The attitude taken up by your Committee with regard to the Conference is fully set forth on pages 16 to 26 of the report and consequently there is little for me to add to what you already know.
regard to the Commission to inquire into the present practice of extraterritorial jurisdiction in China, we cabled the London Committee asking whether they could inform us when this Commission would be likely to arrive and the names of the delegates appointed. In reply we received a cable in which it is stated that the Commission will be international and that up to the present the British representatives had not been appointed. The London Committee promised to keep us advised of all developments as they occurred and added certain information which they had obtained from the Foreign Office. This information is most valuable, but perhaps I should not say more than to state that in your Committee's opinion it is distinctly reassuring. Since this cable.was received, we have had no further news, and accordingly we do not yet know who are to be appointed as the British representatives.
In the meantime we have appointed a local subcommittee, as is mentioned in the report, which have already commenced their investigations.
The terms upon which it is proposed to hand Weihaiwei back to China are clearly outlined in a paraphrase of a telegram dated March 18 from H. M. Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Officer Administering the Government at Weihaiwei. We have nothing further to say on this question.
The decision arrived at by the Conference over the Shantung settlement involved, I am sure, an immense expenditure of time and trouble and has, I venture to think, met with the approval of the British communities in China as a fair and reasonable solution of all the complicated issues. On the whole I consider China has come out very well and will only have herself to blame if she does not profit by the results.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.