This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[5645]
19697 RECO
Rea 16 JUN 11
[February 14.]
SECTION 4.
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received February 14.)
(No. 39.) (Telegraphic.) P.
PIENMA.
Peking, February 14, 1911. With reference to my telegram No. 25 of the 30th ultimo the Wai-wu Pu have replied to my note of the 30th January with the following arguments:-
The frontier map made by Consul Litton and Shih Taotai cannot be regarded as proof of agreement on the question of the frontier line which has for many years been in dispute. Moreover, the Chinese Government have never given their assent to the watershed indicated by Sir Ernest Satow, and regard it as an ex parte pronouncement. As there exists no clearly marked boundary, the only means left for reaching a definite settlement is to appoint officers for a fresh delimitation, as had been repeatedly requested by the Wai-wu Pu.
As regards the Tengkeng chieftain's authority over the native villages of Pienma, the payment of duties and taxes is attested by records dating from the Tao Kuang period, and to this day the Pao Shan district magistrate hears the complaints of the tribes. The Chinese Government regard as a clear recognition of their overlordship the original proposal put forward by Mr. Litton for lease in perpetuity on the lines of the arrangement made in the case of the Meng Mao Triangle.
His Majesty's Legation has repeatedly offered to pay compensation in respect of the dues and presents which have hitherto been paid to Tengkeng by the native headmen. These offers constitute a further undoubted admission of the authority over these villages which China is now asked to surrender.
Moreover, the two chiefs ("fuyi") Tso and Yang of Ming Kwang have ruled over the villages of Tzu Chu and Hpare from ancient times, and in the Tao Kuang period the Board of War issued to them certificates of hereditary rank which are still in existence.
In conclusion, the note states that before it will be possible to open any negotiations for a satisfactory settlement it is essential that the troops should be withdrawn, whatever is to be the eventual frontier, and that the clear and conclusive proofs cannot fail to be appreciated by His Majesty's Government.
With regard to the above note, my opinion is that the Chinese are very unlikely to be satisfied with pecuniary compensation for dues from villages mentioned therein, and if Litton's proposal for lease in perpetuity is objectionable after experience of the Meng Mao precedent, I think we should have some other offer to make in exchange for the surrender of these rights. Would it be feasible to suggest territorial compensation further north on the frontier?
If both Powers withdraw their troops and negotiations are then opened I think we might perhaps reach a settlement, but if we mean to insist upon the full concession of our demands the only way to attain it would probably be to eject the Chinese from Pienma by force.
(5393]
No. 2.
(No. 26.)
(Telegraphic.) P.
PIENMA expedition.
Sir Edward Grey to Sir J. Jordan.
Foreign Office, February 14, 1911.
Your telegram No. 38 of the 13th February and Government of India's telegram of the 11th February.
To eject the Chinese from Pienma it would apparently be necessary to send a large expedition. This might lead to a state of war with China, and would involve heavy expenditure. The interests involved are local, and are not worth the risk to
[1909 6-4]
423
!