4
the whole however, in spite of the lack of any
60806/29 Part II No.65.
་
do
C
•
serious consequence of this action I am inclined to
think that Sir C. Clementi's action deserves some
censure.
This feeling is reinforced by his later action
in connection with this Treaty. Instead of
carrying out the instructions of the Secretary of
State's despatch of 14th March that is, indicating
whether Hong Kong could accede, and if not, what
modifications in the draft were needed, Sir C. Clementi
demanded, in a telegram to Peking which was not even
repeated here, that in view of the importance of the
matter to Hong Kong, Sir M. Lampson should visit the
Colony before starting negotiations. He was told No 68 this was impossible and other arrangements for
NO. NoT96 NOT09
" No. 73
"
+
6
consultation with His Majesty's Minister on points
affecting Hong Kong were suggested. He at first
No 72) ignored these and twice repeated his demand for a
Nota
No 78
1086
No 59
do. do.Nos.92, 94, 95, 100.
visit from Sir M.Lampson. This was again turned
down with more emphasis and he was reminded that he
had not yet indicated what were the specific points
which Hong Kong wanted considered. (In fact, in the
telegrams he never did mention what these points
were). Finally it was arranged that two representa-
tives of Hong Kong should visit Shanghai and consult
there with Sir M. Lampson. The points they then
raised were of no particular importance with the
exception of one Article dealing with the treatment
of goods shipped from one Chinese port to another
via Hong Kong; it had all along been realised that
this closely affected the Colony and the Governor
had been consulted upon it by telegram two months
before, on the 2nd of March (before Sir M. Lampson
I believe). We had a further exchange of telegrams
about