Sessional_Paper_1926 — Page 94

90

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 be 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.

ers.

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- This in turn led to an attack on a police station by a mob 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 baton charges, but they were driven back by increasing numbers, and finally when the inflamed mob was within six feet of the stations gates, and Inspector 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 mob 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 judi- cial enquiry which was held subsequently. It 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.