8
No. 5.
STATEMENT
MADE BY THE
BRITISH DELEGATION
AT THE
MEETING OF MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY, 1926,
The Chinese delegation, in putting forward their statement on the origin of the anti-British boycott in the Liang-Kuang, have asked for our views on their presentation of this issue before proceeding further with the business of the conference.
We should have preferred to have heard the Chinese delegation's whole case, in- cluding their proposals for a settlement, before being called on for a reply, for we feel that the sentiments they have now expressed and the answer which must inevitably he evoked from our side have already been set out in despatches exchanged between Bri- tish and Chinese officials, and have been fully discussed in the press of both nations, and that to continue the discussion in this manner by the exchange of statements intended for publication will only exacerbate public opinion and render difficult the amicable ad- justment of joints of difference, which it is the object of these negotations to achieve.
If, however, the Chinese delegation feel strongly that the document read to us at the last sitting, full as it is of controversial points, calls for a reply now, an answer can and must be made.
The Chinese statement takes the causes of the boycott back to the incident of May the 30th in Shanghai. It is not within the province of this delegation to deal with affairs which have occurred in Central China, nor is it possible to do so adequately with- in the scope of a short statement, but the following are some material facts which have been omitted from the document to which this is a reply.
The Shanghai trouble arose out of labour disputes in Japanese cotton mills, with which the British were not concerned. A demonstration was held by Chinese students in the busiest streets of the International Settlement in defiance of by-laws designed to secure the preservation of order and the free circulation of traffic for residents of all nationalities. The Settlement Police, who are employees of the International Council. endeavoured to do their duty and maintain respect for the law by arresting the ringlead- ers. This in turn led to an attack on a police station by a mols of between two and three thousand people, of whom a few of the leaders were students, but many were loafers and bad characters from the less reputable quarters of Shanghai. The handful of police on duty tried for some time to disperse the crowd by persuasion and then by haton charges. but they were driven back by increasing numbers, and finally when the inflamed mol was within six feet of the stations gates, and luspector Everson, the officer in charge. feared that his men would be overwhelmed and the station and its armoury captured, as had occurred once before, he ordered a volley to be fired.
The resulting casualties must be deplored by all, but unless Inspector Everson " was to abdicate his functions as a police officer and make a criminal surrender to the moh of the interests in his charge, which, be it remembered were mainly Chinese, it is difficult to see what else he could have done in the circumstances, and his personal conduct in the matter was vindicated in the fullest manner by all three judges in the international juli- rial enquiry which was held subsequently. Ii merely clouds the issue to compare this affair with what occurred on its anniversary in 1926, when disturbances were definitely expected, and a large show of force was prepared as a result of previous experience, to deal with any trouble which might arise.
This then is the incident, which, distorted out of all semblance to the truth. was used to arouse anti-British feeling in all parts of China. Outbreaks against small and de- fenceless communities occurred in Chinkiang, Kiukiang, Chungking and a number of other places, where mobs unrestrained by the local authorities destroyed the property and menaced the lives of British subjects.
9
At Hankow a crowd of roughs, who had been worked up a pitch of frenzy by student agitators, made a determined attuck on the foreign quarter. The small British defence force, in their desire to avoid further bloodshed, rentained passive until the last possible moment, and it was only after the mob had already, in its blind fury, murdered one of the foreign residents, and was in the act of invading the quarter where the others had taken refuge, that shots were fired to repel its advance.
It: has bean necessary, briefly to recall these events in order that the subsequent tragedy at Canton should be viewed in its proper setting. Anti-foreign feeling was con- ning high in this province by the middle of June, 1925, circles in Canton and Hongkong on June the 22nud that an attack was in he made on Sha- It was delinitely stated in Chinese meen on the following day, and prominent Chinese actually took refuge in Hongkong and made other dispositions to meet such an eventuality. Furthermore, on the morning of June the 23rd, two motor cars were distributing leaflets throughout the City signed by the Students' Union of the Military School of the Kwang-ting Army, inciting all and sundry to rise and chase out the foreigners.
The Shameen residents therefore, having in mind these facts and the events which had just befallen their compatriots in other parts of the country, had every reason to fear for their own safety, and to prepare for their defence,
In these circumstances the Canton authorities permitted on June the 23rd, a very large demonstration to be conducted on the Shakee bund facing Shameen, and this de- monstration included armed troops from the military academy. During the course of this demonstration fire was opened at Shameen from the Shakee side.
We notice that in the statement of the Chinese delegation, an attempt is made to pass lightly over the question of responsibility for the first firing. It is suggested that it is a point of secondary importance” and “is not a capital issue" and stress is laid instead on the intensity of the fire returned by the people who found themselves thus attacked. But we consider that the question of whose act gave rise to the tragedy is of vital im- portance, and on this point we must insist that not only the evidence of British and French witnesses attest the fact that the shooting began on the Chinese side, but there are also on record written statements by the Danish and Swedish Consuls, and American citizens, who were present at the time, and assert definitely of their own knowledge that the first shots were fired from Stakes. The shots were returned in self-defence by the British and French forces on Shameen, who as explained above, had reason to believe that an attack on the island was intended, and in this one action it may be noted that the state- ment of the Chinese delegation does not attempt to explain why the British have been made the sole objects of resentment for incidents in which they were not the only foreigners concerned.
The deaths and casualties caused amongst the Chinese on June the 23rd are a matter for sincere regret, but the grave responsibility for the sacrifice of those lives must rest with those who wantonly began the attack, and with the Chinese authorities, who disregarding the folly and danger of their action, allowed inflammable material to be placed ready to the hands of agitators seeking for an opportunity to cause a conflagration.
The Chinese delegation, in their definition of the ensuing boycott of British trade. have implied that this movement is a voluntary abstention from all commercial relations with the British, and they add that the boycott has been sustained by the Chinese people for more than a year. With great respect we say most emphatically that that definition and that statement are entirely at variance with the facts,
The abstention is not a voluntary one. It is imposed on an unwilling people by a small but powerful organisation of persons who maintain the boycott by force of arms and who do not hesitate to shoot down their own fellow countrymen when the latter try to contime those normal relations which ongin to exist tween close and friendly weigh- bors, and which will certainly, sooner or later, burst through the artificial and ecoño- mically unsound barriers which prevent their free action at present. It would be easy to test the correctness of this assertion, and we are quite sure that if these barriers were removed the current of trade and friendly intercourse would flow freely again, bringing mutual benefit to Chinese and British alike.
1
་ །
346