793.94/5813: Telegram
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Mellon) to the Secretary of State
[Received January 26—3:05 p.m.]
18. In the absence of Sir John Simon I discussed informally Department’s 21, January 24, 5 p.m., with Foreign Office division chief. I was informed that similar aide-mémoire to that referred to had been presented by British diplomatic missions to all those governments to whom the Chinese Government had handed their note in question but that so far the British Government had received no replies. Foreign Office informed me that they had as yet no definite information as to what had happened at Shanhaikwan or any facts tending to prove that Japan had abused her position under the more or less indeterminate scope of the protocol of 1901. The objective sought however in these proposed representations was to indicate to Tokyo the treaty powers’ continuing attitude in regard to the protocol of 1901 and to convey more or less warning as to the foreign powers’ interests in North China directly involved thereunder.
I then briefly expressed the Department’s position and also referred to that portion of Simon’s note on this subject (see Embassy’s 10, January 16, 11 a.m.) giving his interpretation of the Shanhaikwan incident. Foreign Office expressed itself as appreciating the Department’s queries and position set forth in its telegram 21, January 24, 5 p.m., and particularly the argument outlined in last sentence of paragraph 5.
I venture, for the Department’s strictly confidential information, to state my personal impression that it was with French concurrence in the proposal and under instigation from the City that British missions were instructed to deliver this aide-mémoire under the approval of Simon himself, with only lukewarm, if indeed any support from the permanent officials of the Foreign Office dealing with Far Eastern Affairs. I gathered Foreign Office opinion favored such added protection as British interests in Northern China might gain from the proposed representations to the Japanese, but tacitly admitted the strength of the point of view set forth in the last sentence of paragraph 4 and consequently were skeptical of the reaction in Tokyo of any representations made there in compliance with section B, paragraph 1 of your telegram.