[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government
[B]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
502
[March 30.]
1.921
SECTION BILL?
TREGP14 APR 10
$
[11078]
(No. 105.)
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Mr. Max Müller.
Sir,
Foreign Office, March 30, 1910. THE Chinese Minister brought me to-day the accompanying translation of a telegram which he had received from his Government,
After reading it, I told the Minister that, since the statement by Sir Charles Hardinge as to the visit of Prince Tsai-tao to England, I had received further infor- I reminded the Minister of the mation from China of an unfavourable nature. promise we had from the Chinese that they would not continue Sir Robert Bredon I now heard that the permanently as Deputy Inspector-General of the Customs. Chinese Government had appointed Mr. Aglen to that post, and if this appointment had stood by itself it would have been a satisfactory fulfilment of the promise given to us, for though Mr. Aglen had been chose by the Chinese themselves, and not because we had recommended him, his was an appointment to which we could offer no objection. But, at the same time, it appeared that Sir Robert Bredon had been I pointed appointed to the Revenue Council, which had control over the customs. out to the Minister that the placing of Sir Robert Bredon in a position from which he could control the customs was not a fulfilment of the promise given to us, but an evasion of it.
The Minister said that he knew nothing whatever of these circumstances, but he was quite sure that his Government could not intend to evade their promise, and he would report to them what I had said.
I then commented upon the communication which he had given to me.
I observed that the part of it which dealt with the case of the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company was written on the assumption that we were pressing the But this was not at all what Chinese Government to yield on the merits of the case.
we were doing. We were not asking the Chinese Government to give up their view of the merits or to accept ours; we were simply asking them to refer the case to arbitration. Also, we were not reserving points in favour of the company, so that the whole case was open, and Chinese Government would not be prejudiced in drawing up
their case against the company.
case.
The Minister told me that he had given Sir Charles Hardinge a pamphlet on this It appeared to be a complicated case, and one which ought not to have the importance which had been attached to it. He thought it might have been settled some time ago.
I replied that I wished the case to be settled; but if diplomacy could not settle it, then arbitration was the friendly alternative course.
The Minister said he felt sure that his Government must have some reason for
refusing to go to arbitration, but he did not know what it was.
I remarked that the usual reason for being reluctant to accept arbitration was
that the reluctant party did not think it had a good case.
As to Macao, our sole object was to prevent our treaty obligations to Portugal from bringing us into conflict with China. The Chinese communication entirely ignored the fact of our treaty with Portugal. This was not a treaty made recently for the purpose of supporting Portugal in the Far East, but a treaty of very old standing, I had stated perfectly clearly made without any special reference to the case of Macao. that we would support the Chinese in their demands for reasonable provisions to stop smuggling. I was quite prepared to tell the Portuguese that our treaty could not be used to secure support for an improper use of their colony. But, on the other hand, as diplomacy failed to settle the "territorial dispute, the Chinese Government ought to agree to arbitration.
The Chinese Minister said that the difficulty was as to how to discover the original boundary. No map had been attached to the Chinese treaty with Portugal, and the Portuguese had no evidence to bring forward.
[2675 gg-2]