CO882-6 — Page 458

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

6 ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

10

the difference between the two places consists in Hong Kong being rather more immediately on the direct line of trade, close to Canton and to very populous districts, and free from the competition of a contemporaneous German settlement, to which preference has been given; but, with the record of Hong Kong and with the natural advantages of Weihaiwei and its proximity, e.g., to Chefoo, it would be absurd to deny to Weihaiwei the possibility of a future.

Here is what was said of Hong Kong by Mr. Montgomery Martin, Colonial Treasurer in 1844:-

56

Nearly four years' residence on or occupation of the island has failed to produce any commercial operation.

There does not appear to be the slightest probability that, under any circum. stacces, Hong Kong will ever become a place of trade. The island produces nothing whatever, its geographical position, either as regards the Chinese coast generally, or Canton in particular, is bad."

44

14

Again, "It is, indeed, a delusion or a deception " to talk of Hong Kong becoming a commercial emporium and to liken it to Singapore. The "circumstances and position of Hong Kong and Singapore present no resemblance whatever. Hong Kong is a barren rock. producing nothing, "not leading to any place, surrounded by no trading or populous communities with various "commodities for barter, and disadvantageously "situated at the most impoverished part of a coast "line of 2,000 miles, and which, for half the year, "is only readily accessible in one direction.'

64

12

The description is almost word for word what is said by the detractors of Weihaiwei of that place.

I venture to suggest that under no circumstances whatever ought we to give up Weihaiwei, and that it would be disastrous in the extreme to do so; but, if this view is held, it may be necessary to find some means of squaring our action with our pledges in the event of Russia losing Port Arthur. It is stated that if the Japanese take Port Arthur they will hand it back to China, which will be practically a challenge to us to hand back Weihaiwei, but it seems to me that it is highly probable that hoth China and Japan will be very content that we should stay where we are as long as Germany holds Kiao-

Chau.

I submit that, when occasion offers, an under- standing might be come to with China that, in the event of Port Arthur being given up, we should have a new lease of Weihaiwei for 99 years from the original date of occupation, being the same term that we have for the New Territory at Hong Kong and

do not see

that the Germans have at Kiao-Chau. that the Chinese uced he given or would ask for any quid pro quo beyond such assurance as His Majesty's

f

11

Government see fit to give against dismemberment of China; but if they want it, then we might

(1) invite them to co-operate with us in using the place as a Chinese naval station, as the terms of the convention permit. Mr. Lockhart has already recommended this in the following words :--"Hitherto

16

no encouragement has been given to "the Government of China to use the "waters. From the political point of "view it appears to me that it would be

*

a good thing to encourage China to "avail herself of her rights under the "Convention, instead of compelling her "to go afield in search of a harbour." Mr. Hare has taken the same point in proposing to give back the greater part of Weihaiwei. "Under the Convention -" of Weihaiwei the Chinese Government "is privileged to make use of the Bay of "Weihaiwei for the Chinese fleet. China " is now (1902) about to re-organise her "Northern fleet, and it would be a not inopportune moment to re-transfer "most of the mainland to China. This "would enable the Chinese to make "complete arrangements for their fleet " and sailors on the mainland, and on the harbour on that side of it at Wei- "haiwei instead of at Chefoo, where it is at present proposed to station the "future Chinese fleet." The same point is taken by the writer in the Fortnightly Review.

54

14

I see no necessity for giving up anything beyond a site for a dockyard where the Chinese might exercise jurisdiction, as they now do in the walled town of Weihaiwei, but if again we have to bargain further,

then

(2) We might in the last resort give up as much

as Mr. Hare has suggested, which will still leave us the harbour and space for a sanatorium, and this would emphasise that we are adhering to our pledges to Germany not to go inland. I would, however, strongly deprecate giving up territory even in return for a firm 99 years' lease of the remainder, which might neutralise in part the bed effect of giving up. We are sure to have a growing population under our rule, and to want more space, and the difficulties which we have faced in Hong Kong will recur in Weihaiwei.

It is presumed that any negotiations would be with the cognisance of Japan, and possibly the Foreign Office might think it advisable to make proposals in advance of any demand from China. That at least, is Sir Cecil Smith's view.

C. P. L

7th June 1904.