Sir S. Wilson
Mr. Mounsey, Mr. Clutterbuck and I discussed Sir C.Clementi's telegram of the 26th and Mr.
304
(both in
this paper) Brennan'a telegram of the 25th July this morning. From the purely Colonial point of view we dislike the idea of an inquiry which may mean hongkong being saddled with responsibility for the Shameen incident. But the F.0.are satisfied that it would be impossible from an international and a Parliamentary point of view to refuse point blank to face inquiry, and my own conviction is that if we tried to do so we should in the end be driven to agree to one and we should enter on it at a great disadvantage as culprits reluctantly dragged before a court we could no longer dodge. Also the F.O. consider that the request is not a genuine one but is put forward to trap us into a refusal which would be the starting point of a fresh agitation against us. After full discussion we agreed that the best course was not to refuse or to try to deday, but to accept on conditions which would ensure that either we got a substantial advantage in return or that the Chinese retreated from their own proposal without our incurring the odium of a refusal.
Accordingly we propose in effect to reply that we will agree to an inquiry if they first call off the boycott, provided that the inquiry is impartial and confined to questions of fact.
If an inquiry takes place
whether it will
J
•
and we doubt
we feel that we must not risk having
an American who will sell us as the American judge
sold us over Shanghai. Hence we have invented a
formula designed to exclude an American from the
outset.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.