THE HOPE THAT THE SHANGHAI AUTHORITIES CAN BE PERSUADED TO RETURN
THESE OBJECTS, WHICH ARE INTRINSICALLY OF SMALL VALUE BUT STILL PRECIOUS
TO THEIR OWNERS. YOU MIGHT AT YOUR DISCRETION ADD THAT
MRS. MARTIN'S JAILERS FAILED TO RETURN THE SUM OF YUAN 118 REMOVED FROM
HER ON ARREST, EVEN THOUGH ON HER RELEASE THEY MADE
HER SIGN A RECEIPT FOR THE MONEY.
/2. AN
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
2. AN APPROACH ON THESE LINES COULD FOLLOW ON A RENEWED ENQUIRY
ABOUT MRS. MARTIN'S PROPERTY, WHICH WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO MAKE AT
AN EARLY OPPORTUNITY, AND IN PARTICULAR BEFORE THE CHINESE CONFIRM
FORMALLY THAT HER PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONFISCATED. YOU COULD TAKE
THE LINE THAT SHE REMAINS ANXIOUS TO RECOVER HER PROPERTY WITHOUT
MORE DELAY AND SEEKS TO ESTABLISH WHETHER SHE CAN APPROPRIATELY
INSTRUCT THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANK IN SHANGHAI, AS HER
AGENTS, TO APPROACH THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ARRANGE FOR PACKING AND
DESPATCH.
3. A NOTE ON THE MOELLERS DISPUTE FOLLOWS BY BAG.
DOUGLAS-HOME
DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION
F.E.D.
CONSULAR D.
CLAIMS D.
LEGAL ADVISERS
H.K.D.
P
CONFIDENTIAL
י
Registry No. FEG 14/
DEPARTMENT FED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Top Secret Seeree
Confidential
Kerepicted
Unclassified
PR
PRIVACY MARKING
In Confidence
PRIORITY MARKINGS (Date)
"mmediate }"
Routine
Despatched
Date and time (G.M.T.) telegram should
reach addressee(s)
CYP
[Security_classification]
Ber Chair.
[
соба
Cypher
Draft Telegram to:-
N6.
Peking
(Date)
253
30/6
And to:-/
-if any
Privacy_marking -if any
[Codeword-if any]
Addressed to
telegram No..
And to
I
1
L
553
JJ IL - ---
...
CONFIDENTIAL
1/7
- 11-
=
R
PEKING 30 June
...(date)
PAZ PAZUDE
repeated for information to Go✓ HONG KONG
ווי ח
וייוייוי
but..
'LILIN LF
...יז.
.....-- ..---.
INJILLI
11. F
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
Repeat fto:- av Hong Kong
Saving to
Distribution:
Departmental
FED
Consular Claims
Legal Advisers
Copies to:-
12502
Ro 30/6. 122573576
Saving to
---------..ILL..
BILL
Your telegrams No. 330 and 444.
--
P
We see little point in reiterating Davies' proteat
at the confiscation of McBain's property, but while
regardingt
awaiting a Chinese explanation s
regards that of
Hra. Martin, we should like to take our attempts to
regain their personal jewellery a stage further. Ye
think it possible to draw a distinction between the
allegedly legal confiscation of household chattels,
the careless or vindictive retention of personal
trinkets.
and
Subject to your agreement, therefore, we
should like you to make the MFA aware, in the course of
(cat pad
other business and in low-key but explicit terms, that
we are surprised at the Shanghai authorities' failure
to return the personal jewellery taken from Mrs. Martin
and McBain, in spite of promises made at the time of
removal. We understami shes On their arrest
with dendmonds Mrs. Martin was wearing aid wedding ring,
Platinum
a diamond
/Pint
1
brand
athue-white solitaire diamond engagement ring, and a jade. in, a
artevant po-sibly a di mont brooch, whilst
McBain had on a signet ring and a watch. You could add
that we reserve entirely our position on the confiscation
of McBain's other possessions but that in the meantime
we feel obliged to draw the attention of the Chinese
authorities to an untypical instance of apparent theft
or negligence, and to express the hope that the
Shanghai authorities can be persuaded to return these
objects, which are intrinsically of small value but
still precious to their owners.
