CO129-588-23 China- British extra-territorial rights- negotiations with China 28-3-1942 - 27-11-1942 — Page 21

21

x

hul-still with the Treaty, he would have a night trelain it w? than that canin

Enfined ins

Y

This is not a communication to the Chinese Government, but a note to our co-negotiators the U. S Govt. setting out our intention of the lines on which we would, on present information, be prepared to approach the Chinese. There is a reference to the Colonies in the draft going to the Americans, and I think the position is correct as far as I could discover from enquiries on the morning of the meeting. I should add, however, that Ir. Beckett of the Foreign Office had in the back of his mind some memory of differences about coasting trades in the Colonies in the past, and it might be as well to clear this up before a definite statement is made to the Chinese Goverment. The point

is not so much a binding obligation as a tactical advantage on our side in approaching the Chinese to maintain the continuance of British ships' rights in inland navigation and coastal trades. (The last, of course, is purely academic at the moment as the Japanese are in occupation of China's coastline).

(2) The draft enclosed in 57 to the American Ambassador. This affects Colonial interests as far as Article 6 of the U.K. Treaty is concerned. The latter draft of it is found at 48 on this file, which differs somewhat from that circulated to Departments, but it also concerns the proposal that we should be ready to give the Chinese reciprocal rights as regards land holdings in the Colonies. On this I explained that there were three types of policy in the Colonies which might be relevant on this point

(a)

the legislation referred to in Hr. Emnens' note about the West Indies, i.e. the group of five Colonies in which land holding by aliens is subject to licence from the Governor;

(b) legislation like the Kalay Reservations Enactment which reserve certain types of land to certain categories of H.II.'s nationals as defined by the Treaty, and

(c) the position in the Kenya highlands, as set out in lir. Seel's note below.

The Foreign Office's immediate reaction to this information was that if we are to deal with the question of real property rights, it should be dealt with by a separate Exchange of Notes to meet the special difficulty concerned and not by an addition to the existing draft Treaty. Hence the sentence indicated in square brackets on page 2 of the Foreign Office draft to the Americans has been omitted.

It was the Foreign Office opinion that the Exchange of Notes should, if made, take account of the West Indies legislation, but Hr. Beckett did not consider that the position as regards lalay reservations (there are similar legislation in parts of India) and the Kenya highlands was really relevant to the issue since the restrictions in those areas applied to British subjects as well as Chinese, and if a Chinese wished to occupy land in say the Kenya highlands, he could be told with propriety that he was taking a right denied to three British subjects out of every four.

I also raised the point regarding Article 7, and was assured by lir. Beckett that the obligation to report Chinese nationals in areas would not and could not be taken as applying to Chinese nationals who were also British subjects and British protected persons. He agreed, however, that this point should

be