194, Lel 154 from F.O. to Narking - 2844/54/6. 24.2.461 175. Jel 111 from FO. to Nanking, -F 2774/1544/0
7.0.
25-278
16. Lel 188 from Nanking to FO, F2987/154/10 26-2-48.
х
(a), (b), (c) and (d) of
Mr. Mayle's minute of the 24th February summarised the latest developments as known at that date. Since the minute was written we have had 174 and 175 which expressed the Foreign Office view of the Chinese attitude.
A discussion as suggested in
Mr. Seel's minute of the 24th took place this morning at which Sir Sidney Abrahams, Mr. Seel, Mr. Mayle and I were present.
Sir Sidney Abrahams said it was difficult to forecast what view the International Court might take in this matter, but he expressed some doubt as to the strength of our case.
After discussion it was agreed to recommend that we should proceed on the following lines. We should agree with the Foreign Office line taken in (174). We should not yield to any Chinese suggestion which in effect would import acceptance of the principle of Chinese jurisdiction. We should stick to our line that the best solution is a compromise whereby neither side yields on its claim to jurisdiction, but whereby claims to jurisdiction cease to have practical importance
e. g. the Garden of Remembrance controlled by a Committee of Custodians of equal numbers from each side. We should suggest for consideration to the Foreign Office that, if the Chinese continue to insist on a solution which in effect gives themselves jurisdiction, then we would
-
propose
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.