34
35
559
(No. 257.)
No. 44.
Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Lansdowne.—(Received November 19.)
(Telegraphic.) P.
NORTHERN Railway indemnity.
Peking, November 19, 1903.
Chinese Railway Administration desire payment of interest out of sums set aside by Delegate to provide interest on 800,000, which was the total claimed. Please authorize payment of interest at 4 per cent. on 437,0001. odd.
(No. 335.) My Lord,
No. 45.
Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Lansdowne.-Received November 23.)
Peking, September 26, 1903. IN continuation of my despatch No. 326 of the 19th instant, I have the honour to report that the French Minister called upon me yesterday morning, and said he had instructions from his Government to consult with me for the purpose of obtaining the adoption by the Chinese Government of the proposal which he was told had been made by the Shanghae Taotai to myself. This proposal, he said, was that the Shanghae Magistrate should sit in the Mixed Court to try the prisoners in the Supao case, and that they should be condemned to imprisonment for life.
I replied to M. Dubail that the suggestion as to the addition of the Shanghae Magistrate to the Mixed Court for the purpose of the trial was mentioned to me by the Taotai when I was in Shanghae on my way to Peking as a personal idea of his own, and that I had explained to him the impossibility of my undertaking to accept any proposal whatever, as I was still on leave of absence, and Mr. Townley was in charge of British interests. That I had still less agreed to a sentence of imprison- ment for life, and that, on the contrary, a sentence similar to that imposed in the well-known case of the German subject Most, seemed to me adequate in the present instance.
Your Lordship will remember that Mr. Mansfield's telegram (repeated in Mr. Townley's telegram No. 208) recording this conversation expressed the opinion that if the proposal (for the appointment of the Shanghae Magistrate) could be arranged at Shanghae as coming to the Consular Body from the Chinese authorities. it might offer a satisfactory solution, provided a stipulation were made beforehand that the punishment should be neither death nor perpetual imprisonment.
I am at a loss, therefore, to conceive where the French Government can have derived the impression that I had given even an implied consent to a sentence of imprisonment for life. It is possible, however, that M. Dubail may have heard from the French Consul-General at Shanghae that this proposal bad been made by the Taotai to the United States' Consul-General, as is the case, and that he had mixed up in his mind the two conversations with myself and with the United States' Consul-General respectively.
I informed M. Dubail that I was still waiting to hear from Prince Ch'ing the result of the telegram which his Highness had on the 9th instant promised to send to the Viceroy of Nanking recommending him to reconsider the Taotai's proposal.
I told him I had learnt that about the 24th August last the Taotai had called on Mr. Goodnow, the United States' Consul-General at Shanghae, and had made to him, as Senior Consul, the following proposition, which, if acceptable to him, he was prepared to recommend to the Viceroy: namely, that the three subordinates connected with the "Supao" printing office should be set at liberty, the men accused of participation in the insurrectionary movement at Hankow in 1900 be severely punished, the two authors of the pamphlets quoted in the Supao articles to be condemned to imprisonment for life, and a seventh person, the son of the editor-in-chief of the "Supao," who by representing himself to be the editor had given his father time to effect his escape, be punished, but less severely.
I observed to M. Dubail that this seventh accused, of whose arrest we have never heard, was mentioned for the first time in this conversation with Mr. Goodnow, that though the two men had been induced to avow the authorship of the pamphlets, it
had not been proved that they were responsible for the publication, and in any case punishment could not be fixed, except hypothetically, before the offence of publication was proved.
My French colleague then reverted to the position he had taken up in our previous conversation, and expressed a preference for the policy of informing the Chinese Government that the surrender of these men must be refused on the ground that they are political offenders. But, as he justly added, the Chinese might then argue that the offence, whatever it was, having been committed on Chinese soil, the rules governing the extradition of offenders did not apply, and that this would lead to an interminable discussion.
I answered that I had no desire to enter upon a discussion of principles with the Chinese Government, which might branch out in all directions. My instructions were to refuse to deliver up the accused and to insist upon their heing tried before the Mixed Court, but I was authorized to agree to the appointment of the Shanghae Magistrate to try the case. If, however, he were disposed to put forward a suggestion to the Diplomatic Body that we should adopt the line of action be indicated, I would ask your Lordship for fresh instructions.
M. Dubail said that he did not wish to take a leading part in the matter, and would prefer not to put forward any proposal in his own name.
I observed that nothing had come of the proposal of Count Gallina to leave negotiations with the Chinese Government in the hands of the three Ministers who had been addressed on the subject by the foreign Board, most of the Diplomatic Body, including himself, having simply written "ru" on the Circular of the Doyen (inclosed in my despatch No. 330 of the 24th September last).
My colleague replied that “vu" in his case implied that he had no objection to the proposal, and that he was ready to agree to any course that would put an end to the present deadlock.
I said that if each Minister would instruct his Consul to concert with Mr. Goodnow
a rpely to the Viceroy's letter of the 30th August last, declining to surrender the prisoners, the ground would be cleared for the Taotal's proposal being made officially. But as I expected to see Prince Ch'ing and hear from him the result of his telegram. to the Viceroy, perhaps it would be better to wait a few days before broaching this idea to our colleagues.
M. Dubail said he was quite willing to wait for the Viceroy's reply.
I regret to state, however, that on my asking the Prince yesterday what reply he had received, he said that nothing had come, and I am inclined to think that in the press of other anxieties, he had forgotten to carry out his promise.
Under the circumstances, I think there is nothing more to be done for the next few days, but to wait and see whether Prince Ch'ing can induce the Viceroy to approve the Tantai's proposal.
No. 46.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
ERNEST SATOW.
Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Lansdowne.-(Received November 23.)
(No. 340. Very Confidential.) My Lord,
Peking, October 1, 1903. IN accordance with the instruction contained in your Lordship's telegram No. 151 of the 24th August last, I took an early opportunity to inform Prince Ch'ing that I should like to place on record by an exchange of notes the general railway settlement affecting British interests in Central China recently come to between himself and Mr. Townley, The Prince objected to the exchange of officially signed notes, but ex- pressed his willingness to record the result of the negotiations in semi-official or red notes.
I have now the honour to transmit to your Lordship herewith copy of my letter to Prince Ch'ing, and translation of the latter's reply, which accepts the Arrangement in terms practically similar to those employed by Mr. Townley in his despatch No. 299 of the 12th of August last.
員