2.
285
Affairs could now-a-days bind his Government in perpetuity in this way. I argued absence of duration provision in extraterritoriality treaties with minor powers. He replied that it was quite another matter to omit explicit provision for duration leaving either party free to denounce than to provide specifically for continuation in perpetuity unless terminated by common agreement; in any case article being based on reciprocity it could without difficulty be renewed whenever required. Chinese are notoriously curious on this point about duration as a result of their exper- iences with "unequal treaties and it was quite impossible to move him. Nor did I feel I had a reasonable case. Finally we agreed on revised text contained in my immediately following telegram which was incorporated in agreed drafts exchanged on June 6th.
Minister for
Foreign Affairs urged very strongly (group undecypher- able) change "high contracting partics" for "His Majesty and President" and seeing no objection I agreed.
(2) I warned Minister for Foreign Affairs that
in accepting this text I was acting on my own responsi-
bility. I did so because I felt that the time had arrived when it was essential (in view of developments
at Canton etc.) for me to leave Nanking and wind up negotiations either by breaking them off or by exchi 3- ing agreed texts. Consequently I did not think it desirable to risk delay in further reference home while I felt we were to some extent at fault in introducin, at the last moment alterations of substance on points which we know Chinese cannot accept. L any case under exchange of letters it is all ad refercndum to His Majesty's Government.
Addressed to Foreign Office No.260, repeated to
Peking.