Office of the Historian

793.003/1042: Telegram

The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Matthews) to the Secretary of State

London, December 21, 1942—6 p.m.
[Received 7:50 p.m.]

7251. With reference to Embassy’s number 7195, December 18, 7 p.m., the Foreign Office has sent the Embassy the following memorandum on certain aspects of the British negotiations with the Chinese regarding extraterritoriality which it believes the Department may find of interest:

“On the 14th December the Chinese Government made a further communication to His Majesty’s Ambassador, the substance of which is as follows:

[Page 411]
  • “(A) Draft treaty.
    • “1. As regards the preamble and articles 1–5 of the British draft, the Chinese Government expressed the views already communicated to the United States Government, as set out under 1 (a) (1–4) of the message of the 9th December from the Department of State (Department’s 6230, December 9, 8 p.m.).
    • “2. As regards article 6 of the British draft, the Chinese Government continued to oppose the insertion of the words ‘and carrying on of commerce’, but will give further consideration to the British counterproposal to reinsert them and to begin the sentence with the words ‘pending the conclusion of the comprehensive treaty, etc’ Sir H. Seymour has been instructed to continue to press for the insertion of the words ‘and carrying on of commerce.’
    • “3. Apart from the above point, and the question of the Kowloon leased territory (which still remains open) the text of the treaty is therefore agreed.
  • “(B) Draft exchange of notes. (References are to the draft enclosed in the letter of the 4th December to the United States Ambassador—Embassy’s 6870, December 4, 9 [8] p.m.)
    • “Clause 1. As regards (a) and (g) see the Foreign Office communication of the 17th December regarding navigation. (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are agreed, with the exception that (c), regarding pilots, will only contain the first sentence.
    • “The rest of that clause will be covered by instructions to customs authorities which will be communicated to His Majesty’s Ambassador by letter.
    • “Clause 2 agreed.
    • “Clause 3. The Chinese Government state they are unable to guarantee, even in peacetime, national treatment as regards restrictions on travel and residence. They prefer to omit the clause altogether on the understanding that the right of both parties to impose restrictions for reasons of national security goes without saying. Subject to the views of the Government of India, His Majesty’s Ambassador has been authorized to drop the inclusion of reservations on this subject in the exchange of notes.
    • “Clause 4. A formula regarding personal status matters is being discussed; but if it is not acceptable to the Chinese Government it will be dropped.
    • “Clause 5. The Chinese Government stated that they were proposing to revise the agreements regarding powers in 1928. His Majesty’s Ambassador had previously proposed to His Majesty’s Government the following formula: ‘it is understood that the abolition of the system of treaty ports will not affect existing property rights, and that nationals of each high contracting party will enjoy the right to acquire and hold real property throughout the territories of other high contracting parties subject to the laws and regulations of that high contracting party.’ Sir H. Seymour was informed in reply that this formula represented the minimum acceptable, and that it would be improved by the substitution, after ‘high contracting parties’ of the words ‘in accordance with the conditions and requirements prescribed in the laws and regulations of that high contracting party’, or, better still, by the substitution, [Page 412] after ‘real property’, of the words ‘as far as possible under the same conditions as nationals of the latter high contracting party.’ He has proposed these formulae to the Chinese Government.”

Matthews