CO129-331 - Public Offices - 1905 — Page 458

3

36

before me, and they stated in evidence to me: "Hparè, Tzu Chu, Shih Jang, To Yo, Pa Yang, Tu Mu,* had been previously subject to the control of the Fu Yi Yung and Tso. Formerly the Fu Yi presented us with oxen, wine, and ornaments, and on another occasion with spades, ploughs, and axes, ordering the villages to commence cultivation, but, as they had not yet succeeded in doing so, no report had been made of the acreage or of the crops produced. The official residences of the Fu Yi used to be in Hparè and Tzu Chu; later, on account of disturbances, they moved over into Chinese territory. Since then, although the Fu Yi never come in person, the villagers, every three or five years, get presents of oxen, wine, &c., and their relations with the Chinese are amicable, nor are there any feuds between them. The villagers had resided there all their lives, but had never stated that the pass was the frontier, or that they were not subject to the Fu Yi." §

This was their evidence, and they executed a voluntary bond to this effect, signing the same by finger-marks. Thus, if we are to take the evidence given to the Deputy Commissioner as a proof of the facts, the evidence and the bond submitted to me must be equally good proof.

The certificates of succession which are in the bands of the Fu Yi have been examined by me, and really bear the seals of the Board; they are not forgeries.|| Nor are the certificates themselves the only proof, for the fact of their issue may also be found set forth in the provincial "Gazetteer." These certificates are the title-deeds of succession, and they are not issued without definite and recorded proof of the genealogical descent; besides, these certificates go back to an old date, before Burmah was subject to your Government. Now how can you, in these latter days, when the question of the frontier has arisen, claim to occupy further territory on such grounds as these ?

It is the fact that Hparè and Tzu Chu are distant about 100 li from Ming Kwang. but in Yünnan the country is extensive and the population scanty. When the natives once shift their place of residence, it is quite usual that they should move to a distance of several hundred li. Thus we must not, on the mere ground that these Fu Yi have moved to a comparatively distant place, doubt that these villages were their ancient inheritance. Again, the villages controlled by Tso Fu Yi have a mixed population of Chinese and barbarians, but Yang Fu Yi, having removed his residence to Chung Tan (in Lower Ming Kwang), is surrounded by villages wholly inhabited by Chinese, without any barbarians; thus he has none of the tribesmen under his immediate control, and his may be considered a title borrowed from former times. His name of Fu Yi¶ does not agree with the facts, but that Tzu Chu and Hparè were formerly governed by these Fu Yi is a matter which admits of no doubt,** therefore it cannot be said that 1 have, so to say, forced these villages into a position in Ming Kwang.

Then, again, you describe the results of Mr. Leveson's and your investigations as to the history and conditions of Pieu Ma, and the Ngaw Chang and Khan Sheng Rivers as given by the Headman [here the Taotai quotes this part of my despatch in full.-G. L., who stated that they have never been subject to China. You remark that, while the statements of the Headmen cannot be altogether accepted, the state- ments of the Fu Yi to the effect that they reduced this country to subjection are still less to be credited.

But I find that the story of the expedition by the Fu Yi to the Ngaw Chang does not merely rest on the personal statement of those Chiefs, but in a joint Memorial by the Boards of Civil Office and of Revenue in the days of Chia Ching, it is set forth that a Chinese General, Hsieh, led troops in a punitive expedition against the rebels of Chen Ka, that subsequently the Fu Yi joined the expedition and gained credit by subduing the country, and finally that the country was divided up among them. The Chiefs also have sealed documents which are evidence of this division. §§

* Villages on the Khan Sheng and Ngaw Chang Rivers.-G. L.

This is all nonsense; these villages have numerous ricsfields, though they were not started through the Fu Yi's" orders.-G. L..

There is no evidence whatever that the Fu Yi over lived over the watershed; if they had they would have left some traces. The natives, too, deny it.-G. L.

This interview appears to be a fabrication; at any rate we heard nothing of it till this despatch. See my note to the Taotai.-G. L.

See my note to the Taotai---G. L.

Lit. "Cherisher of barbarians."--G. L.

**The Taotai does not assert that there is now any effective control.-G. L

Early nineteenth century.-G. L.

Upper Salween.~~~G. L.

