C.O.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.] 57
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[33677]
No. 1.
[October 6.]
SECTION 1. C
41158
8 NOV 06/
(No. 347.) Sir,
Mr. Carnegie to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received October 6.)
Peking, August 19, 1906. WITH reference to my despatch No. 290, Confidential, of the 4th ultimo, I have the honour to inclose copy of a letter which I addressed to Prince Ching on the 16th instant again urging the prompt issue of satisfactory Mining Regulations. In this letter I made reference to an earlier note of Sir E. Satow's, copy of which is also inclosed for your information.
I brought the subject up once more at the Wai-wu Pu on the 17th instant, and Mr. Tong informed me that he had finished his revision and had returned the draft Regulations with his Remarks to the Board of Commerce. His work on them, he said, dealt especially with those portions affecting international relations; he had not touched the purely mining sections, through want of technical knowledge.
In the course of our conversation he expressed the opinion, with some reserve, I thought, that the Regulations, as they passed from his hands, would be found as liberal as those of most countries. He also said that, as the Board of Commerce were anxious to obtain a revenue from them, they ought to appear soon.
I have, &c. (Signed)
LANCELOT D. CARNEGIE,
Your Highness,
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Sir E. Satow to Prince Ch'ing.
Peking, January 23, 1906. IN the issue of the Yu Chê Hni Ts'un (collection of Deerces and Memorials) of the 9th December, 1905, there was printed a Memorial of the Board of Commerce submitting certain Rules for the investigation of mineral resources in the provinces, to be put in force along with the Mining Regulations which are being presented by the Board to the Throne for approval. On examination, I find that these Rules are inconsistent with the letter and spirit of Article IX of the Commercial Treaty of 1902, in which it is laid down that "China will, with all expedition and earnestness, go into the whole question of Mining Rules, and selecting from the Rules of Great Britain, India, and other countries Regulations which seem applicable to the condition of China, she will recast her present Mining Rules in such a way as, while promoting the interests of Chinese subjects and not injuring in any way the sovereign rights of China, shall offer no impediment to the attraction of foreign capital or place foreign capitalists at a greater disadvantage than they would be under generally accepted foreign Regulations." For instance, 1 find that according to Rule 7 private property on which minerals are discovered may only be sold to local residents, which means that no British subject will be allowed to purchase mining land owned by private individuals. That clearly conflicts with Article IX above quoted. I also consider that Rule 9 is calculated to bring foreign engineers into contempt, and is, besides, unnecessary.
I take this opportunity to draw your Highness' attention once more to the first sentence of Article IX of the Treaty above mentioned, which states that the "Chinese Government, recognizing that it is advantageous for the country to develop its mineral resources, and that it is desirable to attract foreign as well as Chinese capital to embark in mining enterprises, agree within one year from the signing of this Treaty to initiate and conclude the revision of the existing Mining Regulations." The Treaty having been signed on the 5th September, 1902, the year's limit was passed over two years and four months ago, and I am not aware that the Chinese Government have ever applied to the British Government for an extension of time. For my part, I see no reason why the Mining Regulations could not have been issued within the period laid
[2209 ƒ-1]