CO129-331 - Public Offices - 1905 — Page 384

4

ARTICLE XIV.-Ratification.

The ratifications of this Treaty shall be exchanged at Peking one year from the date of signing the Treaty, and it shall come into operation three months after the exchange of ratifications.

The Treaty shall be signed and sealed by the two Plenipotentiaries, and two copies each of the German and Chinese texts shall be prepared.

Regulations for Inland Waters Steam Navigation.

(Same as those appended to British Treaty.)

[Inis Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]

CHINA TRADE.

CONFIDENTIAL.

No. 1.

0.

[September, 25.

300

SECTION 4.

İREC

(REG 14 OCT 05

▸

(No. 260.) My Lord,

copy

of a

Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Lansdowne.-(Received September 25.)

Peking. July 21, 1905. IN your despatch No. 94 of the 1st May last your Lordship inclosed telegram from the Shanghae correspondent of the "Times," which was published in the issue of that paper of the 17th April, and desired me to offer some observations on the statements contained in it, to the effect that China disregarded the stipulations of the Mackay Treaty of 1902, and that violations of pre-existing Treaties and illegal exactions were flagrant.

Most of the assertions made in this telegram are also contained in the letter addressed to your Lordship by various representatives of British mercantile firms and banks at Shanghae, on which I have already commented in my despatch No. 242 of the 11th instant; but since writing that despatch I have received a reply from His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghae, to whom I sent the "Times" telegram, with a request that he would furnish me with a report on the statements made in the second paragraph.

Among these there are three specific complaints, which were not put forward in the letter from the Shanghae merchants, viz. :-

(1.) The arrest and imprisonment of agents and employés of British merchants inland, and the intimidation of and extortion from Chinese traders connected with foreigners:

(2.) The proceedings of the Shanghae Tantai; and

(8.) The imposition of a heavy li-kin on cattle destined for the local meat supply at Shanghae.

I inclose a copy of the despatch from Sir P. Warren containing his remarks on these three points.

As regards (1), your Lordship will perceive that a case is mentioned in which the owner of certain premises rented by him to Messrs. Ilbert and Co. was imprisoned on a charge of a breach of the Regulations under which he held his "buyer's" licence. Sir P. Warren admits that it is probable that the real reason of this man's arrest was that he had rented his premises to a foreigner, but of this there is no evidence, and he appears to have been guilty of a technical breach of the Regulations. As no allusion is made to any other case of this sort, it may be concluded that it is not the common practice of the Chinese authorities to imprison the employés of British merchants, as the wording of the telegram might be taken to imply. Sir P. Warren adds, however, that Chinese employed as agents by foreign merchants do complain that their business is on that account interfered with by the local officials, but that on examination it frequently turns out that the Chinese employé has given cause for this interference by putting up a signboard setting forth that the business is that of a foreign firm, and claiming for that reason exemption from all taxation.

(2.) The charges made against the Taotai Yuan Shu-hsun appear to be justified, for Sir P. Warren states that he is inclined to be extremely obstractive in business of every description, and that he is reported to have made a laige fortune owing to the fact that the indemnity money passes through his hands. The Taotai also collected the revenues from an office which was recently discovered to exist within the Settlement-but now removed--for the collection of duties on opium and native goods in Chinese hands. The "substantial promotion" which, it is asserted, the Taotai is to receive seems little more than a vague rumour.

(3.) The complaint respecting the imposition of a heavy likin on cattle seems also well founded. Sir P. Warren explains the circumstances which led to the increase of this levy, and says that the matter has been taken up by the Consular Body and will be referred to the Viceroy at Nanking.

The last paragraph of Sir P. Warren's despatch refers to a case already reported in his despatch No. 46 of the 16th June, of which I have sent your Lordship a copy in my despatch No. 242.

[2108 bb-4]

377