[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
[February 28.]
SECTION 90. 0.
10923
(6027]
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received February 23.)
REGE 26 MAR 07
(No. 18.) Sir,
Peking, January 8, 1907. I WAS informed by a telegram of the 17th December from His Majesty's Consul at Nanking that the Wai-wu Pu had fulfilled the promise reported in my despatch No. 527 of the 12th December on the subject of the Shanghae riots, to urge the Viceroy Tuan Fang to send his deputies to Shanghae, but that the latter had returned a reply the terms of which would be communicated to me.
I called at the Wai-wn Pu next day (the 18th December), and the Viceroy's telegram was produced and read to me. It argued the case from the beginning, and insisted that the question of compensation could not be considered without reference to the losses of Chinese lives and property during the riots. The Viceroy held that, to do even justice, these losses must be made good by the foreigners if the latter's losses were made good by the Chinese, and that great care must be taken to effect a settlement which would not provoke popular feeling and further disturbance; and he wound up by proposing arbitration by an impartial third person, or reference to The Hague Tribunal.
I refused to admit that I had any concern whatever with the claims of Chinese sufferers. I pointed out that the aggressors in the riots were Chinese subjects, whose wrongdoing was the source of the whole mischief, and that the Proclamation issued by the Viceroy and Taotai soon after the riots admitted beyond question that the provoking cause was a circular issued by certain Chinese subjects. By no possible argument could it be urged that British subjects were responsible for any injuries to Chinese which resulted. I insisted on adherence to the arrangement made with Mr. Carnegie in June, the terms of which had been stated quite plainly to the Viceroy before he left Peking, and again asked that deputies should be sent to Shanghac in accordance with that arrangement.
The Grand Secretary, Ch'u Hung-chi, the only Minister present, dwelt on the difficulties encountered by both of the Viceroys who have had to deal with the matter. He assured me that the Wai-wu Pu was anxious to settle it, that the Viceroy Tuan Fang was of the same mind, and that the real purport of his Excellency's reply was that a solution must be found which would appease Chinese public opinion and "let the Chinese authorities down" without loss of dignity.
I objected that arbitration by a neutral had been mentioned before and had been refused by Sir E. Satow, and asked whether the Chinese Government would be willing to leave the settlement to the Judge of His Majesty's Supreme Court, whose impartiality and independence were unquestionable. The Grand Secretary was aware of the high character of the Judge, but said that as he was an Englishman reference to him would appear one-sided. His Excellency then threw out a suggestion that the reference might be made to the Judge and the Shanghae Taotai jointly, the latter being a new appointment since the riots. I replied that I should have to consult His Majesty's Government, but that, in any case, I could not do so until the terms of the proposed reference were stated definitely and clearly, and those terms should only refer to the compensation due to British sufferers and to the punishment of the persons responsible for the riots. The Grand Secretary being averse from putting his idea of the terms on paper, it was agreed that I should state mine, as a basis for discussion.
After receipt of the inclosed despatch and private letter of the 17th December from His Majesty's Consul at Nanking, which threw some additional light on the Viceroy's attitude, I drew up a Memorandum of proposed terms of reference, a copy of which is inclosed, and sent it to the Wai-wu Pu on the 1st January. I called on the 4th January to discuss it, but found the Grand Secretary, who was present with his Excellency Tong Shoa-Yi, very unwilling to do this, alleging that since our conver- sation of the 18th December another telegram had come to band from the Viceroy Tuan Fang, which had convinced Prince Ching that a reference to the Taotai and the Supreme Court Judge would be useless.
[2376 -9]
485