This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
C 0.
2534
# CHINA TRADE
## CONFIDENTIAL
[March 21.]
### SECTION 3.
IS MAY 08
[9700]
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received March 21.)
(No. 70.) Sir,
Peking, February 6, 1908. WITH reference to my despatch No. 28 of the 20th January, I have the honour to inclose a translation of Prince Ch'ing's reply to my last note on the subject of the Nanning Trade Regulations.
As stated in my previous despatch, our position in regard to ports opened by China herself is weakened by Germany's acceptance of the conditions prevailing at Chinan-fu, and while the argument of the Wai-wu Pu, that foreign trade and residence must be confined within prescribed limits in an open port as long as extra-territoriality remains, is in direct conflict with the views of His Majesty's Government, it is not entirely unreasonable in the case of places situated in somewhat disturbed regions so far inland as Nanning.
I propose, however, to take an early opportunity of discussing the question fully with the Wai-wu Pu, in the hope of still convincing them that their apprehensions are exaggerated, and I am communicating with His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton and His Majesty's Consul at Wuchow with a view to ascertaining whether any developments have taken place in the case of Mr. Edward's establishment within the city.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
Sir,
Inclosure in No. 1.
Prince Ch'ing to Sir J. Jordan.
Peking, January 24, 1908. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of the 15th instant on the subject of the Nanning Trade Regulations.
[His Majesty's Minister's note quoted at length.]
Replying to a former note from your Excellency requesting that the Regulations for opening Nanning to foreign trade might be modified, the Board had the honour to point out that, as Nanning was opened to foreign trade by China herself, the conditions applicable there differed from those governing the Treaty ports. Your Excellency, in the note under acknowledgment, reiterates the views expressed in your former note on this subject, and the Board, who are far from desiring to impose restrictions on the trade of foreign merchants, now have the honour to present for your Excellency's information the following statement of the difficulties which have constrained them to adopt their present course of action.
All the Treaty Powers maintain that the reason why the judicial powers vested in their Consular officers have not been withdrawn is the unsatisfactory nature of the judicial system still in force in China. If, therefore, foreigners are not restricted, for purposes of trade and residence, to certain defined areas, there are grounds for fearing that efficient measures could not be taken for their protection. Even in the case of Shanghae, Tien-tsin, and Hankow, ports long open to foreign trade, and where great progress has been made in the enlightenment of the people, differences inevitably arise from time to time between the foreigners and the Chinese congregated together there. In the case of Nanning, which is situated far in the interior, and where the people are still unenlightened, unless this procedure is adopted difficulties are still more certain to arise. I am confident that your Excellency, having spent many years
[2889 #-3]