741.94/98: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Bingham) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 18—2:35 p.m.]
292. I discussed Department’s 177, May 14, 7 p.m. with Cadogan today. He told me that far more appeared in the press than had ever transpired and that the British Goverment was still waiting for the proposals from the Japanese Government referred to in my 3051 of May 411 and previous. However, Yoshida had informed him recently that these proposals had been under discussion between himself and Tokyo and he hoped to lay them before the Foreign Office in the near future. I asked Cadogan what he thought these might include and he said he thought in response to the British memorandum of last winter as to discussions “upon the basis of existing treaties” it would deal with trade, quotas (more especially dominion quotas which the Japanese still professed to think were under London’s dictatorship), the situation in regard to China and possibly monetary subjects including references to a loan; but Cadogan emphasized he was not in any way definite about either the form or the content. Incidentally I gather he had explained the present situation to the Chinese Ambassador here.
In the course of the conversation he added that he was quite surprised at Lyons’12 proposal in the Imperial Conference regarding a pact of nonaggression in the Pacific. I said in my opinion a pact of nonaggression was generally interpreted to include a guarantee against violation which he said was exactly the reason that led him to think nothing very much could come of Lyons’ proposal.
He told me that Kung13 came here with very big ideas as to a loan of from 20 to 50 million pounds for internal purposes but that Leith-Ross “had watered him down heavily” and intimated that the most [Page 103] he could hope for would be from 10 to 12 million pounds which Kung said he could not contemplate without loss of face. Cadogan said that he knew technical advisers of Kung were still talking finance in the city but without any results or he would have been advised.14
In conclusion he referred to the contents of the Department’s 107, March 27, noon15 and handed me a note which reads as follows:
“I must apologize for the delay in replying to the aide-mémoire of the 30th March which you left with the Foreign Office on the 1st April last. As I am not yet in a position to give you the considered views of His Majesty’s Government on the subject of extraterritoriality in China I thought it would be best to send you an interim reply on the point as regards a foreign government or foreign governments taking the initiative in approaching the Chinese Government.
The Chinese Government might we think be actually embarrassed by such an initiative; and if as seems possible it had the effect of encouraging an agitation among the more irresponsible elements in commercial political circles it might make it more difficult for them to pursue a reasonable course if negotiations on the subject are begun. We agree therefore with your Embassy in China in thinking that it would be a mistake for any foreign government to take the initiative and we should prefer to await proposals from the Chinese Government. In the meantime the important questions of policy involved will receive our most careful consideration and the conclusions we may reach will in due course be communicated to you. I need hardly say of course that we fully reciprocate the desire expressed in the aide-mémoire for close collaboration between our two governments.”
- Not printed.↩
- Joseph A. Lyons, Australian Prime Minister.↩
- H. H. Kung was Chinese representative at the coronation in London.↩
- See also vol. iv, pp. 568 ff.↩
- Ibid., p. 639.↩