ļ
says.
I was British Resident in two of the native States, and I know something about it. 1 want to call attention to the fact that the Japanese Government lately acquired an interest in the China Merchants' Steam Navi- gation Company. The Company has a charter that no foreigner may acquire any shares. Of course, the right hon. gentleman will say, "How can I prevent the Japanese "Government acquiring shares in trading "concerns in China ?" No doubt that is a very pertinent answer. Nevertheless, by the constitution of this Company, no foreigners are allowed to participate. We were the people to participate, if anybody, and not the we have a privileged Japanese, because position in the Yangtsze Valley. The Under- Secretary said he was not aware how British interests could be assisted. That is my com- plaint. There should be some knowledge of how to assist British interests at the Foreign Office. Some pressure should be brought to bear upon the Chancellories of foreign countries, commensurate with the great armaments, great power, and great position of this country. Take another instance, that of the Standard Oil Company; it has concluded an agreement with the Chinese Republic-if it is a Republic-which excludes all foreigners for a year from all oil concessions in China.
That is a very large order. It seems to me a very strange inversion of what should be our position in China-that any company belonging to any other country but Great Britain should be able to make an agreement with the Chinese Government excluding all foreigners from all oil concessions in the whole of China for a year. Take another case. When the United States retired from the Loan Consortium of the six powers there was a favourable opportunity for Great Britain to assert the position which I say she is losing
62
in China. It was not taken. When I put a question I was told that the other Five 1 Powers had divided America's share. know that it is exactly to that that I object. It is Great Britain that should have the lion's sbare of what was relinquished by the United States, and the answer only aggra. vates the offence. Then take the case of the recent railway concessions in China.
There
is the Kaomi-Hautschung Railway south- east from the frontier to Shantung. Shan- tung was understood to be the German sphere of influence. I cannot say that it is so expressed in any instrument, treaty or document, but it was always understood to be the case, and this is a new movement on the part of Germany in this direction, I am not satisfied, speaking for myself, and I do not think the British trade would be satisfied with the answer given to me on this subject. Take another case-and I am running through these concrete cases as quickly as I can that of the Anglo-French Investment Company, asking for the good offices of the British Minister for the share and debenture holders as the management was passing out of British hands. I was told the Foreign Office could not interfere in matters like that. Other Foreign Offices do interfere; they re- coguise, and why should we not recognise, as we are the greatest of commercial countries, what other Foreign Offices recognise, that the advancement of the commerce of their country is the chief aim for which they
exist. Why do we not acknowledge that? Take another case; the case of the French Banque Industrielle Loan of the China Merchants' Steam Navigation Company trans- ferring the Yangtsze trade, not only to French but to French and German bottoms, Germany having a large interest in this line.
I asked
a question of the Under-Secretary and he did
not know. The Foreign Office could not give me a satisfactory answer. This is a case in regard to an extremely important industrial enterprise on the Yangtsze, and yet I could not get an answer,
Take the case of opium; the last day that a debate took place upon that question the hon. member for Radcliffe (Mr. T. C. Taylor) was allowed to give a long history of the opium trade. Far be it from me to attempt to do anything like that; but again with regard to the opium trade, our merchants, British-Indian, and Indian merchants, have been entirely neglected for the benefit of the faddists who treat opium as if it was some thrice damnable product, and was quite io- capable of being devoted to any proper pro- poses. The real fact is, that a strong, violent, and unreasonable suppression of the sale of a drug which is of immense value in medicine and many other proper respects has led to an extreme development in the use of the deadly cocaine and thefar more mischievous morphia, and we have driven the Chinese to execute their own cultivators for carrying on a culti vation immemorial in their country to which no possible objection could exist. The hon. member for Radcliffe, in the hearing of the Foreign Secretary, actually took exception to the high profits the opium merchants were making. Since when has it become the duty of a Member of Parliament to object to British merchants making high profits, yet the representative of the Foreign Office did not rebuke the hon. member who talked as if the suppression of opium was a matter of unbounded satisfaction, and as if no other question were worthy of immediate consider- ation. I am glad that the Minister for the moment representing the Foreign Office is the Under-Secretary of State for India, because I believe I shall be able, without being out of
63
order, to refer to a speech made upon this subject by the Indian Finance Member in council upon this very matter when the Indian Budget was being debated in Calcutta, where, and not at Delhi, I am happy to say it is still being debated. The Minister said :—
"We are straightforward, but we cannot consent that in the guise of reform"
that all atoning word-
"revenue should be transferred from India to China without in any way benefiting China."
I shall leave the subject at once, but with great respect I was referring to the treatment of British-Indian merchants in China, and merely quoted this to show that the view taken by the Foreign Secretary is not the view held by a Minister who is more closely in touch than the Foreign Minister with these matters. I do think that the action of the Foreign Office in these matters has been a most ignominious surrender to the faddist, without the slightest regard for justice which should be done to other people engaged in a legal trade.
I do not propose--it would not be right for me indeed-to dwell upon the extraordinary barbarity, cruelty and op- pression to which the Chinese, in what is called the carrying out of this opium policy, have been driven to impose upon their subjects. There has been the shooting down of innocent people for no offence but the growing of the poppies. To my mind it is one of the most pitiable and terrible things, yet nothing touches the hearts of hon. gentlemen who represent the opium faddist, but to force The this policy upon the Foreign Office. Secretary of State knows that not only is there a vastly greater sale of opium and cocaine, but also that smuggling from Persia bas become a fresh trade in this country, and
504
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.