2
agree to the arrangement come to by Admiral Bayle and the Company's agent on the 19th October, 1903, and recorded in the procès-verbal. Of this I was already aware from Mr. Wynne's letter to Sir Ernest Satow of the 30th December, 1903, extract from which was inclosed in your despatch No. 105, but the French Minister's attitude towards the actual arrangement proposed did not affect the fact that the deeds had been examined by a French Commission and recognized as assez sérieux."
It did not seem, however, that it would serve any useful purpose to pursue the question further, and the matter was allowed to drop.
After a further delay of a few days a French Commission, consisting of M. Claudel, the French Consul; M. Lépice, of the French Consulate; Captain Marchand, French Naval Representative at Chingwantao; a M. Blanchet, and the French Consulate Chinese writer, called at His Majesty's Consulate-General and, in the presence of Mr. Hopkins and Major Nathan, examined the original Chinese title-deed of the land in dispute, situated on the Bluff, the large plan of the whole of the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company's property at Chingwantao, the original Chinese deed of transfer of the 26th August, 1901, confirming the deed of the 19th February, 1901, the entry of the whole of the above property in the land register of the Consulate and the English deed of transfer of the 19th February, 1901. The Commission took copious notes, but in spite of repeated requests, I have been unable to obtain from M. Bapst any information as to the result of their enquiries. On the 3rd July I received from the French Legation the inclosed draft Agreement which had been drawn up by Captain Marchand, and which I duly communicated to Major Nathan for his observations. The latter declined to accept it on the grounds:
1. That it gave more land to the French below the Bluff than they actually occupied; and
2. It allowed the French Government free right to dispose of the land to traders and merchants.
I did not fail to inform my French colleague of Major Nathan's views in a note, of which I inclose a copy, and on the 10th instant he called upon me to discuss the question. In regard to the first point, he maintained that the statement of land contained in the draft Agreement was the same as that communicated to his predecessor by Major Nathan himself two years ago.
As regards the second, the French Government, in view of Article XIV of their Tien-tsin Treaty of 1858, were unable to admit that a whole port could be monopolized by a privileged commercial Society. Sir Robert Hart had, he said, arranged directly with the Chinese Government for customs accommodation at Ching- wantao, and he saw no reason why the French Government should not do the same. replied that as French Representative he could of course take any steps he pleased with the Chinese Government. He had already, while we were endeavouring to come to a friendly understanding, written direct to the Viceroy. I thought it right, however, to say that any attempt on the part of the Chinese Government to deprive the Company of the property which it held under title-deeds registered in His Majesty's Consulate General would be strenuously resisted by His Majesty's Government. My instructions were to do my utmost to arrange the matter amicably with my French colleague, and this I was most anxious to do.
I
I may here say, with reference to M. Bapst's statement in regard to Sir Robert Hart, that I had asked Major Nathan some days previously in connection with an inquiry from M. Bapst, whether the Japanese and the Imperial Maritime Customs had not received facilities from the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company, the former for the accommodation of their troops, and the latter for that of their Customs and Postal Administration. Major Nathan replied that the Japanese received similar facilities for the accommodation of their troops as were agreed upon between M. Dubail and himself in the Agreement cancelled by the French Government. The Imperial Maritime Customs were given land for their buildings in accordance with an understanding of many years' duration with the old Company. Subsequent to our interview of the 10th July, M. Bapst addressed to me the inclosed note containing the substance of our remarks. You will see that in the third paragraph he made an importaut error in regard to what I had said to him, and I hastened to point this out in a note dated the 11th July, a copy of which is also inclosed.
The remaining points I referred to Major Nathan, and on receipt of his reply (copy annexed) I addressed a further note to M. Bapst, in which I endeavoured to convince him that no monopoly within the meaning of the Treaty of 1858 was exercised at Chingwantao, and again pressed him for information as to the results of the examination of the title-deeds,
}
3
I inclose a copy of my note and also of M. Bapst's reply of the 18th July, from which you will see that he considers that the seat of negotiations has been transferred from Peking to Paris, and that he regards himself merely as " Agent de renseignement," whose utterances can only have such value as may be conferred upon them by his personal anthority. For the rest he practically ignores the arguments contained in my note, and contents himself with referring to a note which was addressed to Sir F. Bertie by 3. Pichon on the 4th June last, a reply to which is now being awaited at Paris, the result of the examination of the title-deeds at Tien-tsin, he still gives me no infor- mation, but he again holds out the threat of coming to an arrangement with the Chinese Government.
As to
I may add that M. Bapst has more than once in his conversations with me insisted that he was only an Agent of his Government with no authority to settle this question which was being negotiated in Paris. In the circumstances, and in view of the nature of the correspondence which has already passed, I have, with regret, arrived at the conclusion that it would serve no purpose to continue the discussion here. I have done my utmost to arrive at an amicable arrangement, but the attitude adopted by my French colleague has rendered my efforts abortive.
My own private opinion is that the French Government are aware of the weakness of their case from the point of view of justice and equity, but that, relying upon the advantage which their actual occupation of the land gives to them and upon the hostile attitude adopted by the Chinese towards the Company, they desire to utilize these to the full with a view to obtaining such Concessions as they can. This view is strengthened by the nature of the arguments which they use to support their case,
I have already endeavoured to show that no monopoly within the meaning of the French Treaty of 1858 is exercised by the Company at Chingwantao. I now notice in a "Note sur le port de Ts'in Quang Tao et sur la propriété des terrains de la baie," which M. Bapst has communicated to me, and which he informed me has been sent to Sir F. Bertie, the extraordinary argument is used that merely the date, the 30th July, 1900, of the contract between the old and the new Companies invalidates it, in view of a decision of the Corps Diplomatique at their sitting of the 5th November, 1900, that "aucun achat de terrains aux Chinois depuis le commencement du siège ne saurait être valable sans l'assentiment des Ministres étrangers." The annexed extract from the procès-verbal of that sitting shows conclusively that the decision referred solely to purchases of land in the neighbourhood of the Legation quarter at Peking-the important words "dans le quartier dont il s'agit" and the whole context have been omitted from the above quota- tion, which cannot possibly have been intended to apply to purchases of land outside Peking.
I have, &c. (Signed)
Dear Sir John,
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
M. Bapst to Sir J. Jordan.
J. N. JORDAN.
Peking, June 9, 1907. I HAVE not this week beard anything about the examination of the deeds which Major Nathau states to own. But I have received from his Excellency Yuan Shih-k'ai a letter, of which I think expedient to communicate at once to you a translation.
(Traduction.)
Yours, &c. (Signed)
EDMOND BAPST.
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Governor-General Yüan Shih-k'ai to M. Bapst.
Pékin, le 7 Juin, 1907.
JE viens de prendre connaissance de la lettre que vous m'avez fait remettre par M. Claudel, votre Consul à Tien-tsin.
La nouvelle Société de Kaiping n'a pas encore été reconnue par le Gouvernement Chinois, et les terrains de Tsinvangtao dont elle a pris provisoirement charge sont la propriété de l'ancienne Société.
250