CO882-6 — Page 669

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

C.O. 882

6

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

302

Translation of telegram to Jardine, Matheson and Company, Hong Kong, December 22, 1905.

Referring to your telegram of the 13th, if approved of by Governor of Hong Kong amount of loan, £1,500,000, in addition to amount to provide for land in accordance with Clause 7. Insert in the second clause of Agreement proviso in the event of deficiency the same as Clause 2 Agreement Soochow-Ningpo Railway.

2880

No. 199.

FOREIGN OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE.

(Received January 25, 1906.)

[Copy to Governor, February 8, 1906. Secret. L.F.]

SIR,

Foreign Office, January 24, 1906. I AM directed by Secretary Sir E. Grey to transmit to you, for the information of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, a copy of a telegram which has been communicated to this office by the Chinese Minister respecting the Agreement for the construction of the Canton-Kowloon Railway.

I am also to enclose a copy of the reply which has been returned to Wang Ta Hsi on the subject.

I am, &c.,

Enclosure 1 in No. 199.

F. A. CAMPBELL.

The Chinese Minister presents his compliments to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and begs leave to forward to His Excellency, for his consideration, the accompanying translation of a telegram which the Chinese Minister has received from the Viceroy of Canton.

Chinese Legation,

January 11, 1906.

TRANSLATION of a telegram from His Excellency Tseng, the Viceroy of Canton, received in London on January 5, 1906.

The preliminary agreement with regard to the construction of the Canton- Kowloon Railway was made in 1899 between Sheng Ta-jen and a certain English Syndicate, on the express understanding that the Viceroy and Governor of Canton should have the right of making such changes as they thought necessary.

In view of the present state of things which prevails in this Province, it is feared that if the work of construction is to be carried out by the Syndicate, it will certainly be opposed.

I therefore propose that the work shall be commenced at both ends by both parties respectively, and when the work is near its completion, junction will be made.

I have asked His Britannic Majesty's Consul here to bring this proposal before Sir Ernest Satow, but from the information the Consul gave me in reply, I am afraid that His Excellency has misunderstood my point.

The said Agreement was made between the British Syndicate and Sheng Ta-jen, and not by the two Governments, so it can only be considered as a private under- taking.

Furthermore, the object of England in constructing the Canton-Kowloon line is to afford facilities to trade, and not to make encroachments on the sovereign rights of China.

In these circumstances, I submit that it is a perfectly correct thing for the Canton Authorities to do, if they now undertake to construct part of the line them- selves and to connect it with the other part to be built by the Syndicate when the whole work is approaching its completion.

I request you to lay this fact before Sir Edward Grey, and also to inform His Excellency that I sincerely trust that His Excellency will have the goodness to consider this in a favourable manner, and to be able to see his way of acceding to my request.

SIR

303

Enclosure 2 in No. 199.

Foreign Office, January 20, 1906. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Note of the 11th instant, enclosing a translation of a telegram from the Viceroy of Canton respecting the Canton-Kowloon Railway.

It is stated in the telegram that the Agreement concluded in 1899 was a private one between Sheng Ta-jen and the British and Chinese Corporation and not an agreement between the two Governments.

It is also stated that if the work of construction is to be carried out by the English Syndicate, it is feared that it will be opposed.

In reply, I have the honour to observe that the Preliminary Agreement signed on March 28th, 1899, was a formal undertaking entered into by Sheng Ta-jen "acting under the authority of the Tsung-li Yamen," ie., on behalf of the Chinese Govern- ment, and that it is clearly out of the question that such an agreement should be set aside by one of the parties to the contract without the assent of the other.

I would also point out that apart from the signature of the Preliminary Agreement there exist binding engagements on the part of the Chinese Government, as recorded in the correspondence between Sir C. MacDonald and the Tsung-li Yamen in 1898, under which certain railways were to be constructed by British Syndicates on terms not inferior to those granted in the case of the Luhun line. The Canton- Kowloon Railway, was one of those mentioned in these undertakings.

These and the Preliminary Agreement are explicit engagements which His Majesty's Government are justified in expecting the Chinese Government to carry out.

The Governor of Hong Kong has already explained to the. Viceroy's Secretary, Mr. Wei, that His Majesty's Government are bound to support the Corporation in obtaining the fulfilment of the promise given in 1898, and that if the Viceroy desires any alteration in the terms of the Agreement, His Excellency's proper course is to negotiate with the Corporation on the subject.

In regard to the possibility of opposition being offered if the Corporation commence the construction of the line, His Majesty's Government feel confident that the Viceroy will not fail to visit with severe punishment any persons interfering with the exercise by British subjects of their just rights.

I have, &c.,

Wang Ta-Sieh,

&c.,

2919

SIR,

&c..

&c.

No. 200.

CROWN AGENTS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

(Received January 27, 1908.)

[Answered by No. 207.]

Hong Kong Loan.

E. GREY.

Whitehall Gardens, London, S. W., January 26, 1906.

3

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant,

No. 1103/05-06,* enclosing a copy of the Hong Kong Ordinance No. 12 of 1905, which has been passed to amend the General Loan and Inscribed Stock Ordinance (1893), and requesting our observations in the matter.

2. In reply,

regret to state that the Ordinance is, in our opinion, quite inadequate for the purpose for which it has been passed, and there is a mistake in it which would appear to render it inoperative, viz., in Section 2 of the Ordin- ance reference is made to "the provisions of Section 3 of the Principal Ordinance," &c., &c., whereas on reference to the Principal Ordinance it is obvious that the section to which reference should have been made is 2 and not 3.

3. Section 2 of the amending Ordinance appears also to limit the discretion given to us to the conditions as to the repayment of such Debentures as the Crown Agents, with the approval of the Governor, may prescribe, whereas it is evident

• Not printed.