3.
63
see Foreign Office telegram No. 45. I regret that I
can make no progress in this; while fully agreeing with principle enunciated, Hsu-mo insists that no Chinese government could make so derogatory a declara- tory declaration (sic). I accordingly left the point
for you to raise with Minister for Foreign Affairs,
9. Shipping. Isu-mo pointed out that opening
sentence appears to imply that british vessels will not necessarily comply with harbour regulations, etc.
He represented impossibility of Chinese government agreeing to phrase "except with consent of Captain, etc.". He also objected very strongly to phrase about British vessels not being compelled to carry Chinese troops, as derogatory and un(grp. omtd.). I said I could not discuss any changes of substance. However, in hope of making some progress we agreed, without commit- ment of any kind, in fimately following telegram.
>
?
my
10. On his side Hsu-mo had only two points to raise on agreed texts. First Minister for Foreign Affairs still wanted to delete second paragraph of declaration regarding legal counsellors (see Foreign Office telegram No. 99). I said I could not discuss
point, which Doctor Wang would have to raise with you. Secondly Chinese understanding was that assurance (? concerning) arbitration article would not be published; it would merely make them look foolish as sense was so obvious. I said personally that was also my understanding (as assurance is marked "letter" see your telegram No. 81 to Foreign Office).