Sept. 2
The attention drawn by the "Times" to the possible effect on Shanghai of the negotiations which, at the beginning of the summer, were being carried on between Sir Miles Lampson and Dr, C. 'T. Wang may be regarded 4s the outcome of a growing appreciation in England of the value of the Feetham Report. Whether the supposed draft treaty contains, as it was report-some weeks ago to contain, a "ten-year moratorium" for Shanghai fs of immediate importance only in so far as it, throws a light on the actual position of the discussions. It was unde stood that, having reached an agreement'on various points of substance, the two Ministers were reporting to their respective governments, They had reached a virtual deadlock at the beginning of May, the proposal to refer the question of Shanghai to a joint Commission having deen declared to be rejected by the Chinese Government. Later, it waa reported that there had been no breakdown, the door still open, as the' then British Foreign Secretary put it, and Sir Miles Lampson remained in Nanking in assiduous conversation with Dr. Wang. On June 17 Mr. Arthur Henderson indicated that the two Ministers had reached the port" stage referred He refused to make regarding the precise nature of the report, he promised to study the Feetham Report carefully and he intimated that, in view of the political conditions in China, it was "likely to be come time before the proposed tre could be signed." There has been some idea that further discussions might take place. between Sir Miles and Dr. Wang during the present month. It is possible that, having regard to present circumstances this resumption of negotiations may have to be deferred. Meanwhile it is satisfactory to note that, in London, there is a more accurate Significance of the. Feetham ereeption of the intense
Report than appears to exist in other quarters.
The Foreign Members of the} Shanghai Municipal Council have already unanimously commended that Report. The Council has forwarded it formally to the Chinese and Foreign Governments for their consideration. The Chiese Members of the Council, who were associated with the appointment of Mr. Justice Feetham, are expected to give their opinion on the Report when translations lable to them. It is clear the comments of the es" that the airy opinions which have already been set into circulation regarding the belatedness, the out-of-dateness and other imaginary defects of Mr. Justice Feetham's document are not likely to impress responsible exit ies in England. The comfortble belief, nurtured in the shel-tored seclusion of diplomatic retreats, that if an eminent judicial inquirer's findings conflict with the ripe judgment of agile plenipotentiaries, so much the worse Sor the eminent judicial inquirer, is apt to be mocked in the wick: ed world of realities. No one would suggest that Mr. Justice Feetham's report is without. defects but to pretend that it is un-Likely to carry weight is to misunderstand the circumstances in which Mr: Justice Feetham came to Shanghai, to underestimate reputation and to insult the intelligence of the'public capable of studying and appreciating issues involved. The mere fact that Mr. Justice Feetham is not infallible in his reading of cer-ruin intricacies of the Chinese situation which give such delight! to the game of political chess in this country of kaleidoscopic changes,.does not vitiate the conclusion that, ultimately, his recom. mendations may come to form the broad basis of a settlement of the problem expounded to him. Nor should it be overlooked that vents have their logical conse-sequences. During the last summer there have been several turbing factors, of which notice has duly been taken here and abroad, having special reference to the premises of discussion on, extraterritoriality and the linked issue of Shanghai. It Gifficult to overlook the impression which, for example, jubsence of "correct sincerity," te use a recognised phrase' of diplomatic intercourse, must have made on the Foreign Offices London and Washington. While, therefore, agreements may be reached regarding the abolition of extraterritoriality on certain approved bases, it is probable that the closest seratiny will be devoted to the safeguards attached to such agreements, Therefore the future of Shanghai, with which no single Power can concern itself to. the exclusion of others, must be eared fully considered in the light of the Feetham proposals.
It is here that the' message published to-day gives such valuable inspiration. Mr, Justice! Feetham made it clear that the fate of Shanghai depended on the joint cooperation of three parties: the Foreign Powers who now are Trustess for the International "Settlement, the recognised Government' of China and the Settlement itself. It seems to be grossly improper that, with this plain definition of interests involved, there should be any risk of commitments being accepted by two of these three parties without due con. sultation with the third. The! suggestion therefore that a joint, conference should be instituted is eminently sound. The issue is no trifling bagatelle of diplomatic convenience. In Shanghai the British Government, for yy instance, have to take into account the magnificent work of their own nationals, who have built up a highly organised civic entity, ranking as one of the six largest ports in the Worid—an achievement accomplished in close cooperation with the nationals of other countries and with the people of China itself. Mr. Justice Feetham has rightly shown how that, on Shanghai, rests the economic and, in no small degree, the political future of China, Amid*the chaos and the striggling efforts to establish ordered government in the China outside, Shanghai stands as a bulwark and a moral support of the greatest possible value. It is, for the British community at all events, no mere matter of money, although that ha: immense importance. It is rather 'a question whether the achievements of the past, honestly and solicitously directed to the benefit] of this hub of China's existence are to be treated as dust in' the balance. Whether the facile devices of diplomatic endeavour It in a more acceptable than that put forward by' Mr. Justice Feetham need not be considered at this moment. The point tp urge is that there should Lo no attempt to make any device operative until machinery has been created for the inclusion of the Settlement in the _deliberations regarding its own fate. How far Sir Miles Lampson's conver-rations with Dr. C.T. Wang have complicated adoption of this commonsense procedure cannot be Judged. There are grounds for! the conviction that the way to free consideration of the Feetham plan is fairly clear. If it be not. there are good and sufficient reasons for establishing it: at the earliest possible moment. Re-Jcognition of the validity of Chiese sovereignty does not preclude equal recognition of the claim of the-direct heirs to have ice in the destiny of a great heritage.
It need not be aissumeu that either Dr.
Wang or Sir] isles "Lampson is.unmindful of
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.