2. An approach on these lines could follow on a
renewed enquiry about Mrs. Martin's property, which we
would like you to make at an early opportunity, and in
particular before the Chinese confirm formally that her
property has been confiscated. You could take the line
that she remains anxious to recover her property without
more delay and seeks to establish whether she can
appropriately instruct the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank
in Shanghai, as her agents, to approach the local
authorities and arrange for packing and despatch.
3.
A note on the Moellere dispute follows by bag.
gold
bracelet
which was not too our knowledge water to the confiscation
at you discution Mou might add mightfadd
that Mrs. Martin's
jailers failed to
retum the fun
of Yuan 118
removed
fusum her
on arrest, even
though om has
retina ||
they made
receift for the
топой.
her sign a
·
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
(LING) INU92077 300mm 10/6 G WH.Led Gə 861
SM
30.6
CONFIDENTIAL
CYPHER/CAT A
TOP COF
LE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
TO PEKING
18 JUNE, 1970 (FED)
TELEGRAM NUMBER 235
FEE 14/1
CONFIDENTIAL.
ADDRESSED TO PEKING TELEGRAM
INFORMATION TO HONG KONG.
41
235 OF 18 JUNE REPEATED FOR
YOUR TELEGRAM NO. 444, PARAGRAPH 5.
WE AGREE. WE ARE STILL INVESTIGATING MCBAIN'S ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT WITH
MOELLERS AND MAY LATER WISH TO CONSIDER MAKING A FORMAL PROTEST TO THE
CHINESE. IN THE MEANTIME, GRATEFUL IF HOWELLS IN HONG KONG COULD SPEAK
TO MCBAIN OR HIS RELATIVES.
STEWART
FILES F.E.D.
CONSULAR D. MR. VILFORD
!
+
Pu
FR. 47
CONFIDENTIAL
Registry No.
DEPARTMENT FED
• Date and time (G.M.T.) telegum should
reach addressee(s)
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION PRIORITY MARKINGS
(Date)
Despatched
.....
ILJJ
Immedita
Confidential
Priority
Routine
PRIVACY MARKING
In Confidence
C
[Security_classification]
En Clair
[
Cod
Cypher
Draft Telegram to:-
No.
Peking
235 (Date) 18/6
And to:-
Plant & MINUTE YO
Repeat :
Hong Hong/Kont
Saving to:-
any
Privacy marking -if any
[Codeword-if any}
Addressed to
]
■-..-
+
CONFIDENTIAL
ו-זווי
--
PEKING......
LLLLL
18 June
ITTIN
telegram No.
...
LLLL
(date)
And To
repeated for information to
HONG KONG
PP.
..
Saving To.
AJI POP
Your telegram No. 444, paragraph 5.
We agree. We are still investigating McBain's
alleged involvement with Moellers and may later wish
to consider making a formal protest to the Chinese.
Howells [ve
if/H
In the meantime, grateful if/Hong Kong could speak to
MoBain or his relatives.
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
Distribution:-
FILES:
FED
Consular Best.
Copies to:-
Mr. Wilford
1800 br sm
1818307
SM
18.
+
RESTRICTED
Reference.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD
Mrs. Constance Martin, accompanied by her nephew, Mr. Clinton Jansen,
called in to see this Department yesterday afternoon. Mr. Stevenson and
I talked to them for over an hour.
2.
My letters of 2 July to Mr. Davies contain a sufficient record of the
conversation. The only point
on which her account was at variance with other debriefings was on the
terms of her sentence: she told us that she was definitely informed in
Shanghai that all her possessions were confiscated.
