THE APPROPRIATE ARCHIVES DIVISION FOR RETENTION
+
L
I
16352
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
Registry No. F25/44
FE Dept
DEPARTMENT
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Top Secret
Secret
Confidential
Restricted
Unclassified
• Date and time (G.M.T.) telegram should
reach addressee(s).
PRIORITY MARKINGS
(Date)..
Despatched
Aso
Flash
Immediate Priority
M
JOSE
А
35
HI+N+He has...dem----
-
CYPHER
Security classification" --if any
[Se
[
Privacy marking -if any
]
Confidential
..
...---
[Codeword-if any]
Addressed to
ILII
PRIVACY MARKING
In Confidence
En Clair. Code Cypher
Draft Telegram to:-
Hong Kong
No.
HALL
(Date)
1817
And to:-
119
H
telegram No.
And to
repeated for information to
Saving to...
Pro ZODELL.
THE
Kang Hong
(date)
Repeat to:-
Saving to:-
Distribution:-
Dept:
Copies to:-
Your telegram No. 1321: Banks in Shanghai.
We have been in touch with both the Hong Kong
and Shanghai and the Chartered Banks here. The
former have confirmed their desire to withdraw from
Shanghai, but the latter say it is their intention
to stay onothera
2.
Both Banks have been informed in confide
L.
baragraph
nfidence of
the gist of the passage in the message from the
Foreign Secretary seanlegg to th
the
Imy Pelegram No 1on1story
Chinese Foreign Minister
1801
which dealt with British subjects in China) "Helevant
passage reeds as follows, after the suggestion
salone be witidrawas
*1 Fould be prepared to allow all members of
your diplomatic mission and other official organisa tlone with their
dpendents and staff and any other ditizens of the People's Republic of
China in
t
Anited
3. We have
United Kingdom who wished to leave this country
to d so, the clear understanding that you
would allow all British subjects in China,
diplomatic, official or others who wished to
omatic, offic
Leave to do so at the same time.
#o Bust await Chinese reaction to this
message before proceeding further.
+ CA
We have made it clear that
3.
There is
w
gensomker that
the
he.
Chriese will accepte such
arrangement. The matter
omn
Lan
considerat further when the
MESSAGE
Chien seantion to the neenage
is known.
We have no repeat
confidential
I means
with Self.
of communicating
(9430) D4.033246
G.W.B.Ltd. Gp.14)
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
E
Reference.
wild(34
RECEIVED ARCHIVES
1967
Mr.
Claims Dept.).
Samen (Chains
Please
Qu
top letter inside file.
I should be gratiful if you
could
cheek fro
tthe
claims
the damage
let me
have details.
Писто
Lecou. 24/3
2/8.
involved,
and where
took place. (paragraphs
2
a 3). and
Botharland
5.69.
%
Request to Regy. to obtain all files.
Mr Styrlande. (F.E..
now. (F. Ev. Dept
Dept.)
B31/8
I am attaching all our files
as for attached list on the MESNY claim.
Would you please
L.R.R.
return them direct to
The relevant papers are
or follows
Feng A⋅ on H.G.1101/5 (1961)
+
flagged
in the
H6.1101/277 (1961
Claim in respect of property. International Settlement, Shanghai.
Frag.B...
Are does. Oza
+
Payment arrangements
in
For what it is worth in this context the usual interpretation of
effective compensation is that is should be convert ble currency but the
advice of Legal. Depts should be sought before
is conveyed to Peters in Peking.
opiacion
incon
伉
C beacon Dept Дере
3013/67.
Papiès attached as requedect
лед
23/8/6/7/
daims Regy,
Room 515,
LKR
1st Avenue the
+
L.R.R
Holbera
1
Please could you send over Japan HG 1233/70 (1952) *
HG 1233/102 (1954) *
China HG 1101/5 ts (1955) I
Whi 1103/15
(1961) X
HG 1101/277
C196/α
Jij Hi 1233/6
HG 1101/176
Crass) X
(1955) X
These RPS
ӣ
are for Mr. STEDMAN
ù claims department.
Thank
you
Alethin
Rt Regy: "/
32
(1115/67)
RECEIVED IN
ARCHIVES No.31
2 JUL 1967
F25/4
My Dear Jolin.
