Mr. Erskine to Sir Austen Chamberlain.— (Received July 5.)

(No. 113. Confidential.)

Sir, Sofia, July1. 1926.

IN the course of the conversation reported in my despatch No. 110 of to-day's date I asked M. Bouroff whether he was satisfied with his visit to Belgrade. He replied that he had had a loner and friendly interview with M. Nintchitch, the principal subjects of discussion having been the latter's attitude towards the refugee loan and the proposed declaration in regard to the Macedonian Organisation.

• 2. As regards the former, he had asked M. Nintchitch on what grounds he objected to a loan one of the results of which lie confidently believed would be the removal of the most serious source of friction existing between the two countries. M. Nintchitch had in turn enquired why the Bulgarian Government had asked for 3 million sterling to settle Macedonian refugees, whose numbers, according to Bulgarian statistics, did not exceed some 13,000. M. Bouroff had explained that it was true that there were only 13,000 refugees from Serbian Macedonia, but that the total from Greek Macedonia and from Thrace was infinitely larger, and that it was in particular for the settlement of the latter that the loan was required. He had shown him on the map the districts in Greek territory from which most of the refugees had come. M. Nintchitch had affected surprise at this information and had shown signs of considerable embarrassment.

• 3. As regards the proposed declaration, M. Bouroff had explained at length the reasons for which the Bulgarian Government could not accept it. I need not repeat the arguments which he used in support of this attitude, as they are similar to those mentioned to me by M. Liapcheff and already reported to you, but he had made the additional point that a declaration of this kind, even if the wording were modified, was in fact a public statement to the effect that one of its signatories regarded the other with profound mistrust. Its inclusion in a treaty the object of which was a reconciliation between the two countries was therefore obviously illogical and inadmissible.