3511
and.7 an
62847/29
12547129
51
62347/24
50 72751/30
ein 34
72751/30
on (18)
agitators?
2.
What would be the effect of such an agitation
on British interests generally in China?
3
The second question is whether a solution on the lines of the July 1929 draft would be commercially beneficial to Hongkong? Sir C. Clementi in his despatch of August 1st 1929 and you, in paragraph 7 of your tele... grem No. 366 to Shanghai, appeared to have no doubt that it would. Later on, however, the Hongkong Government suggested that their only real concern was to avoid friction and fulfil a moral obligation. (See Hongkong telegram or April 29th).
grams Nos. 134 of March 27th,
About the same, time your tele-
104 of April 15th and 16357
my 4579951/30
of May 7th indicated some uncertainty in your views on
72757/30
this point while in your private letter to Sir W. Peel of -June 13th you appear to advocate that the Agreement should be buried straight away. What are your considered views
7275/130
20
on this point? Do you concur in views expressed in Foreign Office letter to Colonial Office of January 18th enclosed in my despatch No. 89?
4. The third question relates to Hongkong's insistence on Article V as originally drafted. You have strongly advocated that the question of Inland Water Navigation should be excluded from the scope of the proposed agreement and I assume that you concur in the view expressed in Foreign Office despatch to Colonial Office of October 18th, 1929 (see my despatch to you No. 985) that any increase in the number of Chinese owned vessels navigating the inland waters of China under the
62547/29/
British
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.