Inclosure 4 in No. 1.
Acting Consul Giles to Governor of Hunan,
Sir,
Changsha, January 29, 1907. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your Excellency's despatch of the 23rd January, returning the deed forwarded by me, and replying to my despatch with reference to the house and land recently purchased by the Wesleyan Missionary Society inside Changsha city, in Hsi-ch'ang Street, in the I-tzu-shan neighbourhood, wherein I stated that I had forwarded the deed for the same to the Customs Taotai, requesting him to have it sealed and returned, to which the Taotai had replied that the house purchased by the Society must be treated as the public property of the mission, which they were not at liberty to resell, and that the Magistrate had made on the deed an indorsement to the effect that "This is the public property of a local mission," in consequence of which I begged your Excellency to direct the indorsement to be deleted.
Your Excellency states that in 1865 the Tsung-li Yamên issued instructions to the effect that mission stations having already been established in the interior for a number of years, it was essential that, when missionaries purchased land for the establishment of such stations, it should be stated clearly on the bill of sale that the land was sold with a view to its becoming the public property of the local mission; and that accordingly, wherever missions have purchased land or houses in the interior, the deeds have all been indorsed in this fashion. Your Excellency goes on to say that in the present instance the Magistrate, having made a similar indorsement on the deed in question, has acted in accordance with the Regulations issued by the Tsung-li Yamen years ago; that, as far as missionaries are concerned, they may purchase land and house property, erect chapels, and preach in the interior; but that, with reference to the reply of the Customs Taotai that the public property of the mission concerned in this case may not be resold, it is impossible for you to comply with my request to delete the indorsement made upon the deed. Your Excellency encludes by returning the deed forwarded by me.
I am already fully aware of the necessity for bills of sale for land purchased by missions in the interior to be indorsed in the manner stated by your Excellency. But in this instance the property belonging to the mission is not in the interior, and yet in your despatch under acknowledgment your Excellency applies to it the rules governing the acquisition of land in the interior, and has not deleted the indorse- ment made upon the deed.
On receipt of your Excellency's communication I telegraphed the circumstances of the case to the British Minister, and am now in receipt of his instructions to the effect that I am to return your Excellency's despatch together with the deed, and to inform you that the right of the mission to dispose as it pleases of the property it has purchased will be insisted upon.
Since, then, your Excellency deals with the property recently acquired by the Wesleyan Mission as if it were situated in the interior, and refuses to delete the indorsement made on the deed, it is quite out of the question for me to accept either your Excellency's despatch or the deed. herewith both the despatch and the deed, and to state, for your Excellency's informa- I consequently have the honour to return tion, that the Wesleyan Mission are perfectly at liberty either to keep for their own use the property acquired by them or else to dispose of the same, and that no limitations can be imposed upon them in this respect.
I avail, &c. (Signed)
BERTRAM GILES.
5
year the deed was returned duly sealed by the Magistrate, but on the deed there was an indorsement to the effect that "This is the public property of a local mission," and in the Superintendent's covering despatch it was stated that "The house and land purchased by the mission in the I-tzu-sban neighbourhood, and covered by one deed, is to be treated as the public property of the mission, which they are not at liberty to
resell."
Mr. Giles wrote to the Governor of Hunan on the 10th January, pointing out that, the property covered by the deed being in a Treaty port, the indorsement was irregular, and that the Superintendent of Customs was also in error in stating that the Wesleyan Mission were not free to resell it. He forwarded the deed to his Excellency, and requested that the indorsement should be deleted.
In a reply of the 23rd January the Governor argued that the indorsement, being in accordance with the instructions of the Tsung-li Yamên issued in 1865 respecting property acquired by missions in the interior, could not be deleted, and that, as the house had been bought as the public property of the Wesleyan Mission, the reselling of it by the latter to foreign merchants would be an infringement of Treaty provisions.
It is enough to state the facts for your Highness to understand the absurdity of the Governor of Hunan's statements. The right of British subjects, whether merchants or missionaries, to purchase land or bouses without let or hindrance inside the city of Changsha is incontestable, and it has already been expressly admitted in the note which your Highness addressed to Sir Ernest Satow on the 5th March, 1906. I instructed Mr. Giles by telegraph to return the reply of the 23rd January to the Governor, and this was done on the 29th January. I have now the honour to request that the instructions of the Imperial Chinese Government may be issued to his Excellency to delete the objectionable indorsement and return the deed in proper order to His Majesty's Consul. His Excellency should be informed at the same time that no limitations can be placed on the power of the Wesleyan Mission to deal with their property in the future as they may think fit.
I avail, &c. (Signed)
J. N. JORDAN,
Inclosure 5 in No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Prince Ch'ing.
Your Highness,
HIS Majesty's Acting Consul at Changsha reports that in November of last year
Peking, February 19, 1907. he sent the title-deeds for a house and property inside the city, which had been acquired by the Wesleyan Mission, to the Superintendent of Customs, with a request that the Magistrate should be instructed to seal and return it. In January of this
14
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.