2
4. A copy of this despatch, with inclosures, has been forwarded to Sir E. Satow direct.
(Confidential.)
We have, &c. (Signed)
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
CURZON. KITCHENER.
E. R. ELLES.
A. T. ARUNDEL.
H. ERLE RICHARDS,
E. N. BAKER.
C. L. TUPPER.
Government of Burmah to Government of India.
Rangoon, June 19, 1905.
I AM directed to solicit a reference to the correspondence ending with my letter dated the 7th June, 1905, concerning the joint visit of British and Chinese Representatives to the northern part of the watershed between the Irrawaddy and the Salween.
2. am now to submit the Report of Mr. Litton, His Majesty's Consul at Tengyneh, on the joint examination. Mr. Litton performed the task allotted to him with his customary zeal and ability. He was ably assisted by Mr. Leveson, who was deputed from Burmah. Subject to the observations which follow, his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor accepts and supports the recommendations of Mr. Litton, in which Mr. Leveson concurs.
3. In Part VII of his Report, and again in Part VIII, Mr. Litton dwells on the fact that the adoption of the Irrawaddy-Salween watershed as a boundary will give the Kachins to Burmah and the Lisus to Yunnan. This, as a general statement, is correct. But there are Lisu or Yawyin villages in the Bhamo and Myitkyina districts. There- fore, in dealing with the Chinese Imperial and Provincial Governments, the British Representatives should be careful, it is suggested, not to use absolute and unqualified language. Moreover, it seems to be not impossible that the tribes living high up in the Salween and Mekong Valleys may be more akin to the Kachins (which term includes the Chingpaws, Lashis, and Kauris and is sometimes extended to include the Marus) than to the Lisus or Yawyins. Mr. Litton states in Part VI that the Lu Tzu on the Upper Salween are probably allied to the Chingpaw.
We have had many instances of the ingenuity displayed by the Chinese in stretching the meaning of terms of local jurisdiction loosely employed. In Sir Herbert White's opinion it behoves us to adhere closely to geographical definitions in negotiations with the Chinese Government.
4. The Lieutenant-Governor is of opinion that the British Government should not claim the watershed as a boundary up to latitude 28°. In the first place, it is known that Chamutong, which is below latitude 28°, is in Thibet, and the Inland Mission's map of China (dated 1903) shows a wedge of Thibetan territory stretching between Burmah and Yünnan down to below 27°. It might therefore be inconvenient to say or imply that our boundary with China reaches to latitude 28. Secondly, the basis of the arguments now to be addressed to the Chinese Government is that our Representatives have visited the locality and that all Chinese claims have been examined. The British Representative, however, did not go above Paipa, in latitude 26° 15′, and the Chinese Representative did not go above Mao Chao, in about latitude 20° 7′. Mr. Litton believes his inquiries to have reached to latitude 26° 50′, and that is the highest limit to which the argument based on local investigation can extend. Thirdly, it is not certain that above latitude 27° the castern watershed of the Irrawaddy is the divide between it and the Salween. It is possible that some of the streams which rise on the east of that range of mountains may flow into the Brahmaputra.
5. It is suggested by Mr. Litton that while the British Government should demand recognition of the watershed as the boundary up to latitude 28", it might announce its readiness to pay compensation for such claius to tribal tributes as may hereafter be substantiated. Sir Herbert White is not disposed to regard this course as expedient. Such an announcement would be a direct encouragement to the Chinese to acquire influence in the country of the Marus and Chius. The Government of India will
3
434
remember the manner in which the Chinese sought to extend the jurisdiction of the Chenpien district mentioned in Article II of the Convention of 1894. That the Chinese have already some claims, reaching even to the Malikha, may be seen from your indorsement, dated the 3rd January, 1905, concerning the Chief of Yedru, on the Upper Mekong,
6. It seems to the Lieutenant-Governor that the British Government should not in any way renounce or weaken its claim for Burmah to the whole basin of the Irrawaddy, but that as regards the actual boundary, if the Chinese are prepared to recognize the line shown on Mr. Litton's map only up to latitude 26° 30', or even up to latitude 26°15′, the British Government, for the present, may be satisfied.
7. The Lieutenant-Governor sees no objection to, and several possible advantages in, the payment of an annual rent as compensation for the extinction of tribal tribute to Headmen on the Chinese side. It will be noticed, however, that the rent proposed by Mr. Litton (1,000 rupees or a few hundreds more) is considerably more than the annual It is understood amount (300 rupees) at which the substantiated claims were valued. that the object of this recommendation is to allow enough money for satisfying all the clains, while officially recognizing only those substantiated to Mr. Litton's satisfaction. It appears to his Honour that it may be better to face the situation and to say that we are ready to pay a generous rent so as to cover even the shadowy claims which we do not admit to be real.
8. A copy of a telegram, dated the 3rd June, 1905, from Mr. Litton to His Majesty's Minister in Peking, is submitted for information iu continuation of Mr. Litton's Report.
(Telegraphic.)
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Acting Consul Litton to Sir E. Satow.
Tengyueh, June 3, 1905. NORTH frontier. Taotai's official reply to me maintains the formal claim to about twenty villages beyond the watershed, but notes in terms of strong approval my proposal for perpetual lease, as to which, however, he as yet has no power to negotiate. His report to Yunnan merely forwards the map and correspondence between him and me. records offer of rent, and asks for instructions. This is fairly satisfactory. I have conveyed to him that a present will be forthcoming for him, but he and I are much embarrassed by his sudden transfer, which he rightly regards as a mark of disfavour for friendly conduct on the Frontier Commission.
As India cannot consent to any frontier but the water-divide, prolonged discussions at Yunnan would be useless.
Supplementary report follows.
Inclosure 4 in No. 1.
Deputy Commissioner Leveson to Government of Burmah.
(Confidential)
Bhamo, May 29, 1905. WITH reference to your Political Department's despatch, dated the 10th February, 1905, I have the honour to transmit herewith Mr. Consul Litton's Report on the subject of the undelimited northern frontier.
2. As my views coincide entirely with Mr. Litton's, I have not thought it necessary to submit any separate suggestions as directed in paragraph 3 of your above- quoted letter.
8. It will be seen that in Inclosure 9 (Mr. Litton's despatch to the Taotai) the words "perpetual lease" are used, whereas in the body of the Report Mr. Litton notes that he avoided all reference to a least. In explanation of this apparent inconsistency Mr. Litton writes, dated Tengyueh, 19th May, as follows:----
"At the last moment the Taotai asked me to put in my despatch a proposal to rent the land on a lease for ever' (using these words). This surprised me, but I did it. Will
you kindly make a marginal note in my Report to this effect."
і
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.