CO129-588-23 China- British extra-territorial rights- negotiations with China 28-3-1942 - 27-11-1942 — Page 140

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