www
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA TRADE,
CONFIDENTIAL.
[38617]
No. 1.
286
[November 17.]
SECTION 1.0.
44702
MECS
REG 5 DEC 06
14
(No. 392.) Sir,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received November 17.)
Peking, October 2, 1906. WITH reference to your despatch No. 273 of the 10th August, I have the honour to inclose copies of correspondence which will enable you to understand how the note of the 7th June to Prince Ching, on the subject of the removal of the artificial obstructions to navigation in the Canton River, came to be written.
A copy of Prince Ching's note of the 26th December, 1905, was sent to His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton, who was asked whether it could now be considered that the provisions of Article V in regard to these obstructions had been duly carried into execution. Mr. Scott's reply of the 31st March (Inclosure 4) qualified the effect of his previous despatch of the 10th July, 1905, a copy of which was sent by him directly to Lord Lansdowne. Sir E. Satow thereupon asked the confidential opinion of Sir M. Nathan on the whole matter, and this was communicated in a telegram of the 29th April, of which a paraphrase is inclosed for your information.
With reference to the dredging of the Taimee Channel, Sir E. Satow made further inquiries of His Majesty's Consul-General to ascertain whether the shoal was natural or artificial (Inclosure 8), and in consequence of Mr. Mansfield's reply of the 17th May, Mr. Carnegie came to the conclusion that this matter did not fall within the scope of Article V, and for that reason made no mention of it in his note of the 7th June to Prince Ching.
Sir E. Satow agreed with Sir M. Nathan that the improvement of the Canton harbour was a separate question, and the difficulty of dealing with it is evident from an examination of the second sentence of Article V. Unless the Imperial Maritime Customs execute the work of their own motion without insisting on the tax therein laid down, no progress can be made until the Treaty Powers all concur, for it is unlikely that British and Chinese merchants will consent to tax themselves only.
Mr. Carnegie had reason to know that his note of the 7th June was under consideration, and I am now informed by Sir R. Hart that he communicated its contents to the Commissioner of Customs at Canton some three months ago, from whom he had not since heard on the subject. Sir Robert, on the matter being again brought to his attention by me, telegraphed to the Commissioner for a report, and promised to do all in his power to have the Iron Barrier removed. He explained, however, that all the staff and appliances employed at Canton had been transferred elsewhere under the impression that the work of removing the obstructions had been completed, and that there might be considerable difficulty and expense in collecting them and sending them back there.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
(No. 26.) Sir,
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Sir E. Satow to Consul-General Scott.
Peking, December 25, 1905. IN your despatch No. 37 of the 10th July you inclosed copy of a Memorandum by Captain Eldridge, Deputy Coast Inspector, on the works completed for the widening and deepening of the channels through the Iron, Wooden, Cambridge, and Paisbek Barriers in the Canton River, and you reported that shipmasters agreed that the channels now made were sufficient to meet all practical requirements of navigation. In your further despatch No. 49 you reported the clearing of the Whampoa Barrier.
I have now received a note from Prince Ching transmitting a Memorandum showing the measures taken to effect the complete removal of the barriers in the Canton River,
[2241 r-1]
!
www
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA TRADE,
CONFIDENTIAL.
[38617]
No. 1.
286
[November 17.]
SECTION 1.0.
44702
MECS
REG 5 DEC 06
14
(No. 392.) Sir,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received November 17.)
Peking, October 2, 1906. WITH reference to your despatch No. 273 of the 10th August, I have the honour to inclose copies of correspondence which will enable you to understand how the note of the 7th June to Prince Ching, on the subject of the removal of the artificial obstructions to navigation in the Canton River, came to be written.
A copy of Prince Ching's note of the 26th December, 1905, was sent to His Majesty's Cousul-General at Canton, who was asked whether it could now be considered that the provisions of Article V in regard to these obstructions had been duly carried into execution. Mr. Scott's reply of the 31st March (Inclosure 4) qualified the effect of his previous despatch of the 10th July, 1905, a copy of which was sent by him directly to Lord Lansdowne. Sir E. Satow thereupon asked the confidential opinion of Sir M. Nathan on the whole matter, and this was communicated in a telegram of the 29th April, of which a paraphrase is inclosed for your information.
With reference to the dredging of the Taimee Channel, Sir E. Satow made further inquiries of His Majesty's Consul-General to ascertain whether the shoal was natural or artificial (Inclosure 8), and in consequence of Mr. Mansfield's reply of the 17th May, Mr. Carnegie came to the conclusion that this matter did not fall within the scope of Article V, and for that reason made no mention of it in his note of the 7th June to Prince Ching.
Sir E. Satow agreed with Sir M. Nathan that the improvement of the Canton harbour was a separate question, and the difficulty of dealing with it is evident from an examina- tion of the second sentence of Article V. Unless the Imperial Maritime Customs execute the work of their own motion without insisting on the tax therein laid down, no progress can be made until the Treaty Powers all concur, for it is unlikely that British and Chinese merchants will consent to tax themselves only.
Mr. Carnegie had reason to know that his note of the 7th June was under considera- tion, and I am now informed by Sir R. Hart that he communicated its contents to the Commissioner of Customs at Canton some three months ago, from whom he had not since heard on the subject. Sir Robert, on the matter being again brought to his attention by me, telegraphed to the Commissioner for a report, and promised to do all in his power to have the Iron Barrier removed. He explained, however, that all the staff and appliances employed at Canton had been transferred elsewhere under the impression that the work of removing the obstructions had been completed, and that there might be considerable difficulty and expense in collecting them and sending them back there.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
(No. 26.) Sir,
Inclosure 1 în No. 1.
Sir E. Satow to Consul-General Scott.
Peking, December 25, 1905. IN your despatch No. 37 of the 10th July you inclosed copy of a Memorandum by Captain Eldridge, Deputy Coast Inspector, on the works completed for the widening and deepening of the channels through the Iron, Wooden, Cambridge, and l'aisbek Barriers in the Canton River, and you reported that shipmasters agreed that the channels now made were sufficient to meet all practical requirements of navigation. In your further despatch No. 49 you reported the clearing of the Whampoa Barrier.
I have now received a note from Prince Ching transmitting a Memorandum showing the measures taken to effect the complete removal of the barriers in the Canton River,
[2241 r-1]
B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.