PR
(P. J. Roberts)
2 July, 1970
RESTRICTED
politica
EMT
font fin
مش
hit. Kadin kans
now frovided he list! I have anonded te druth пектр
невер
telegram accordingly,
1.29/~
suz
ہوئے
2/29/6
Mrs. Donza
Mr. Apple
All
s 2916
ADDI RAMA Mr. Stevensons Mr. Korgan (M. 30.6
CONFIDENTIAL
Rolerance
Property of Mr. McBain and Mrs. Martin
291F
I am grateful for Mrs. Denza's observations. Mr. Lambert has now
established that Mr. McBain demonstrably acted as Moellers' agent in
Shanghai from late 1953 onwards. Although we have no evidence that
Moellers formally a pointed him as such, they appear not to have queried
other references to him as the Moellers agent in Shanghai.
2. When Mr. Appleyard and I spoke to Mrs. Denza last Friday, however, we
agreed that Mr. McBain's connexion with Moellers in fact bears only
marginally upon our decision whether or not to go on record with a
formal protest to the Chinese. Since it is conceivable (though difficult
to verify) that under Chinese law the authorities are entitled to
confiscate personal property in respect both of alleged individual
crimes and, in the case of an agent, of alleged misconduct of his
principals, we would not be on strong legal grounds in protesting at
this confiscation. It is true that we could take exception to the manner
in which the Chinese conducted their trial of Mr. McBain, if indeed any
trial took place, but to base a protest on these grounds alone would be
a sterile exercise. I would therefore suggest that there is no point in
making a formal protest to the Chinese about Mr. McBain's property in
addition to the protest made by Mr. Davies, although we should
explicitly reserve our position to the Chinese.
3. We can nevertheless pursue the matter of
Kr. McBain's and Mrs. Martin's personal jewellery, even in the absence
of a strong legal distinction between this and their household goods, on
the grounds of humanitarian concern. I spoke this morning to Mr. Jansen,
Mrs. Martin's nephew: he promised to ask Mrs. Martin to let us have an
exact list of the missing jewellery and expects that she will do this
within one or two days. Moreover, Mrs. Denza recommends that since the
Chinese have not yet said that Mrs. Martin's property has been
confiscated we ought to take the initiative in asking for it to be
returned to her as soon as possible, thus taking Mr. Davies' earlier
enquiry (Peking telegram No. 330, paragraph 5) a stage further. I have
drafted a telegram to Peking and a minute to Mr. Wilford to take in
these points:
howard York. Matith's proared
[asid
[below]
Tel Submitation have issued.
#a7R2/mi
(P. J. Roberts) 29 June, 1970
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
Mrs. Dessa
Assistant Legal Adviser
Pse see
below.
telegram
2.
my draft minute and
Mr. McBain's property has
форат
confiscated.
befall jewellery
bushing
the
Mrs. Martin.
been legally
fate
seems likely
Their personal
an arrest
also taken from them
& not retunet.
3.
for minated earlier (foris 68A) to
he Appleyond that you thought
we should
go on record
and
crefiscation
esting against this
dice
as regards her malkin ( the rollers angle has been cleared) presumably
you would advise the same in
Mr. Martin
Whethe
t
-case
The
question is
in the meantime, it would be
advisable to
the
ask the Chinese to return
personal jeweller
My porotating
without simmetamsons.
at heir anfiscation on
The larger scall.
CONFIDENTIAL
PyRosam
(FED)
22 Jome 1920
CONFIDENTIAL
There is no harm in thean
Krying
But the distinction may
this approach
must be a valid me.
From a legal point of wind I fail to me
نفسة
the slightest difference
Juvellery
wly round of
Ats for
Ms.
J
fr
move
property fast and get
Thunfore
I think we should
oan hi
Sefore
we are.
have
not yet been officially notified of my confiscation
between personal household possessions. The disthithin is in the
thinning.
