yes. see 7.
Z
was wearing rather thin, and therefore in the recent
34
we were
reply to the Wai Chiao Pu we had been content merely to
refer to our note of 1924 instead of restafting our
attitude more fully; generally we felt that the best way
to work on the question nowadays was to let the Chinese
know that H. H. Government were still actively interested
in the matter and then leave it to the Companies to work
out a settlement on a practical basis of making it worth
the while of the Chinese to come to an agreement;
of course prepared to intervene if and when necessary, but
we could no longer undertake to do so effectively, as the
Chinese ne longer yielded to political pressure, unless
we happened to have some lever and, in reply to Mr
Prooters enquiry and reference to extraneous negotiations
9 such as those concerning Extra-territoriality, and said
that it was not our practice to link up unconnected ques-
tions for purposes of bargaining.
Secondly, referring to the question of the Hong
Kong office, which he had already mentioned to H. M.
Minister, Er Procter enquired whether Sir H. Lapaon
could see his way to enquiring of the Hong Kong (either direct or through the Foreign office) whether they, the
Hong Kong Government, would let the Chinese Talegraph
office continue to function after 1930, or whether they
would take the opportunity of the expiry of the Cable
Companies' agreement, which provided for its presence in
the Colony, to get rid of it for good; or, in other words,
whether the Cable Companies could use the continged
presence of the Chinese Telegraph Office in Hong Kong as
a lever in their negotiations. I said I would report
his request to H.M.Minister, but that, speaking personally,
Ι