0.3
i
2
stating that he proposed to draw up an agreement with the Anglo-German group (literally, company) for a supplementary foreign loan for the Tientsin-Pukow Railway, and that an edict was received sanctioning the loan.
I have the honour to communicate the above for your Excellency's information, and to request that you will instruct the group in question to arrange without delay a satisfactory method of procedure according to the terms of the agreement.
I avail, &c.
PRINCE CHING.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.}
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL,
[38200]
C O
34588
[October 20.]
SECTION 2.
RECR
RrGS 11 NOV 10
No. 1.
Mr. Max Müller to Sir Edward Grey.-Received October 20.)
(No. 340. Confidential.) Sir,
Peking, September 30, 1910. WITH reference to the last paragraph of my despatch No. 331 of the 23rd instant, I bave the honour to transmit herewith copy of a confidential despatch from His Majesty's consul at Harbin, forwarding translations of press articles regarding the new regulations for the navigation of the Sungari and the impending negotiations for the revision of the Russo-Chinese Treaty of 1881. It will be observed from Mr. Sly's comments that the recent Russo-Japanese agreement does not appear to be hindering Russia from strengthening her strategic position in the Far East.
I have, &c.
W. G. MAX MÜLLER.
Enclosure in No. 1.
Acting Consul Sly to Mr. Max Müller,
(No. 30. Confidential.) Sir,
Harbin, September 24, 1910. I HAVE the honour to enclose herewith translations of three press articles having reference to the coming negotiations in connection with the revision of the Russo-Chinese Treaty of 1881 and to the new regulations for the navigation of the Sungari.*
The first of these articles, entitled "The Revision of the Treaty with China," appeared in the "Harbinski Viestnik" of the 10th instant, and argues that the centre of Russian interests in the Far East has been removed from Mongolia to Manchuria. The writer is not satisfied with the result of the recent Sunguri negotiations, and apprehends that China will approach the discussion of the 1881 treaty in no conciliatory spirit. The second article, which is headed "Russian Minister in China about Chinese Affairs," purports to give an account of an interview granted by M. Korostoveta to a reporter of the "Utro Rossia." According to this report, the Russian Minister at Peking is of opinion that it would not be to Russia's advantage to oppose a request by China for a higher rate of duty on sea-borne merchandise than that charged under the existing general tariff, and also considers that China will endeavour, at the coming negotiations respecting the treaty of 1881, to curtail the privileges hitherto accorded to Russian land trade with the Celestial Empire, with which Russia's economic interests are chiefly concerned. The importance of the Mongolian market, M. Korostovetz is further alleged to have stated, had in the past been seriously neglected by Russia. The third article, under the title of "The Failure of our Far Eastern Diplomacy," quotes from the "Russkoe Slovo," and dwells at length on the Sungari regulations, a subject which is clearly not thoroughly understood. Once again the fear is expressed that China will endeavour to make the revision of the 1881 treaty an occasion for seeking to restrict the privileges now enjoyed by Russia in respect of her land trade with China. The three articles, in fact, breathe a spirit of pessimism which the outcome of the recent Sungari negotiations does not appear to justify. These regulations were discussed in detail in my despatch No. 27 of the 12th instant, and it is unnecessary to again refer to them at length. There is, however, one further point to which attention may be invited: it is that the stipulations in the new regulations regarding the free frontier zones do not require that the place of origin of the goods should be situated within the 50 versts limits; it is sufficient if the goods are destined for the free zones for them to be exempt from
* Not printed.
[2958 u-2]
343