Martin is komerned are
forent
persibility We should unstainly wat allude to the If the pepently being
confiscated. With Mahain time lapse between his release and
there was a
вику
then confiscation of his property and an my
his personal effects
uno am
Suggest
retention of
with the confiscation,
anconnected
hawish
Lo
I don't su us
Zlin Janza
getting way for with this me
very
вет
25-June.
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
Far Eastern Department
Reference
- LEI
I sent you a minute some weeks ago about the talks which I had with Mr.
McBain and Mrs. Martin in Hong Kong, The main point was whether we
should pursue the matter of the valuables removed from both during their
captivity. What has happenend?
Mu
(K.M. Wilford)
19 June, 1970
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference
FRC 14/1
70
Flag A
Mr. Applovega
пароль
Mr. Stevensones ist Jagme
Mr. Morgen has cam 18/6 PR.
Confiscation of Mr. McBain's Property
Action is outstanding op several issues.
on severs
2. Peking telegram No. 444 of 11 June (below this minute) should be read
in sequence with Peking telegram
Flag B15 No. 330 at folio 65, an account of Mr. Davies
Flag
Flay Di
Flag ₤(LSA
earlier interview with the Consular Department. At that time the Chinese
stated that because of Mr. McBain's alleged offences against Chinese law
and in part compensation for their claim against Moellers, his property
had been confiscated and that he had been told this. The Consul made it
clear that Mr. McBain could not recall ever having been told and that it
was in any case incorrect to confis- cate private property in
compensation for company debts. Mr. Davies asked for a transcript of the
trial and was told to apply to the Shanghai authorities: there is scant
hope of their being willing to provide this.
3. As Mr. Denson says in his telegram under reference, paragraph 5, it
is surprising that the Chinese should now have returned to the matter in
order to volunteer information. But it is unlikely that we shall obtain
any more than this, though there is perhaps some hope for Mr. McBain's
medals (c.f. Mr. Howells' letter of 14 May to Mr. Appleyard at folio
67). Thus it is now for consideration whether we
+
(a) tell Mr. McBain's family the present position
and advise them that the charge against him should not be made public
(as Mr. Denson now suggea ta);
(b) give Mr. McBain's family details of the
charges, whilst allowing the confiscation of his property (and possibly
that of Mrs. Martin) to become public knowledge Mr. Wilford suggests
this in his minute of 18 May at folio 68;
(c) make a formal protest to the Chinese about
their confiscation of private property in compensation for company
debta. Mr. Appleyard's minute of 11 May takes up this point and Mr.
Wilford's minute also discusses it.
4.
Taking the last point firat, our Legal Adviser minutes that whilst in
her opinion we should make a formal protest to the Chinese we cannot do
so until we have resolved the controversial connexion between Mr. McBain
and Moellers. In addition there is the
CONFIDENTIAL
/question
CONFIDENTIAL
над.)
Flag. B
ting E
над в
Flag &
Flag
.B
question of whether under Chinese law the Chinese Government had the
right to proceed against an employee of a company to compensate for that
company's alleged crimes. Mr. Wilford suggests that we ought, subject to
consultation with Mr. Denson, to follow this point up on behalf of both
Mr. McBain and Mrs. Martin either in Peking or here. On the other hand,
since Mr. Wilford wrote his minute, the Chinese have officially
confirmed that Mr. McBain's personal effects are indeed legally forfeit.
(In fact Peking's first telegram with this news precedes Mr. Wilford's
minute by nine days; but I fear that the Files/Consular distribution may
have prevented a copy of it reaching him.) The manner in which the.
Chinese have presented their act of confiscation, at least in
Mr. McBain's case, seems to me to prevent our now depicting it - as at
first seemed possible as an act of common theft (though it may indeed
have been that in respect of Mrs. Martin's jewels). As Mr. Denson
suggests, the Chinese are now trying to emphasise the legality and
reasonableness of their action. Again, as Mr. Appleyard says, if the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.