[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
0.
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[40350]
No. 1.
172
[December 1.]
SECTION 9. 2 JAN 07
(No. 419.) Sir,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.~(Received December 1.)
Peking, October 15, 1906. THE negotiations in connection with the Tien-tsin-Chinkiang Railway, which appear to have been practically in a state of suspense since the end of 1903, were resumed in August last at Tien-tsin between Messrs. Cordes and Bland, representing respectively the Deutsch-Asiatische Bank and the Chinese Central Railways, on the one side, and the Taotais Liang Tun-yen and C. L. Chou, who acted for the Viceroy of Chihli, on the other side.
In all, six meetings have taken place between the parties, and I have the honour to transmit to you herewith the Minutes of what passed on these occasions.
The method of procedure seems to have been to adopt the Chinese counter- proposals of 1903, a copy of which I have the honour to inclose, as a basis of discussion, and to compare them seriatim, in the first instance, with the Preliminary Agreement of the 18th May, 1899, and afterwards with the final proposals as set forth in the draft Final Agreement of the 2nd February, 1906, a copy of which is inclosed for convenience of reference. This last, I understand, embodied the suggestions made by Sir E. Satow after prolonged consultation with Mr. Boyce Kup.
The negotiators considered all the clauses on the foregoing basis, leaving certain points, on which opinions differed, in abeyance, and finally, at the meeting of the 22nd September, a draft was drawn up embodying the results of the three previous sittings, and it was decided to go over the whole again, and if possible to agree upon a draft which could be submitted to the Viceroy by the Chinese Commissioners.
Some days, however, after the last meeting Mr. Cordes reported to the German Chargé d'Affairs, Baron von der Goltz, a private conversation which he had had with Mr. Chow, one of the Chinese Commissioners. This was to the effect that the Preliminary Agreement would not be recognized by the Viceroy. Baron von der Goltz called upon me on the 6th instant and proposed that we should make a joint representa- tion to the Wai-wu Pu on the subject. He expressed the opinion that the negotiators on our side had made far too many concessions, and laid special stress upon the necessity of retaining control of the railway after construction.
I promised to consider the matter and let him have a reply as soon as I had familiarized myself with the later phases of the question.
The following day I received a call from the French Minister, M. Bapst, who stated that he had received a telegram from Paris instructing him to confer with me regarding the Tien-tsin-Chinkiang Railway negotiations. He seemed somewhat surprised at having received this message, as M. Casenave, who represents the French group, had previously assured him that French diplomatic assistance was not desired.
I pointed out that the Preliminary Agreement only contemplated a transfer to a German or English Company, and that perhaps the intervention of a third Power might be liable to misconstruction on the part of the Chinese. M. Bapst quite agreed, and said he was merely carrying out his instructions.
Mr. Bland, whom I consulted subsequently, did not share Baron von der Goltz' views as regards the necessity of retaining control after construction, and he furnished me with an interesting letter to his Board, copy of which I have the honour to iuclose, in which he recommended that this right should be waived. I would draw special attention to Mr. Bland's letter, as it sums up very clearly the present position on the whole question of these negotiations.
Bearing in mind the instructions conveyed in your despatch No. 260, Confidential, of the 7th August last, and in view of Mr. Bland's expression of opinion, I decided not to join my German colleague in his proposed action.
In intimating this decision and the reasons of it to Baron von der Goltz, I added that if the Viceroy really repudiated the terms of the Preliminary Agreement I should be prepared to join him in a formal protest. I thought it advisable, however, to wait for another meeting of the negotiators before taking action. A similar explanation was als given to M. Bapst.
[2268 a-9]
B
Page
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.