(This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
18675
SOUTH-WEST CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[May 5] SECTIONBEG 26 MAY 06,
349
[15208]
(No. 113.) Sir,
No. 1.
Sir E. Satow to Sir Edward Grey,-(Received May 5.)
Peking, March 13, 1906.
LORD LANSDOWNE'S despatch No. 219 of the 30th September, conveying to me instructions with regard to the proposed settlement of the frontier between Burmah and China north of Manung-Pum, reached me on the 19th November; but as it seemed to me to be desirable, if possible, to get the Thibet negotiations out of the way—or, at least, to make some progress towards their conclusion—before proceeding to enter upon this frontier question, I delayed for some time taking any steps towards carrying out his Lordship's instructions. By the 20th January, however, the other and more important question having made considerable progress in consequence of the Chinese Government having themselves come forward with proposals for adhering to the Lhassa Convention, I addressed the inclosed note to Prince Ching, proposing that a date should be fixed for discussing the Reports of Mr. Litton and the Taotai Shih, who examined a part of the proposed frontier last spring. To this I received a reply—copy of which is also inclosed—the object of which was evidently solely to create delay, and I again renewed my request in a further note—likewise inclosed. Mr. Campbell also spoke to Mr. Tang Shao-Yi, pointing out the unreasonableness of the Board's attitude; and, finally, having been asked to fix a day for the meeting, I named the 9th March.
I was accompanied by the Honourable L. D. Carnegie and Mr. C. W. Campbell, while of the members of the Foreign Board there were present Na Chung-T'ang, Ch'ü Chung Tang, and Mr. Tang Shao-Yi.
Having ascertained that the correspondence between the late Mr. Litton and Taotai Shih of the 20th May, the 28th May, and the 3rd June, 1905, had reached the Board, and that they were acquainted with its contents, I suggested that we need not read it again, and that the only thing necessary at the present stage was to place before their Excellencies the proposals of His Majesty's Government. Briefly stated these were—
1. That the Irrawaddy-Salween watershed should be recognized as the common frontier up to the confines of Thibet, and
2. That the claims of the native Chieftains in the Salween valley to certain dues from villagers living on the west of the watershed should be liberally dealt with by the payment of an annual sum, the amount of which remained to be fixed.
The officials of the Board had prepared a map of their own, drawn in the Chinese fashion, with a great show of exactness in regard to latitude and longitude, but otherwise of an entirely fanciful character. This was, however, discarded in favour of the maps prepared by the surveyors attached to the Joint Commission, and authenticated by the seals of His Majesty's Consulate at Tengyueh and the Taotai, of which I received one copy from Mr. Litton in his despatch No. 8 of the 20th May, 1905, the other having been transmitted to Peking along with Taotai Shih's Report. At the request of Mr. Tang I traced the watershed on our copy in pencil, and he similarly marked it on the Board's copy.
Ch'ü Chung Tang having remarked that boundary questions dealing with the apportionment of territory were of very great importance, and required careful consideration, I replied that I had no wish to ask them to agree to the proposals of His Majesty's Government without due deliberation. I would content myself therefore for the present with submitting draft of a single article dealing with the boundary, and the manner in which the rights of the native Chieftains should be dealt with would, I thought, be more appropriately made the subject of an exchange of notes.
I then handed to their Excellencies first a Chinese version and then the English text of the proposed Article, and a copy of the latter is inclosed.
It will be observed that it contains no recital of the steps taken last spring to obtain a more accurate knowledge of the features and condition of the country north of latitude 25° 35′. The reason for this omission is that the recent joint survey does
[1993 e-1]