[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[1242]
No. 1.
252
[January 12.]
SECTION 1.
C.0.
5521
REC
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey-(Received January 12, 1907.) d 13 FEB 071
(No. 505.) Sir,
Peking, November 29, 1906. WITH reference to your despatch No. 273 of the 10th August, and my reply thereto. No. 892 of the 2nd October, I have now the honour to transmit to you herewith copy of a Report from the Commissioner of Customs at Canton, which has been furnished me by Sir Robert Hart, on the question of the removal of the worth section of the iron barrier at that port.
You will observe that the Customs experts consider that the work already done gives vessels a sufficiently wide channel, and are of opinion that the complete removal of the barrier would create a fresh danger connected with a spit to the westward.
Their proposed remedy is that, instead of removing the north section of the barrier, a more powerful light should be placed on the end of the arm, and that a fog signal should be established there.
I am forwarding a copy of this despatch with its inclosures confidentially to the Governor of Hong Kong, and am asking his Excellency to be so good as to consider them in connection with the last paragraph of his despatch of the 23rd December, 1904, to which you refer, and furnish me with the views of his Government on the subject.
Sir,
I have, &c.
(Signed) J. N. JORDAN,
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Mr. F. J. Mayers to Sir R. Hart.
Custom-house, Canton, October 13, 1906.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your despatch No. 1360, stating that the British authorities in China are of opinion that the north bank section of the iron barrier should be removed, and calling upon me to report whether such removal is really uecessary, and, if so, what the cost would be.
2. I would remark, in the first place, that two years ago Captain Tyler very carefully considered the question of what portion of the iron barrier should be removed, and in his Memorandum, which forms the inclosure to my despatch No. 5986 of 1904, he gives his reasons for making the opening wider towards the middle of the river instead of towards the north bank.
He says:
"The width, 570 feet, has been taken as that corresponding to a certain section of the piles which give promise of being more easily removed than the remainder, i.e., stones are not heaped up round them to the same extent as elsewhere." I remember Captain Tyler telling me that the north section of the barrier would be very difficult to remove, and that for various reasons he did not consider its removal necessary. This has throughout been the opinion of the Coast Inspector's Department, and this view das been confirmed by recent investigations.
3. Before deciding where the main opening through the barrier should be, Captain Tyler naturally freely consulted all persons capable of expressing an opinion on the matter, and his proposals, I believe, were fully approved by all concerned. I would ask you to kindly reread my despatch No. 5986, from which you will see that Captain Tyler's scheme was submitted at an early date to the British authorities and very favourably received. Not a single word of criticism or suggestion ever reached me until this new demand of the British Government's, which is communicated in your despatch under reply. The north end of the barrier was never touched, and therefore it is evident that the reasons for its removal were as strong in 1904 as they are to-day; yet the people who now call for its removal did not say a word at the time when the works were first projected.
4. I have little doubt that the present demand originated with Captain Lloyd, of the river steamer" Hankow," who on the 20th February last ran into the north end of
[2324 m-
-1]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.