CO537-3711 — Page 5

attitude on the 6th March as requiring a public announcement that the whole area would be under Chinese jurisdiction. The last paragraph of the same telegram expresses the view that if we show our readiness to embark on international arbitration we may be able to secure some modification of Chinese intransigence. It will be noted that the crux of the seemingly moderate memorandum left by the Chinese Ambassador at the Foreign Office on the 9th March (copy with Paper E No. 3 attached to draft submission) involves an overt recognition of Chinese jurisdiction. In (201) of Part II the Governor of Hong Kong expresses himself in favour of informing the Chinese that we have gone as far as we are prepared to go and that, since they cannot agree, we now intend to put the question of jurisdiction to the international Court. It was in view of this position that (203), which I have already referred to, was written. In the last paragraph of (226) on Part III Mr. Mayle has expressed his personal view that it would be a mistake to make any further proposals to the Chinese at the moment.

As to the actual suggestion made by

Mr. Beckett for designation as judge of a Hong Kong lawyer having both British and Chinese nationality, I am doubtful if this would commend itself to the Governors Hong King.

In the circumstances I would suggest that something on the following lines should be substituted in Mr. Roberts-Wray's draft reply for the words following "likely to be agreed to by the Chinese":·

"or am I sure without further consultation here whether such a solution would be entirely acceptable to us, but if the Foreign Office think that there is some hope still of finding a compromise solution acceptable to both sides, we should of course be very ready to consider it.

-

#1

Perhaps the words "saying perhaps that the possibility of finding a compromise solution is still being considered" - should then be added at the end of the penultimate sentence of Mr. Roberts-Wray's draft.

26.4.48

Page 5Page 6