ما
CONFIDENTSIAL
Enter
Mr. Marland Рос ребен
Office of the British
Charge d'Affaires,
PEKING.
17 July, 1967
Fes/4
3
34
த
Derrick Self of the Hong Kong Bank in Shanghai had telephoned us a few
days before we received your telegram No. 600 (our reply to which, No.
574 to Hong Kong, you will have seen), and had told us. thert the
"inquisition" into the Bank's affairs had begun.
2. He said that besides the I.C.I. case two charges had been made which
involved former representatives of H.M.G. in Shanghai. One charge was
that in 1961 the Shanghai Branch of the Bank had helped a Mr. Padilla, a
Filipino still resident in Shanghai, to open an account in Hong Kong,
and that in October of that year the sum of £550 had been paid into that
account by H.K.G. The Chinese allege that at this time Mr. Padilla was
employed by the British represen- tative in Shanghai, and claim that if
the payment was made in connexion with this employment, it should have
been made in China and in Chinese currency.
3. The second charge concerns a British subject called Mesny, who lived
in Shanghai until his death in about 1963. It appears that in 1961 Mr.
Meany received from H.M.G. a sum in respect of "war damage claim", which
was paid into his Hong Kong account. The Chinese are querying whether
the payment was in connexion with damage to property in China; if so,
they allege that it should have been made in Chinese currency.
4. Self made it clear that he had not been told by the Chinese to inform
us of these cases, but was doing so on his om initiative simply to keep
us in the picture. We told him that we would investigate our records to
see if they threw any light on these allegations.
5. The only additional information that we can provide from our files
and our memories is as follows:-
(a) Padilla
Fadilla, whom several of us had met on social occasions in Shanghai
before he disappeared from view last summer, was a former employee of
the Philippine Consulate-General there who stayed behind when the
Filipinos left. We know nothing about his having been employed by us in
1961. It appears however that last year David Brookfield (then our man
in Shanghai)
J.B. Denson, Esq., 0.B.E., Far Eastern Department.
/considered
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
2
*
considered employing Padilla to sort out the old Philippine archives
which had been left in our custody. Although this never came to
anything, the Chinese found out about it from Padilla and were nasty to
Brookfield about it at the time of his departure. I enclose a copy of
the relevant extract from Brookfield's account of his interview with the
Foreign Affairs Department in Shanghai.
(b) Mesny. From a letter which has reached us since Peter Hewitt's
departure from Shanghai, it appears that Hewitt was corresponding with
the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong in their capacity as
trustees of the Kesny estate. We know nothing more about lir. Mesny,
however, and Hewitt has recorded that he destroyed the Shanghai file on
the subject before leaving.
6.
We shall not pass on to Self even this rather worthless information
since we think it best that his briefing should come to him from the
Bank in Hong Kong. It seems sensible to have no discussion of this
subject with Self, both to avoid confusing him with instructions and
suggestions from various sources (see Hong Kong telegram to us No. 330
of 12 June, para. 3) and to prevent our getting involved as far as
possible.
7. We should be grateful for any further information you can dig up
about these matters either in London or Hong Kong.
I am sending copies of this letter to Michael Wilford and to Ben Thorne
(Acting British Trade Commissioner in Hong Kong).
ever
Your ther
(T. Peters)
CONFIDENTIAL
L
1
Extract from record of meeting between Mr. D.G.H. Brookfield and Foreign
Affairs Department, Shanghal on ó July, 1966
Mr. Yang:
The second point is that according to a report made by a Filipino, V.
Padilla, to the Public Security Bureau here, you have been entrusted by
the Philippine Government to sort out the old archives of the
"Philippine Office" and you want to employ him temporarily for the work.
The "Philippine Office" is an illegal establishment and you being an
officer of the office of the British Charge d'Affaires Taking Care of
British Nationals' Affairs in Shanghai it is clearly beyond your scope
to handle any matters of other nationals. In September, 1965 you were
told that you should not overstep the scope of your function. This
constitutes an open and flagrant violation of the Geneva verbal
agreement and is also against the scope of your functions told by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Department. Your
doing so is an out-and-out violation. You must therefore stop this
immediately and give assurance that you will not repeat it in future.
