118
2
stock of labels, and is now discontinuing business after selling out its present small stock.
His Majesty's consuls at Chinanfu, Nanking, and Swatow have reported the issue at their request in their respective districts of proclamations forbidding the use for native-made cigarettes of the brands of the British-American Tobacco Company. This company is fully alive to the advantages in the way of advertisement afforded by this procedure.
In contrast to the above instances where protection was more or less successfully accorded to British and other trade-marks, I have to record a case of failure to obtain redress for the imitation of a British patent. Complaints were received in 1908 and 1909, both from Foochow and from Canton, that imitations of a lamp known as Kitson's patent light were being manufactured and sold by Chinese coppersmiths. In some instances the whole lamp had been copied; in others an essential part of the lamp bad been purchased from Messrs. Kitson and Co.'s agents and fitted to an exterior of native manufacture. Although there are no treaty provisions for the protection of foreign patents, as distinct from trade-marks, in China, it was evident that the natural rights of the British manufacturer were being infringed; and repeated endeavours were made by His Majesty's consul at Foochow and by this legation to induce the authorities to issue a proclamation forbidding the manufacture and sale of these imitations, on the broad ground that an injustice was being done which it should be the desire of the Chinese Government to redress. I regret to say that the Wai-wu Pu have finally declined to take any further steps to prohibit the sale of the native lamps, declaring that they do not infringe any British trade-mark and that they are not similar in form to the Kitson lamps. It is to be noted that in this case there is no question of fraud, as the native lamps do not profess to be anything but imitations. The distinction seems to mark the limit of successful intervention, under present conditions, to protect British industrial property in China.
I have, &c.
W. G. MAX MÜLLER,
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL
[10360]
No. 1.
89
[March 25.]
SECTION 1 JU 10
Mr. Max Müller to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received March 25.)
(No. 56.) (Telegraphic.) P.
CUSTOMS succession.
Peking, March 25, 1910.
The appointment mentioned in my telegram No. 53 of the 20th instant was confirmed by a decree issued on the 22nd March. It further approved the Revenue Council's memorial appointing Sir Robert Bredon to a post on the Revenue Council, and promoting him to the rank of a first-class official. Liang Tun-yen is president of that council, and as no communication of the decree was made to me I proceeded at once to see him, and enquired whether the news I had seen in the paper as to Sir Robert Bredon's appointment was accurate. On his replying that Sir Robert Bredon was to be appointed adviser to the Council of Revenue, I protested that this constituted a breach of his assurance to me of the 4th February and of the spirit of the agreement made on the 19th February, 1908, with His Majesty's Minister. Liang Tun-yen endeavoured to argue that his assurance had only been that Sir Robert Bredon would not be given a post from which he would be able to control the inspector-general, and that this assurance was never intended to cover his appoinment to the Revenue Council. I said that I distinctly recollected asking him if the rumour I had heard of Sir Robert Bredon's probable appointment to the Revenue Council, where he would have the power to control the inspector-general, was true, and that he had then disclaimed any knowledge of such a plan, and said that if Sir Robert Bredon was to receive any preferment it would only be of a purely honorary nature. His Excellency explained that the post carried with it no power of control over the Customs, and was only honorary. I replied that such an interpretation was not acceptable to me, nor would it be accepted by any reasonable person. He admitted that he had been aware of the proposal all along, and endeavoured to excuse himself for keeping me in the dark by pretending that the matter was one which did not concern His Majesty's Government. The Chinese Government have, in my opinion, misled me deliberately, and have all along intended to evade the agreement of 1908. When Liang Tun-yen, who was somewhat excited, said that he thought His Majesty's Government's interference in the matter was going too far, I replied with the request that he would lay my views before the Chinese Government, and said I would refer to you for instructions.
In connection with your telegrams Nos. 46 and 47 of the 24th instant, I had previously requested an interview with the Grand Councillor Natung, which is fixed for Monday, but Liang Tun-yen proceeded to discuss the subject of the communication made by you through the Chinese Minister, which his Government were still engaged in considering. His Majesty's Government's action and its probable effect on Chinese public opinion seemed to impress his Excellency much. He asked me whether it implied à change of policy. I replied that I could only express my private opinion on this point, and that was that the generally unreasonable attitude of the Chinese Government, their repeated refusals to settle outstanding cases on a friendly basis, their disability or disinclination to force the provincial authorities to admit well- founded claims, had at last begun to wear out the patience of His Majesty's Govern- ment. To my mind we should be conferring a real benefit on China if by any action of ours we could strengthen the hands of the Central Government in dealing with the provinces.
[2675 bb-1]
Page 120Page 121