CHINA
23
?
Loh Feng Luh to the Marquess of Salisbury. (Received 15th November)(') (7280) No. 81
Chinese Legation, London, My Lord,
14th November, 1899. With reference to the note which your Lordship did me the honour to address to me under date of the 24th ultimo, I beg leave to inform you that I have received a telegram from the Tsung-li Yamen instructing me to convey to your Lordship the expression of their gratification on learning that you were in communication with Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, respecting the arrangements to be made with a view to the retrocession of the town of Samchun to China.
At the same time, I am to express to you the concern of the Imperial Govern- ment on hearing of the hesitation of Her Majesty's Government to allow the Chinese authorities to resume the control of the City of Kowloon. The Imperial Government hope that, on further consideration, Her Majesty's Government will see their way to a solution of the question which would avoid the committal of what would manifestly be a violation of a Convention which was concluded so recently as 9th June last; and they are the more solicitous of this because of the prejudicial effect to Chinese interests which would result from any failure on the part of China to maintain the integrity of the Convention.
In the lease to Russia of Port Arthur and Talienwan there is a stipulation, with respect to the City of Kinchow, similar to that referring to the City of Kowloon, contained in the Convention for the extension of the Colony of Hong Kong, and the Imperial Government are apprehensive lest any departure from the conditions on which Great Britain obtained lease of the Kowloon Peninsula should be made a plea for a similar violation on the part of Russia of the Agree- ment with regard to Port Arthur and Talienwan.
I hope your Lordship will appreciate the gravity of the last-mentioned con- sideration, and abstain from any action with regard to the City of Kowloon, which would be likely to create difficulties for the Imperial Government with the Government of Russia.
I have, &c.
LOH FENG LUH.
(Signed)
The Tsung-li Yamen to Mr. Bax-Ironside
(7464) No. 21. Enclosure 2
(Translation)
Sir,
Peking, 15th November, 1899.
On the 6th instant we received your despatch with respect to the withdrawal of the British troops from Shamchun.
[Quoted at length]
We have the honour to observe that it affords abundant evidence of friendly relations that Her Majesty's Government have been able to fulfil their promise in connexion with this affair, and have instructed the Governor of Hong Kong to withdraw the troops from Shamchun within the previously determined boundary.
With regard to the protection of friendly Chinese outside this boundary we have telegraphed to the Governor-General of Canton to instruct the local authorities to act in accordance with the request.
It was, however, expressly stipulated by the Hong Kong Extension Conven- tion that within the City of Kowloon the Chinese officials then stationed there should continue to exercise jurisdiction. The international relations of China and Great Britain are naturally guided by the provisions of the Treaties, which should be carefully observed by both nations. It is therefore right and necessary, in order that there may be no infringement of the Convention, that the officials of China stationed in Kowloon City for the purpose shall continue to administer the affairs of the Chinese subjects within that town.
We have the honour to request your Excellency to telegraph at once to Her Majesty's Government requesting that, in accordance with the Convention, consent be given to the exercise of jurisdiction in Kowloon City by Chinese officials.
Thus will good faith be manifested and cordial relations remain intact. We beg the favour of a reply.
(Seal of Yamen.)
(1) As the Chinese Minister had been informed repeatedly that Her Majesty's Government could not comply with the wishes of the Chinese Government in the matter of the resumption of jurisdiction in the city of Kowloon, it was decided to leave the Chinese note of 14th November, 1899, unanswered.