C.O.
(This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.)
2
In reply to my question why the "shao-kuan" should have put the man to death instead of handing him over to the Prefect, Père Vignal said they had pillaged the accused's house, and to kill him would be the easiest way of covering their proceeding.
On his arrival in Szechuan he had written to his Bishop, but, as it turned out, in so ambiguous a way that the Bishop had been led to believe that the accused had been executed by his (Père Vignal's) order. He had been exceedingly surprised to hear some two months later from M. Giraudeau that he had been accused of putting a man to death; that he had been suspended from the exercise of his priestly functions; and that he was to proceed to Mengtse to stand his trial.
He had explained matters to the Bishop, who had removed the suspension, but he was himself only too glad to take the opportunity of exonerating himself before a French Consul. He accordingly left for Mengtse, following on his way south the same route he had followed when going to Yarkalo. At Nati he had slept in the same house as before, and neither there nor elsewhere along the road had he been met with any sign of enmity. He believed that the French Legation, equally with his Bishop, was now convinced of his innocence.
At the request of Père Monbeig I have telegraphed to you the substance of Père Vignal's story.
Yesterday morning Hsing Ta-jen, Director of the Department of Foreign Affairs here, mentioned this case in the course of conversation with me. He said that the authorities had been careful to see that nothing untoward happened during the journey of Père Vignal to Mengtse. As regarded the latter's asseveration that he was innocent, there was proof to the contrary. I did not ask what proof, as I did not wish to discuss the matter until I had heard Père Vignal's story. If the "proof" is the letter written on Père Vignal's card, the missionary should have little difficulty in rebutting it. At the same time, even on Père Vignal's own showing, the death of the old Tibetan was due to his (the Père's) own denouncement; and if he did not approve the man's execution on the spot, he at all events declined to intervene.
It was natural, perhaps, that he should decline to intervene, if he was convinced that the man's name figured on Père Genestier's list of rioters, as he affirms and the Prefect denies. This point, like the other of the letter, should be easily settled; but Père Vignal is taking no witnesses with him to Mengtse, confident that his word will be accepted by his Consul. What evidence will be produced on the other side I do not know. The Chinese authorities probably are only pushing the charge as a possible set off against the claims for indemnity of the French Mission, or in the hope of postponing a settlement.
I have, &c.
(Signed) W. H. WILKINSON.
P.S.--With regard to the story of the mutilation of a woman, Père Monbeig writes to me:-
L'incident de la femme mutilée est réel. C'est aussi le fait des chefs de l'escorte du Père, qui ne connaît la chose que lorsqu'on lui présenta le morceau de l'oreille de cette femme, d'ailleurs coupable aussi. Le mobile de cet acte de cruauté a été de la part des Chinois le désir du pillage. Ils ont eu ainsi deux familles à piller.
SO-WEST CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[24074]
No. 1.
[July 16.]
SECTION 1.
514
Mr. Carnegie to Sir Edward Grey.~(Received July 16.) (No. 245.) Sir,
Peking, May 26, 1906.
WITH reference to Sir E. Satow's despatch No.202 of the first instant, inclosing copy of a note addressed to Prince Ch'ing on the subject of the Burmah frontier north of latitude 25° 35', I have the honour to transmit translation of the reply which I have received from his Highness, the substance of which I have already communicated to you in my telegram No.98 of the 10th May.
It will be observed that Prince Ch'ing regards the proposed boundary as very unsatisfactory. He points out that, as His Majesty's Government are well aware that the native Chiefs of Teng-Kong and Ming-Kwang are in the habit of receiving presents and dues from certain villages to the west of the watershed, it is evident that these latter places are under Chinese jurisdiction, which it is undesirable to terminate by a payment of compensation.
His Highness goes on to say that the Board of Foreign Affairs were in telegraphic consultation with the Viceroy of Yunnan on the subject when they were confronted with the statement, contained in Sir E. Satow's note, that His Majesty's Government intended to instruct the Government of Burmah to occupy the country in dispute failing an acceptance by the Chinese Government of the terms offered. The Board considered such action unjustifiable, and I am therefore requested to inform His Majesty's Government that the terms of the IVth Article of the Burmah Convention should be conformed to, that a further examination of country should be made, and that negotiations should be carried on with a view to arriving at an early settlement of the question.
(Translation.) Sir,
I have, &c.
(Signed) LANCELOT D. CARNEGIE.
Inclosure 1 in No.1.
Prince Ch'ing to Mr. Carnegie.
Peking, May 9, 1906.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Sir E. Satow's note of the 1st May, on the subject of the Burmah-Yunnan frontier north of 25° 35′ north, in which he stated that he was instructed by His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to inform the Chinese Government that the British Government intend to regard the watershed described in the draft Article submitted to their Excellencies Na chung-tang, Ch'ü-chung-tang and Lien Fang on the 9th April as the frontier, and that, failing its acceptance on the terms which had been offered, the Government of Burmah will be instructed to occupy and administer the country without further negotiations.
With regard to this section of the frontier, the British Government merely takes the region watered by certain rivers as the extent to which the boundary reaches, and accordingly makes the watershed between the Shueli-Salwen Rivers and the Irrawaddy the frontier-line, thus including outposts such as Tzu-chu and Pai-lai, which are administered by Chinese native tribal authorities. The proposed boundary-line is therefore still very unsatisfactory. Since the British Government is well aware that the native Chiefs of Teng-Keng and Ming-Kwang are in the habit of receiving presents and dues from certain villages, it is evident that there is trustworthy proof that those places are under the jurisdiction of Chinese tribal authorities, and it is undesirable to terminate that jurisdiction by a payment of compensation. In order that the boundary-line may be laid down, it is obvious that the spheres of jurisdiction should be clearly defined.