[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
(・・ AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
[19876]
No. 1.
| 25167 [June 17-]
REGE 16 JUL 07,
421
!
Sacher-6.
!
(No. 192.) Sir,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received June 17.)
Peking, April 24, 1907.
I HAVE the honour to transmit to you herewith copies of a correspondence which has passed between myself and His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton, on the subject of the claims arising out of the piracy of the steam-ship "Sainam.'
"
As you will observe, both the Viceroy and the Wai-wu Pu contend that the Chinese Government is bound by no precedent or Treaty obligation to pay compensation in a case of this nature. The Wai-wu Pu have, however, consented to instruct the Viceroy, by telegram, to appoint a Delegate to meet the Consul-General with the view of arriving at some settlement of the claim, and I have instructed Mr. Mansfield to present the various items as revised by himself, and to continue to press for their payment by the Canton Government.
The Chinese contention that there is no precedent for payment of compensation for loss of life or property caused by acts of piracy seems to be borne out by a reference to the archives of this Legation.
Crimes of this kind have, so far as I know, been confined to Canton waters, and during the last thirty years there have been three notable cases of piracy, each attended by serious loss of life.
The "Spark," a vessel belonging to the Hong Kong, Canton, and Macao Company, was pirated at the Bocca Tigris in 1874, her captain, first officer, and purser all being killed, and another persou dangerously wounded.
Although two of the above were British subjects, no question of compensation appears to have been raised.
The steam-ship "Greyhound," another British steamer, was taken possession of by pirates on the voyage between Hong Kong and Hoihow in December 1885. The captain, a British subject, was killed and his body thrown overboard.
The Consul at Canton, at the request of the Agents, made a private appeal to the Viceroy for a compassionate grant to the captain's widow, but apparently without result.
Sir N. R. O'Conor, in reporting the case to the Foreign Office in his despatch No. 14 of the 18th January, 1886, seems to have been satisfied with the action of the Chinese authorities in capturing a number of the pirates, and makes no reference to compensation.
In the "Namoa" case, which occurred in December 1890 in the vicinity of Mirs Bay, two foreigners were killed, one of whom was a British subject, and here again no question of compensation arose.
The "Spark" case is the one which most closely resembles that of the "Sainam." It occurred in the internal waters of China, and the passengers went on board at "affair is the Canton. The only point which differentiates it from the "Sainam apparent absence of any previous neglect on the part of the local authorities, but this is a charge which the Chinese Government will doubtless do its utmost to repudiate.
I have, &c.
(Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Consul-General Mansfield to Sir J. Jordan.
(No. 14.) Sir,
Canton, April 5, 1907. REFERRING to my telegram No. 16 of the 22nd instant, I have the honour to report, with regard to the "Sainam" indemnity claims, that, as instructed, I approached the Viceroy, after first preparing the way by announcing my intention to his Excellency's Secretary, by sending the despatch dated the 27th February, of which I inclose copy.
[2524 r-6]
B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.