BRITISH PARLIAMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 18 March 1927, Page 2

BRITISH PARLIAMENT

[Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.] LONDON, March IC. Air AlacDonald iu moving the rejection of the I*ilnis Bill on the grounds cabled yesterday, claimed the Government had not shown a sound reason fojthe Bill. Where was the difference between the provisions of the Bill and forcing tobacconists to sell twenty-five per cent. British grown tobacco. Foreign producers would only laugh at the confession that British films cannot be produced without Government help. Asked if lie was aware there was a fifty per cent.- quota in Germany, Air AlacDonald said it was purely nominal; of the Government were adopting tlxe principle of bounty it should he for a definite limited period. Air Runciman described tbe bill as >—e craziest form of protection. The public were entitled to the best films wherever they were produced. Air Day said the bill did not protect the renter, exhibitor or public, but only the bad producer. Britain last year produced only enough for three per cent of the programmes and only one third of them were worth seeing. Air 11. G. Williams said exhibitors were not free buyers owing to the ittiquitious demand for block bookings. The supply of British films could be produced if the market offered. The debate was adjourned. QUESTION IN COAIAIOXS. LONDON, March _ 16. Questioned iu the Commons Sir A. Obimuberhiin stated that the latest information showed the assassinations of loyal Chinese foremen and workmen in tiie international settlement in Shanghai by agitators, who are preparing for a renewal of the strike were increasing. The protection of these men was primarily the responsibility of municipality. It was most undesirable that British troops there for another purpose should do what was the municipality’s duty. He understood American forces hid not landed at Shanghai, but were being held in reserve aboard ship. Descrilxing the recent rioting and looting at Wuliu. he said normally 145 foreigners including sixty Britishers, were there. He had requested Chen to protect British life and property. Air Kenworthy—“Are our nationals at Wuliu dependent on Chinese authorities for tile troops good behaviour.” '

Sir A. Chamberlain—-“ Yes. the Government is loth to interfere. It has dealt with the Nationalist Government on the basis that- it would discharge the duties of the responsibilities it hail assumed.”

LONDON, March 16. lii the House of Commons Major Sir C. Alorrison Bell (Conservative) moved a resolution approving of the Government's foresight and prompt action to safeguard the lives of the Britishers endangered by the civil war in China. Air R. Mitchell Banks, K.C. (Con.), seconded ' the motion. He said the Labourites’ argument was that in the event of a dispute with a foreign Power Britain was always wrong. When there was a dispute between two groups of foreigners, the Labourites backed those most hostile to Britain. He asserted that in the Indian Mutiny

the Labourites would have backed Nan Sahib, and protested against the relief of Lucknow.

Air Lloyd George said he was prepared to support the Foreign Secretary (Sir A. Chamberlain) in protecting British lives and property at Shanghai, but be deprecated this motion as it was making party capital out of the trouble in China. It was time enough to move votes of congratulation when the situation was clearer. The motion was carried by 241 votes to 11 ti.