137
Draft note on message from the Department of State
The Foreign Office concur in the reply given to the
Minister Counsellor of the Chinese Embassy in regard to the
points enumerated in the second sub-paragraph of paragraph
1, although the only agreement relating to Woosung of which
they are aware was the Sino-Japanese Armistice Agreement
reached with the help of friendly powers in 1932, which
was obviously nullified by the subsequent outbreak of
hostilities. While regarding the Boxer indemnity as being
abrogated by the present Agreement, H.M. Government are
enquiring whether the Chinese Government wish to prolong
the validity of the Wang-Lampson exchange of notes of
September 1930, which was of mutual benefit to the two
countries.
The Foreign Office is also in general agreement with
the points set out in the third sub-paragraph of paragraph 1
of the Department of State's message of October 27th. Their
views are as follows. Questions of inland navigation and
coastal trade are not expressly covered in the draft treaty
presented to the Chinese nor would Article 2 (Article 1,
American draft) specifically abrogate any treaty rights
under which British ships have hitherto been permitted to
engage in inland navigation and coastal trade. The
question would remain however whether the provisions giving
these rights could (or would) be held by the Chinese
Government to be repeased by implication as being inconsistent
with the new position: vide Article 8 (2) (7 (2): American
draft). In any case, H.M. Government in the United Kingdom
have no desire to reserve, keep, or obtain from China any
particular rights or privileges that would not conform to
normal practice in modern international relations. The
existing treaty provisions under which British shipping
possess the right of engaging in the coastal trade and
inland navigation of China are unilateral and therefore do
not conform to modern international relations whether
G
or not it is to be regarded as being in conformity with
Page 140Page 141