$
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government] 191
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[30104]
No. 1.
[September 9.]
SECTION 2.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received September 9.)
(No. 347.) Sir,
Peking, July 18, 1907. I HAVE the honour to transmit to you herewith copy of a despatch which I have received from Sir Pelham Warren, His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghae, commenting on two letters which have been addressed to the local English press by Mr. W. V. Drummond, Legal Adviser to the Chinese authorities at Shanghae respecting the Shanghae riot claims.
As regards Mr. Drummond's statement at the end of his letter of the 6th July that Sir Ernest Satow "unfortunately accepted the position of agent (as a sort of debt collector) for other nationalities having claims," I can find no justification whatever for it. This Legation has pressed the British claims only in all communications with the Chinese Government.
I have, &c.
(Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Consul-General Sir P. Warren to Sir J. Jordan.
(No. 94. Confidential.) Sir,
Shanghae, July 9, 1907. IN connection with the claims by British subjects who suffered in person and property by the riot in 1905, I have the honour to invite your attention to two letters addressed by Mr. W. V. Drummond, Legal Adviser to the Chinese authorities at Shanghae, to the English press. The first appeared in the "Shanghae Mercury" of the 4th July and is a criticism of an editorial published in the issue of that newspaper of the day before. Of this and of the letters in question I inclose copies. Respecting the editorial I would only observe, referring to its third paragraph, that there appears to have been some opposition locally to the idea of the former Taotai Yuan appearing before a Court of Inquiry consisting of His Majesty's Judge and the present Taotai. The inclosure to my despatch No. 68 of the 3rd May last is some evidence of this, and it would thence appear as if Jui Tactai himself opposed the plan; and, further, editorials deprecating it appeared about the same time in the native press.
In the second paragraph of Mr. Drummond's letter to the "Mercury" he refers to a proposal by Viceroy Chou Fu for an inquiry, but in doing so he repeats a misstate- ment already made in a letter signed by the Mixed Court Magistrate to the Municipal Council dated the 8th January, of which copy was sent to His Majesty's Minister in my despatch No. 12 of the 16th January, 1906. The Magistrate and Mr. Drummond refer to it as a proposal for an inquiry into the whole of the causes of the trouble; it was nothing of the kind, but merely one for an investigation into the damage to person and property of Chinese and foreigners resulting therefrom. This appears quite clearly from the Viceroy's despatch to the Senior Consul of the 5th January, 1906 (see inclosures in my despatches to His Majesty's Minister Nos. 16 and 35). The Senior Consul replied that the matter concerned the authorities of the several nationalities; and I also telegraphed to Sir Ernest Satow on the 5th January, 1906, with reference to this proposal, that, as Yuan Taotai was more or less in the position of an accused, it could not be considered satisfactory. Mr. Drummond's statement that no inquiry into the causes of the riot was held, because when proposed by His Excellency Chou Fu it was refused, is not in accordance with the facts.
A reference to the bistory of this case shows that the Municipal Council promised an inquiry into the conduct of the police at the fracas; and that they were fully prepared to give effect to this promise is shown by the printed correspondence inclosed
[2652 i-2]
B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.