C495
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.] 6160
2
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Jui Tuotai to Consul-General Sir P. Warren.
Shanghae, November 24, 1907. WITH reference to the case of the Mixed Court riots in December 1905, which up to the present time has not been settled, Yuan Ching-chao recently expressed his willingness to regard the matter as one which involved himself alone, and he requested me to effect a private settlement of the case with yourself on his behalf. Accordingly I asked Wan Tai-shou to discuss the matter personally with you, and it was arranged that 50,000 dollars should be paid as a private settlement in full of all claims by British sufferers. I have the honour to forward to you herewith a draft for the sum in question, and I beg that you will be so good as to give me a receipt for it so that the case may be closed. You will oblige me, too, by sending me an acknowledgment of this letter. In conclusion I beg to point out that this is a private settlement by Yuan Ching-chao, and not an official settlement of the case.
Your Highness,
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Prince Ching.
(Card of Jui Taotai.)
Peking, December 6, 1907. WITH reference to previous correspondence on the subject of the Shanghae riots of December 1905, I have the honour to inform your Highness of the receipt of a despatch from His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghae reporting the payment of 50,000 in full settlement of losses claimed by British subjects.
I have learnt with much gratification of the settlement, and, in now recording it, venture to express the hope that the disposal of this case may tend to strengthen the cordial relations between the foreign community and the Shanghai Taotai.
I avail, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[2699]
No. 1.
RECO Rm. 20 FEB 08
[January 25.]
SECTION 4,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received January 25.) (No. 564.) Sir,
Peking, December 7, 1907. REFERRING to your telegram No. 127 of the 23rd November last, in which you informed me that the War Office were anxious to concentrate troops at Tien-tsin, and you inquired if I still considered it necessary to retain a small force at Tongshan, I have the honour to state briefly the reasons which led me to modify the views which I had the honour to submit to you in my despatch No. 403 of the 20th August last.
My object in then advising the retention of a small body of troops at Tongshan was to furnish the Chinese authorities with evidence of our interest in the dispute between the late Viceroy, his Excellency Yuan Shih-k'ai, and the Chinese Mining and Engineering Company, which was at that time in an acute stage and threatened to develop into a serious situation. Since then the Viceroy has been removed to Peking, negotiations have been entered into with the Company, and the position has considerably improved. Both General Waters and His Majesty's Consul-General at Tien-tsin share my views and see no particular benefit in the presence of a small detachment of troops at Tongshan under present circumstances. Major Nathan, as is perhaps only natural, holds a contrary view, and thinks that if the negotiations fail, as he fully anticipates they will, the Chinese will immediately commence an aggressive policy. But General Waters points out that in the event of any attempt being made to confiscate the Company's property he could always have a sufficient force landed at Tongshan within a few hours. The existing garrison at Tongshan, as General Waters observes, serves as an eminently efficient police protection to the Mining Company, but it would scarcely be justifiable to keep British troops there indefinitely for that purpose.
The dispute between the Mining Company and the Provincial Government may drag on for a long time yet, but the presence of Yuan Shih-k'ai in Peking places me in a better position for dealing with any overtly aggressive action such as was contemplated when my despatch No. 403 was written.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN,
[2818 bb-4]