(At the request of Hr. Brookfield Kr. Lo Hei-chang repeated what was
said about the first part of the second point).
Mr. Brookfield:
I want to say I have received no definite instructions from the Foreign
Office to sort out the old Philippine files which are now left in my
office. I talked to r. Padilla about listing the old files because he is
familiar with the work. I have only suggested to the Foreign Office to
employ Mr. Padilla temporarily for doing the work but no action has been
taken so far as no reply has yet been received from the Foreign Office.
As there is no action there is nothing to stop.
Fr. Chen Ting-ping:
Director Yang has said that you mentioned the temporary employment to
Mr. Padilla and this is the report made by Hr. Padilla to the Public
Security Bureau here, so this is part of the action you have already
taken. Furthermore, to handle nationals' affairs other than that of
British nationals you have overstepped the scope of your function so
this must be stopped forthwith,
Hr. Brookfield:
I wish to point out that as nothing has been started so there is nothing
to be stopped. I have asked Mr. Padilla about this as he is the only
Philippine in Shanghai. I only made a proposal to the F.O. Is there any
vilation if no action has been taken?
Mr. Yang:
You said you had talked about this matter with Mr. Padilla. This is
already a violation of the 1954 Geneva verbal agreement.
/Mr. Brookfield:
ส่ง
2
-
Mr. Brookfield:
F.0.
I have just said that I have so far received no reply from the
Ky proposal may be vetoed by the F.O.
Mr. Chen Ting-ping:
You being an officer of the Office of the British Charge d'Affaires
Taking Care of British Nationals' Affairs in Shanghai should only take
care of the British nationals affairs in Shanghai and not the affairs of
other nationals here. This has already been made very clear to you by
the Foreign Affairs Department. You have actually started the matter as
Director Yang has already pointed out and this constitutes a violation.
Any denial of this is groundless.
Hr. Brookfield:
I did not make any denial. I asked Mr. Padilla if he would like to do
this work. I have so far received no instructions from our F.0. I cannot
agree that I have taken any action.
Mr. Yang:
Mr. Padilla has said that you wanted to employ him temporarily. How can
you deny that? Furthermore, do you think you as an officer of the Office
of the British Charge d'Affaires Taking Care of British Nationals'
Affairs in Shanghai have the right to meddle with affairs of Philippine
nationals.
Mr. Brookfield:
Firstly, I have taken no action. I have merely made enquiries from Mr.
Padilla, and secondly I have not decided whether I would take any
action. So I have not started any action.
Er. Chen Ting-ning:
How can you deny that to make enquiries is not a start of the action? To
enquire is already a part of the action.
Mr. Brookfield:
If Mr. Chen can see no difference between enquiry and action then it is
a question of different language. Then we cannot make any further
argument as it is a question of different language.
Hr. Yang:
Is there any stipulation laid down anywhere that the Officer of the
Office of the British Charge d'Affaires Taking Care of British
Nationals' Affairs in Shanghai can deal with matters concerning other
foreign nationals? This is an open and flagrant violation.
Ling
CONFIDENTIAL
RECEIVED
N
33
Reference...
AK.
V, No 11
25
Mr. Dengen
1.G.1. Money
1 3 JUL 1967
Fesly
Dr. Clark of I.C.I. telephoned this morning about the Chinese enquiries
into the use by I.C.I. of the money handed by the Hong Kong Bank in
Shanghai to our Office in Peking and by Peking to I.C.I.
2. Mr. Kendall, the I.C.I. No. 1 in Hong Kong is now on leave (returning
to U.K. via Japan) and
Mr. Burrell who is now in charge has cabled asking for details of dates
and people involved in spending the money.
3. I emphasized the point made in our telegram No. 483 to Peking, 1.e.
that in our opinion dates and names should be left as vague as possible.
I also stressed that this was just as important to I.G.I. as it was to
us, since if the Chinese wanted to be unpleasant towards individuals or
prohibit their re-entry into China I.C.I. employees were every bit as
waste as our own.
I recommended therefore that I.C.I, should confirm that the money was
used for their, exhibition in October 1965 and, if pressed further, say
that it could not be accounted for separately.
