CO882-(4-5) — Page 628

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

गय

Reference :---

C.O. 882

5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

276

refrain from requiring the removal of the Customs, as this would be the only action compatible with the four statements above quoted, and with the cordial relations men- tioned in your despatch. I therefore beg that you will inform His Excellency of this, so that it may be placed on record.

With regard to what His Excellency says about mutual respect, I would remind His Excellency that I said to him at our interview that the question could be arranged if approached by both parties in a friendly spirit, but that if each adhered to his own view it would be difficult to arrive at a settlement. This is what I understand by cordial relations and mutual respect, and I have never in any way slighted His Excellency.

I beg you to inform His Excellency that it is only reciprocal friendliness that can conduce to the mutual respect His Excellency alludes to.

I have, &c.,

SIR,

(Translated by G. D. Pitzipios, Vice-Consul.)

(Translation.)

[29.]

Viceroy T'AN to Consul MansfiELD.

(Seal of Viceroy.)

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your despatch, incorporating one

April 23, 1899. received from the Governor of Hong Kong, in which His Excellency states that our views are diametrically opposed with regard to the question of the removal of the Customs, the decision of which rests with the Governments of our respective countries. I, personally, have no "view" with regard to the question; I only take my stand on the fact that the original Convention does not mention the removal of the Customs. If the Governor of Hong Kong is bent upon the removal, he is going back upon the Convention. If His Excellency argues that the question must be left to our respective Governments to settle, then the receipt by me on three occasions of telegrams from the Tsungli Yamen, all stating that the removal must not take effect, proves that the Chinese Government does not admit the possibility of such a removal; while the tele- gram from Her Majesty's Government, deferring the removal for six months, is evidence that the British Government is disposed to waive the removal.

I therefore maintain that, if the removal of the Customs can be deferred for six months, without prejudice to the Extension, it can just as well be deferred for the 99 years, at the expiry of which period the question can be again discussed. Such a course would be in keeping with the firm determination of our respective Governments to defer the removal, and I have accordingly the honour to request you to communicate with the Governor of Hong Kong without delay, so that he may be prevailed upon to fulfil his former undertaking, and not again request Her Majesty's Minister at Peking to bring about the removal of the Customs. This is of the utmost importance to the maintenance of friendly relations.

I have, &c.,

(Translated by G. D. Pitzipios, Vice-Consul.)

(Translation.)

SIR,

[30.]

Viceroy T'AN to Consul MANSFIELD.

(Seal of Viceroy.)

April 23, 1899.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your despatch, incorporating one received from the Governor of Hong Kong, in which His Excellency states that an attack has been made by natives in the new territory, that the military officers sent by me have not acted in accordance with their instructions, and that satisfaction may have to be demanded from China.

At 2 o'clock on the 2nd instant the Governor of Hong Kong personally requested me to send soldiers, and it was agreed that it would take three days before they could reach their destination. But on the 3rd April Captain Superintendent May, without

277

waiting for the soldiers to arrive, suddenly proceeded to erect a matshed, to which the natives objected on the ground that it was too high and interfered with their "Feng Shui," and not for any other reason. But Mr. May shouted them down in the most reckless fashion, whereupon the popular ire was aroused. Thus the first burning of the matshed was due to Mr. May's nastiness, and had nothing to do with the Chinese military officials.

On the 14th April they again went to put up a matshed. At the time Major Fong's soldiers were at Shen Chuan, and Colonel Shen's at Kowloon. Mr. May should have let them know beforehand, so that they might have sent soldiers to accompany him, instead of which he never gave any intimation to the military officers, but went straight off with his workmen and police to do the work, the result being that the workmen were driven away. The Chinese military officials, being three or four miles away from the place, could not know that the British officials were going there to put up a matshed, so how could they afford protection? Thus the occurrence of the 14th instant was no concern of the Chinese military officials. Wong Taotai, who was in Hong Kong, in- formed Mr. Lockhart in detail of the above occurrences, at the time, the Governor of Hong Kong refrained from any criticism,

As the British flag had not yet been hoisted, the territory was still Chinese, and if Mr. May and his party were at any time desirous to proceed into the interior the Chinese officials should have been informed. But even after the occurrence of trouble, they still neglected to inform the Chinese authorities, so as to obtain an escort. Thus they themselves sought a conflict with the natives, resulting in the damage or destruc- tion of a great many of the houses of the people at Taipo Hu, which, properly speaking, should be made good by England.

Then, seeing that the territory had not yet been taken over, why go there before- hand to put up matsheds?

Thus both these cases of disturbances are due to the action of Mr. May, and China cannot accept any blame for the resulting loss of friendly feeling.

Your country has always enjoyed a reputation for humanity and justice. Having leased Chinese territory, it was imperative upon England to cultivate relations of close friendship with the people, to esteem virtue before majesty, to use leniency rather than violence. But before the territory was taken over a proclamation had been already issued about the examination of title deeds and the collection of revenue, thereby arousing public indignation.

Both sides have fired upon each other with rifles and cannon. Natives have either been killed or wounded, or have fled the country. Death, wandering, and exile have left a void behind, and I ask, what good can accrue to your country from leasing this depopulated land? I make these candid statements because, prior to the 15th instant, the control over this territory still devolved on China. After the 16th it became vested in your country, and, strictly speaking, was no concern of China's. But the action taken having led to the present state of turmoil, one is led to despair of tranquillity in the future. When the state of affairs is made generally known through the medium of the newspapers, all countries will say that England, when taking over territory leased by China, was reckless of Chinese lives, and when the mischief was done shifted the blame on to others. This will grievously damage England's reputation. Should the Chinese Government take its stand upon the article of International Law, which provides for the resumption of territory leased, if the notables and people are opposed to such a lease, what plea could England advance to explain this away?

As regards munitions of war, uniforms, and flags, as at present the Militia is being everywhere organized, no place is without these appurtenances.

Last year the Governor of Hong Kong forwarded a memorandum about Chung Shui Yang and his affiliated rebels, which memorandum you, the Consul, personally handed to me. It stated that the rebels had several thousand guns, twenty thousand unitorms, and flags innumerable. It further stated that it was proposed hereafter to attack Hong Kong, and to fire the city and plunder it. This memorandum is still in my possession. Whether the present affray at Tai Pu Hu is the work of Chung Shui- Yang's retaining confederates, I have not yet positively ascertained. But if, when

the outlaw was arrested last year, the Hong Kong authorities had been willing to band him over at once, instead of releasing him, then the infliction of punishment at the very outset would have made the people fear the law, and matters would never have come to the present pass.

As regards the Governor's statement that the San On Magistrate and the soldiers at Shen Ch'uan must have been aware of this movement, I can assure you that nothing