Page 102
92
Page 102
(This is
correct
Bee telegram to Foreign Office 1110 of 20/9/4$.
Brief record of discussion re taking over of Shanghai Municingă Government at lunch in Mr. Wallinger house on Timrsday 201
- September.
Present in addition to Mr. Wallinger: L.H. Lamb, (Ohiness Counsellor), H.C. Kiang (Chiang) and TSANG TSZA 180 (Chang shih-ahu), one of the special commission of three lawyers. Mr. Chang had been Municipal Advacate of the Shanghai Municipal Council.
Mr. Lamb asked at the beginning whether the proposed visit of these three lawyers was to be kept secret or at least confidential. The reply was that they had just been gazetted by the Executive Yuan and that an item relating to their mission had appeared in today's Yi Shih Pao, the Catholic daily. Mr. Chiang added that the Chinese Government also intended to do a little publicity about this move.
and trans-
lation
of Ex tract is
Mr. Wallinger outlined the position with special roference to our reasons for attaching importance to a formal and regularised transfer of administration, with official acceptance by the taking over of administra attach- tion of the assets and liabilities.
ed). L.H.L. 22/9.
Mr.Lab suggested as his conclusion that it might be found that the Shanghai Provisional Council of 1941, whose composition and origin he outlined, was the appropriate survivor of the old regime. several of its councillors were likely to be in Shanghai, viz. Trevor
He added that Powell, who had been interested in staff questions (he actually resigned before Pearl Harbour, being succeeded by co-option by) Eric Pollock of Jardines, Halay of 1.C.I., Liddell (Chairman); also one Swiss Van der Crone and one Netherlander, Carriere, who had however resigned similarly to Powell. Also a good Garman, Glathe.
Mr. Tsang here revealed that he had already given some thought to this item as he challenged the constitutional status of the 3.P.C., 1.e. bad it been properly recognised? Mr. Lamb said the Chinese Government had been fully aware of the reasons for its creation and of its composition (it contained four Chinese members representing the Chinese community and their ratepayers association) and it had been able to function with opposition, though so far as he was aware the Chinese Covernment had neve signified their approval in writing. At the same time was written approval necessary? He. Mr. Lamb, did not happen to know what happened in this respect at the time the constitution of the Settlement was radical- ly changed (in 1931 ?) by the addition of Chinese members of the council. Chang obeerved that they would have to search for evidence of official Chinese disapproval. Mr. Lamb suggested that the point was not after all so material, as if it were not the 8.P.C., the appropriate body would in his opinion be its predecessor as S.M.C., which more or less consisted of the same persons. Chang appeared to accept this statement.
He definitely concurred with Mr. Lamb'e understanding that (1) the Settlement had not been actually handed over by the 1943 treaties, which rather represented a declaration by the Powers of recognition that these concessions etc., should be returned to Chinese sovereignty, and perhaps less definitely that (2) the Land Regulations had not been abrogated by the 1943 treaties. (It is difficult to see however how he could prove on reference to the text that either Article 2 or 4 which seen to be the relevant items eliminate the Land Regulations even by implication, as they do not really "autliorise H.M. to exercise jurisdiction over" British nationals etc.).
Page 102
Page 102
The/..
Page 102