Skip to main content

China

Volume 154: debated on Monday 15 May 1922

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Boxer Indemnity

64.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Boxer indemnity, when paid, is, or is not, the property of the British taxpayer; and, if it is, whether he will give an assurance that such funds will not be squandered upon educating Chinese students in England or any other foreign extension of our educational expenditure?

The Boxer indemnity is for damage sustained or military expenditure incurred during the rising of 1900, and the British share would be due to the Exchequer for the benefit of the taxpayer. On the entry of China into the War, indemnity payments were postponed for five years from 1st December, 1917, until 1st December, 1922. The attitude to be adopted by His Majesty's Government towards the resumption of indemnity payments next December is now under consideration in its various aspects, and I cannot anticipate at this stage what course His Majesty's Government will decide to take.

Cannot my hon. Friend give some assurance that it will not be presumed on behalf of the taxpayer that education of the Chinese student at his expense will be to his advantage?

Education

77.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why a Committee to consider the question of educating Chinese on British lines has been appointed; and what portion of the proposed expenditure is to be met from funds found by the British taxpayer?

The Committee has been appointed because the British community in China and well-informed opinion in this country believe the question to be one of considerable importance. Until it has reported, it is premature to discuss the question of expenditure.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that amongst the people who are ill-informed, to accept his distribution, he includes the whole of the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country, who are finding £103,000,000 this year for education? Are they not entitled to any little thing which may come in to help them to pay that enormous bill?

Is it a fact that the Committee has not met more than once during the whole year, and the last meeting was more than a year ago?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Americans spend a good deal of money in educating the Chinese, and if we did the same it would very much help our trading interests there?

I am aware they have spent a large sum of money in education in China and regard it as money very well spent indeed. As regards the meetings of the Committee, I will make inquiries.

British Missions (Ex-Enemy Countries)

66.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of British Missions, excluding the ordinary diplomatic missions, in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey?

As regards Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria, I would refer my hon Friend to the very full written reply given on 11th May to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith. There are no British Missions in Turkey, although there are various minor inter-Allied, organisations deriving mainly from Allied Military Occupation of Constantinople.

If I were to put a question on the Paper, would the hon. Gentleman be willing to give the amount of our interim expenses in respect of the Commission which we hope to recover from other countries?

I should be very glad to do that, but I shall probably have to ask for considerable notice, because I must inquire of another Department.

British Subjects, Florida (Protection)

72.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received yet any report as to the protection afforded at Miami, Florida, to British coloured citizens and to those missionaries who try to help them; whether the Rev. Irwin has yet received any compensation for the outrage committed upon him; and whether any other British subjects, white or coloured, have been forced to leave Miami by the threats or violence of the Ku Klux Klan within the last six months?

Reports have been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington respecting the cases previously mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. As regards the case of Mr. Irwin, the United States Government have informed His Majesty's Ambassador that diligent endeavours have been made to apprehend the persons responsible for the treatment accorded to this gentleman, but without result. No compensation has been paid to Mr. Irwin. I have heard of no case in which a British subject has been forced to leave Miami within the last six months.

Iceland

74.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any figures to show the number of merchants and other business men of British birth or nationality resident in Iceland; and whether, if there are any, he will consider inviting one of these to undertake the duties of consul or vice-consul?

According to the information available in this Department, there are no merchants or other business men of British birth or nationality normally resident in Iceland.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman, now that he is happily restored to this House, whether he will look into the question. There is much indignation amongst the fishermen who frequent those waters at the lack of protection they receive.

I know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means. I had made inquiries.

75.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he yet has any information with regard to the arrest, conviction, and fining of the British fishing trawlers, "Sethon" and "Mikado," in Icelandic waters; and whether he can see his way to consider the making of formal representations to the Icelandic Government against the harsh treatment of our trawlers visiting Iceland on their lawful occasions?

These trawlers were fined respectively 2,500 kroner and 2,000 kroner for being found inside Icelandic territorial waters without having their fishing gear stowed away as prescribed by law. The skippers pleaded guilty and acquiesced in the fines imposed. No grounds have been shown for making representations to the Icelandic Government in any of these cases.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the fine in the second case was 2,000 kroner—

And that these skippers by no means acquiesced in these fines. Complaints of harsh treatment by the Icelandic Government and the officers of the gunboat are very strongly felt?

I am aware that there is great dissatisfaction amongst the fishing community in regard to the matter.