Veracity is not a leading characteristic of Chinese Generals or of Chinese documents.-G. L

37

451

The statements made by the Headmen in response to your inquiries, namely, that it was simply a case of feuds and fights between the Chinese and the tribes and that then presents were exenanged in order to make peace, but that the country was never under the government of Chinese officials-these statements, I say, seem to rest on traditions which in the course of long years have departed from the real facts; we cannot put our faith in such traditions in preference to the proofs afforded by official documents. Besides, the Teng Keng Headman even now collects a house tax and a "kang" or toll; I need hardly point out at length that this affords precise evidence that he administers the country.*

Then you state that all along the west bank of the Lu-Chiang or Salween the inhabitants are lasu, and that to the west of the great snowy range, between the Salween and the Irrawaddy, are the Langsu (Marus); these latter, you say, have hitherto been independent and have no intercourse with the Lisu. I would remark that the Kachins and other tribes have their seats in the remote hills and valleys. Their manners are rude and barbarous. Not only is it the case that when divided by rivers and ranges they have no communication with each other, but even households situated within sight of each other have no intercourse. The Lisu and Langsu are two different tribes; that they should have no intercourse is therefore to be expected, and it would seem that this circumstance is not to be taken as a proof in itself that these people are under no control.t

Then you state that the Gazcticers of Yung Chang and Tengyueh, together with the provincial map and provincial Gazetteer, all give the Kachin Hills or the water- parting as the boundary, and you quote the despatch of my Foreign Office which states that there is no such river as the Naikha.

But these wild frontier districts are rarely visited by man, and the Gazetteers do not contain full details about them. Thus, for instance, the Nampaung Stream, the western boundary of Tengyueh, and the Nam Yang River, the south boundary of Tengyueh, are not mentioned in the Gazetteers; it cannot be said, therefore, that they are not in China. Further, when the Gazetteer states that the north-west frontier (of Tengyueh) reaches to the boundary of the Lashi (Cha Shan) Kachins, it implies that such part of the Lashi country as is under the jurisdiction of our titled Chiefs is excluded (from the independent country). Now Hparè and Tzu Chu are situated in the Lashi Just so the southern boundary of country, but they are also our chieftainships. Tengyuch is given by the Gazetteer as Nan Tien, and the south-west as Kangai; yet Kangai and Nan Tien are none the less Chinese dependencies. When I suggest that the Ngaw Chang is the boundary of the jurisdictions of our Chiefs, I mean the same as when it is said that the Nampaung and Nam Yang Rivers are the frontiers of our Sawbwas.

Again, in Yunnan there are numerous mountains, and water-divides consequently occur in every direction. Thus, along the borders of the Tengyueh and Yung Chang districts, and in the Yung Lung territory, there are numerous water-partings. It seems, therefore, that we cannot insist that a particular watershed is the boundary of civilized aud uncivilized country.

Then you go on to remark that possession of both banks of the Lu Chiang (Upper Salween) is a matter of the greatest importance to West Yunnan, and that though at present this country has not been developed, it should, in the future, be subject to the control of Yunnan, and that the Government of Burmah would have no objection to this. I must express my sincere gratification that your inquiries have led you to so clear and just a conclusion. But you proceed to state that from the source of the Ming Kwang River the frontier-line should directly ascend to the crest of the snowy range known as the Kao Li Kung, and follow this range north to Thibet; that all the country in the basin of the Shweli and the Lu Chiang (or Upper Salween) should be controlled by Yunnan, and all the country in the basin of the Irrawaddy by Burmah; and that no other suitable frontier can be delimited except along the line of this watershed.

But if we accept the frontier you propose, our Chiefs will lose a large tract of the country which they control. Now the Ngaw Chang has already been recognized by the Chinese Fu Yi as the limit of civilized (i.., of Chinese government). If we take the Ngaw Chang as the frontier,§ that will be as natural a boundary and as easy to distinguish as the line which you claim.

* But he does not, administer it.-G. L.

+ The relevancy of this is not clear.-G. L

I added that full possession of the Irrawaddy basin was equally important to Burmalı.-G. L. This is a possible line, but not a natural one, in the same sense as the main divide; further, its acceptance would cause much expense and inconvenience to Burmah and to Yüunan-G, L

[2167 -1]

L

བྷིཀྑཱ, ས',