· Dr. Clark said his thoughts had been very similar and that he would
advise Hong Kong accordingly.
Jharland
(K. J. Sharland) 12 July, 1967.
I agree entirch with the
:
you took.
Tami
CONFIDENTIAL
line
En Clair
'CONFIDENTIAL
PRIORITY PEKING TO FOREIGN OFFICE
Telno. 871
UNCLASSIFIED
11 July 1967
32
CC
RECEIVED IN
ARCHIVES No.31
1 1 JUL 1967
Fes/4
Addressed to Hong Kong telegram No. 574 of 11 July Repeated for
information Priority to Foreign Office
·Foreign Office telegram No. 600 to me.
[I.C.I. Money]
I have no (repeat no) objection.
31
Mr. Hopson
DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION
F.E.Dept.
Consular Dept.
SSSSS
Sent 01252/11 July 1967
Recd 07192/11 July 1967
CONFIDENTIAL
Par. 13.
*
CYPHER/CAT A
F= 5/4 B
다
CONFIDENTIAL
TOP COPY
IMMEDIATE FOREIGN OFFICE TO PEKING
600 10 JULY,1967 (FED)
25
CONFIDENTIAL
ADDRESSED TO PEKING TELEGRAM NO 600 OF 10 JULY REPEATED FOR INFORMATION
TO HONG KONG.
MY TELEGRAM NO. 483: 1.C.). MONEY
1.C.1. INFORM US THAT SELF HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED BY THE CHINESE
AUTHORITIES TO INFORM THEM ON 12 JULY WHAT I.C.I. DID WITH THE MONEY.
2. BURRELL, I.C.I. REPRESENTATIVE IN HONG KONG, PROPOSES TO TELL THE
BANK THERE ON TUESDAY 11 JULY THAT THE MONEY WAS SPENT ON THE
.C.I. EXHIBITION IN TIENTSIN IN OCTOBER 1965. SELF WILL THEN BE TOLD AND
WILL SO INFORM THE CHINESE. THIS MIGHT INDICATE THE DATE OF HANDOVER
MORE PRECISELY THAN CONTEMPLATED IN MY TELEGRAM UNDER REFERENCE. BUT
1.C.I. CONSIDER AND WE AGREE THAT THIS IS THE COURSE BEST CALCULATED TO
CLOSE THE MATTER AS USE TO WHICH MONEY WAS PUT WAS FOR PROJECT AGREED BY
CHINESE GOVERNMENT. IF YOU SEE OBJECTION, PLEASE TELEGRAPH FLASH TO
HONGKONG,
SOSFA SENT 18002/10 JULY
DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION
F.E.D.
CONSULAR DEPT.
CONFIDENTI AL
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
Registry No. F
DEPARTMENT
FC5/4
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION PRIORITY MARKINGS
Date and time (G.M.T.) telegram should
reach addressee(1).........
Top-Secret ingres
Confidential
Routine
PRIVACY MARKING
In Confidence
Ex Clair Lode
Cypher
Draft Telegram to:-
Peking
No.
CONFIDENTIAL
ER
FC5/4
PILI
(Dat
Despatched
Fark
omvedlate
F
[Security
Security classification
if any
ztion]
[
Privacy marking if any
1
[Codeword-if any] ... -
Addressed to
telegram No......
boo
600
And to..
2004I...
(Date) 10/7
And to:-
repeated for information to
DALLAS
..
- domin----- pay
Peking
LEJOJALI-Lad➖ ➖➖
(date)
m
to
Hong Kong.
-----------➖➖➖➖➖➖.
VIL ------
CALL
12
Saving to
Immelt Repeal to: 7
Hồng Kong
VIACO
Saving to:-
`shand
Distribution:- Departmental
FE .D.
Consular Dept.
Copies to:-
My telegram No. 483: [1.0.1. Money
I.C.I. inform us that Self has been instructed
by the Chinese authorities to inform them on 12
July what I.C.I. did with the money.
2.
Burrell, I.C.I. representative in Hong Kong,
proposes to tell the Bank there on Tuesday 11 July
that the money was spent on the I.C.I. exhibition in
Tientsin in October 1965, Self will then be told
mant and will so inform the Chinese. This wedi indicate
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.