3
12 the cnclosure
in (19) on
30353/34 [enil.
4.
As regards the comment in paragraph 4
of enclosure No. 11 regarding the free entry of
Chinese into Hong Kong, such entry, as the
F.0. and the Consulate General at Canton are
aware,
is specifically provided for by Section
7(b) of Ordinance No. 8 of 1934. The reasons for
this exemption are given in Mr. Gent's minute of the 10th December 1934, under 11 in 30383/34en't;
They wise
and one would have throught that we sufficiently
obvious to the Consulate General. Mr. Orde does
not specifically mention this point; and in view
of the decision on 30383/34 not to communicate
the substance of Mr. Gent's minute to the Foreign
Office, perhaps this point need not be mentioned
in the reply to the Foreign Office.
5.
As regards the general question, the
Foreign Office refer to the attitude of the
Straits Settlements Government as shown in the
Governor's despatch to the Ambassador at Peking
of the 19th November 1934, a copy of which is in
2469/35 General. It would appear that the atti-
tude adopted by the Governor in that case was
a
reasonable
dictated by reason of the disinclination to give
a promise which could not be carried out effective-
ly without doing some injustice to British
shipping firms.
It may be noted in this connection that
this was also the view of the Crown Advocate,
Shanghai, as given in the 9th paragraph of his
minute of the 27th September 1934, which runs as
follows:
"I am further, strongly of the
opinion that no attempt should be made to
penalise British Shipping Companies for
bringing