, I will see that an Amendment is put down?