2
delete the indorsement and to place no limitations ou the power of the Mission to deal with the property as they may think fit.
The Board have the honour to state, in reply, that there is a clear distinction between merchants and missionaries. Foreign merchants and foreign individuals generally are not allowed under existing rules to acquire property in the interior, therein standing on a different footing from missionaries, who are permitted to buy property to be vested in the name of their Mission, As regards the acquisition of property by missions in the cities of Treaty ports, as, for example, the purchase of house property by missions in the cities of Nanking, Soochow, Chinkiang, Kiukiang, &c. ; it will be found that the indorsement in the words "This is the corporate property of the Mission" is placed on all the deeds.
I have brought this to the notice of the Hunan Governor by telegram, and have the honour to address this reply to your Excellency, availing, &c.
(Signed)
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Consul flughes to Sir J. Jordan.
PRINCE CHING.
(No. 17.) Sir,
Changsha, June 27, 1907. I HAVE the honour to report that the question of the Wesleyan Mission title-deed has been settled in accordance with the instructions of your telegram of the 3rd May by the insertion of wording to the effect that the land is the public property of the Mission.
On the 11th May the Taotai called on me and produced what purported to be a copy of a telegram from the Wai-wu-Pu to the Governor in the following terms:-- "With reference to the title-deed of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, we have come to an understanding with the British Minister that the endorsement proposed by the British Consul should be rejected, but the words 'this land is the public property of the local ("pen ti") mission' should be inserted by the vendor, and need not be endorsed by the local officials. Consult and arrange for the return of the previous deed." The Taotal inquired if I would take back the deed and instruct the Mission to have a new bill of sale executed, in which the land should be described as the public property of the Mission. I replied that as the land was presumably the property of the Missionary Society, and not of the Rev. Mr. Watson or any individual member of it, I thought the could not words "public property" could be properly inserted in the deed, but that assent definitely to the Taotai's request until I had seen Mr. Watson, the head of the Wesleyan Mission in Changsha.
The Taotai, however, without waiting to hear from me, returned the previous deed on the 13th May, and asked me to order the Mission to arrange with the vendors to draw up a new document, in which it should be stated that the land was sold to be the public property of the local ("pen ch'a") mission.
I saw Mr. Watson, who had been during this time absent from the port, on the 17th May, and explained to him the compromise which was proposed. I advised him to have a new bill of sale drawn up, in which it should be stated that the land was bought as the public property of the Mission, omitting the words "pen ti" or "pen ch'u," the propriety of which seemed doubtful, both as regards the real ownership and title (the property is registered in the name of "The Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Trust Association"), and a suggestion of native interest in mission establishment, which Mr. Watson apprehended underlay the use of the words.
On the 17th instant I received from the Mission, and forwarded to the Taotai, the new bill of sale, which contained the words "Sold to the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society as the public property of the Mission." In forwarding it, I merely remarked that I had ascertained that the land had not been bought as the private property of any individual, and that there was therefore no objection to inserting in the deed the words
public property of the Mission.”
The new deed was returned duly sealed on the 25th instant.
The Chinese correspondence has been of a purely formal character, and contains nothing to confirm the idea of qualified ownership, which the native authorities wish to read into the term " public property."
I have, &c.
(Signed)
M. HUGHES.
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
[30110]
No. 1.
179
34181 [September 9.] TREC
Sorter 425 SEP C7
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received September 9.)
(No. 353.) Sir,
Peking, July 22, 1907. IN continuation of my despatch No. 328 of the 8th instant, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith copy of a despatch from His Majesty's Consulate-General at Tien-tsin forwarding copies of a correspondence with the Viceroy respecting the infringement of the mining rights claimed by the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company (Limited).
Acting under my instructions Mr. Hopkins informed the Viceroy that His Majesty's Government, while willing to have the differences between the Company and the Viceroy arranged by an amicable adjustment agreed to by both parties, could not allow the confiscation of the Company's property.
In his reply the Viceroy denied that the Limited Liability Company had ever been recognized by the Chinese Government. He stated that Chang Yen Mao and the Customs Taotai had been ordered to consult with the representative of the Company with a view to devising some scheme for winding up the affairs of the Company, and asserted generally the correctness of the action which he had taken.
Major Nathan telegraphed to me on the 13th instant that after prolonged negotia- tions with the Customs Taotai both he and Chang Yen Mao had come to the conclusion that the Taotai was unreasonable and not desirous of coming to a friendly arrangement. Chang Yen Mao, the telegram added, was returning to Peking to resume negotiations with his Excellency Liang Tun Yen, Minister designate to the United States, on the basis of an outline scheme furnished him by Major Nathan.
The Viceroy is unfortunately seriously indisposed, and nothing is likely to be done until he resumes official work.
In the meantime I have asked Major Nathan to come again to Peking to confer with me on the question.
I have, &c. (Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Acting Vice-Consul Pratt to Sir J. Jordan.
(No. 42.) Sir,
Tien-tsin, July 17, 1907. IN the temporary absence of Mr. Hopkins I have the honour to forward copies and translations of a note from Mr. Hopkins to the Viceroy, and of the Viceroy's reply on the subject of the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company (Limited).
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
I have, &c. (Signed)
J. E. PRATT.
Consul-General Hopkins to Viceroy Yuan Shih K'ai.
Your Excellency,
Tien-tsin, July 11, 1907. AFTER the interview which I had with your Excellency on the 26th June last, on the subject of the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company (Limited), I duly reported the effect of your Excellency's statements to the British Minister at Peking.
I have now received instructions from His Majesty's Minister to bring to your Excellency's knowledge that His Majesty's Government, while willing to have the matter arranged by an amicable compromise agreed to by both your Excellency and the
[2652 i-4]