246
(
the words of the Governor, that the British and Chinese
merchants alike were strongly opposed to the grant of the extra-
ordinary privileges asked for by the Chinese Maritime Customs
unless a substantial quid pro quo, such as that provided for
in Article 5, could be obtained by way of compensation. For
that reason, Article 5 and the modifications proposed by the
Chinese Government, and also the alternative suggested by you
of concluding the Agreement with the omission of Article 5
were first discussed.
5.
I had requested that full consideration should be given
at the Conference to the suggestion made by you in your despatch
No. 1488 (8/5Y) of the 11th October last addressed to the
Secretary of State, namely, whether it would not be preferable
if the proposed Customs Agreement could be concluded without
any reference being made to the navigation of Chinese territor-
ial waters by Hongkong steamers. Although this suggestion had
evidently been discussed beforehand, Sir Cecil opened the
Conference by reading your despatch and inviting careful con-
sideration of the suggestion, especially from the representatives
of the British shipping companies most interested in the general
question of coastal trade all over China. However, the sugges-
tion failed to obtain the support of the mercantile interests
represented, and was definitely rejected both at the first and
the second Conference for the reasons stated in paragraph 5
of Sir Cecil Clementi's report (see enclosure).
6.
I should report here that throughout the discussions
I directed my attention (apart from replying to questions
concerning Consular practice and views) to seeing that the
views presented in your despatch and in your telegram No. 55
of the 23rd October last were given full consideration.
Sir
Cecil
?