[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
21622
[May.18.]
Arc 18 JUN 07
SECTION 2.
[16197]
(No. 148.) Sir,
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received May 18.)
Peking, March 27, 1907. WITH reference to my despatch No. 94 of the 19th February, I have the honour to inclose, for your information, copies of further correspondence relating to the affairs of the Peking Syndicate in Honan and Shansi.
On the 4th March Prince Ching replied to my note of the 18th January, supporting the argument that the delay in commencing work in Shansi was the fault of the Syndicate, and indirectly casting doubt on the Syndicate's account of the circumstances connected with the negotiation of the Cheng-t'ai Railway Agreement of the 26th April, 1898. I referred his Highness' note to Mr. Brown, and on receipt of the latter's reply I addressed a rejoinder to Prince Ch'ing, in which affirmed the accuracy of the Syndicate's statement, invited reference to M. Pokotilow, the present Russian Minister, and one of the signatories of the Cheng-t'ai Agreement, for what- ever confirmation might be judged necessary, answered some of the comments which appeared to me to require notice, and maintained the claim for compensation.
The placard forwarded in Mr. Brown's letter of the 9th March was communicated to the Wai-wu Pu on the 14th March. I have not heard any further particulars of the mass meeting called for in this document,
It has been one of Mr. Tong Shoa-yi's complaints that the failure of the Peking Syndicate to mine workable coal in Honan was likely to prevent the Tao Ching line from becoming a paying concern, and the inclosure in Mr. Brown's letter of the 19th March is useful as showing that this complaint may not long have any basis in fact.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
(Translation.)
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Prince Ching to Sir J. Jordan.
Kuang Hsü, 33rd year, 1st month, 20th day (March 4, 1907).
Sir,
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of the 18th January (quoted at length) on the subject of the Peking Syndicate's Shansi Concession, and have to observe that the Agreement in respect to this Concession was signed on the 21st May, 1898, by the Shansi Provincial Bureau of Commerce and Mr. Luzzati of the Peking Syndicate. It was an entirely separate matter from the Agreement with the Russo-Chinese Bank respecting the Chengt'ai Railway, and the one did not affect the other.
Your Excellency states in your note now under acknowledgment that before the Shansi Agreement was signed the Syndicate entered into the separate Agreement with the Russo-Chinese Bank, whereby they waived their claim to construct a branch line in favour of the Chengtai Railway. But as it is admitted that this was done before the Shansi Agreement was signed, how could the Syndicate have any claim to construct the branch line? And having no such claim, how could they waive it in favour of another Syndicate? The mines are Shansi mines, the railway is a Shansi line, and in the absence of China's concurrence and its expression in the Agreement with the Peking Syndicate, it cannot be expected that China will recognize a separate Agreement which the two Syndicates may have made between themselves.
A careful examination of this Board's records has disclosed nothing to show that this separate Agreement was made in consultation with the late Li Hung Chang. As regards your Excellency's allusion to Sir Ernest "Satow's note of November 1905,
[2494 8-2]
B
259
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.