7
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[April 6.]
C.O.
4492
SECTION 1.
Re: 24 APF 07
(10918]
(No. 89.) Sir,
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received April 6.)
Peking, February 17, 1907. IN my despatch No. 36 of the 22nd ultimo I stated that I had asked His Majesty's Consul at Ningpo to furnish me with an explanation as to why his consent should be necessary for the production before the Chinese authorities of the native Protestant preacher concerned in the Hai Men affair, and I have now the honour to inclose a copy of Mr. Mortimore's reply, in which he states as the possible reason for the application made to him by the Governor the belief entertained by his Excellency that the two men, one a preacher and the other a priest, might be shielded by the missionaries of their respective creeds. Mr. Mortimore adds that there is no suspicion of the men being persecuted on account of their religion.
Under these circumstances, I have informed Mr. Mortimore in a despatch, copy of which is inclosed, that if he is satisfied that the man will not be unfairly treated because of his connection with the Inland Mission, but be merely tried for any offence he may have committed, he should, in the event of the Governor again addressing him on the question, state that the accused, being a Chinese subject, it is for his Excellency to take such steps as he deems necessary in the interests of justice.
I have, &c. (Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
639
(No. 4.) Sir,
Consul Mortimore to Sir J. Jordan.
Ningpo, February 4, 1907. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 1 of the 22nd January, asking me for an explanation of the fact that the Governor at Hangchow had requested me to have a native preacher produced for trial.
A similar request to that addressed to me was sent to the French Consul-General at Shanghae, and the only reason for the request that I can think of was that he thought as the two men were, one a preacher and the other a priest, in the respective Missions, they might possibly be shielded by the missionaries, and that their arrest by the local officials might possibly lead to a protest from the French Consul or myself. There is no suspicion that the men are being persecuted on account of their religion. The China Inland Mission preacher Ko is accused of being one of the instigators of the disturbance and of having protected a man, Wang Mao San, who had been arrested for his share in the disturbance. There is no doubt that Ko did go to the Magistrate and demand the release of the man, who is not a Christian, as Mr. Rudland, the missionary in charge, states in a letter to me that he did so, on the ground that Wang had been arrested because he was a Christian, and the preacher went to the Magistrate to state that he was not, and should therefore be released. This reason for the interference seems rather remote, but the man was released by the Magistrate.
As I thought it quite possible that the Catholics would refuse to surrender their native priest for trial, and as it would be unfair that one of the accused only should be put on trial, I replied that I would have Ko produced if the Catholics produced their man.
I have heard nothing more of the matter. Shih Taotai, who was deputed by the Governor to try the case here, stayed in Shanghae in consultation with the French Consul-General for some weeks, but I hear that he has now returned to Hangchow.
[2450f-1]
(Signed)
I have, &c.
R. H. MORTIMORE.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.