munications. All of them are Chekiang or Kiangsu men, and it is obvious that their appointment is intended to show that provincial interests will not be disregarded.
On the 22nd instant Wang Ta-hsieh called upon me. He was careful to explain that he desired merely to talk with me unofficially on the subject of the Chekiang Railway. It had been suggested to him that he might try to smooth over the difficulty, and he was willing to make the attempt if I saw no objection to his reappearance in this matter. If only some change could be made in the terms of the loan the "face" of the provincials would be "saved.” As an example, he suggested that the period of redemption might be shortened.
I replied that one change would lead to another, and if the terms were sufficiently satisfactory for the Tien-tsin-Yang-tszo Railway there was no reason why they should be changed in the case of the Chekiang line. I had understood from Mr. Bland that his Excellency had been reappointed to conduct the negotiations, and my only advice was that the Agreement should be signed without further vacillation.
Wang Ta-jên denied that he had been officially reappointed, and expressed the opinion that a settlement could not be expected for some time to come.
I was received at the Wai-wa Pu on the same day by the Grand Secretary Na Tung, who confirmed Wang Ta-jên's statement that no actual change had been made in the negotiator. According to the Grand Secretary, Mr. Liang could not divest himself of his responsibility by merely writing a letter to Mr. Bland. Liang Ta-jên remained as negotiator, but the Prince wished the other officials, who were natives of the provinces concerned, to use their good offices in rendering him assistance. Some progress was being made by the efforts of the provincial delegates, half of whom had returned home in order to explain the situation to their fellow provincials. There was now no more talk of resisting the loan, and it only remained to thoroughly pacify the feeling which had been provoked. His Excellency could not say how long this would take. The local disturbances were unimportant, and it was no longer considered necessary to send troops from Peking,
This view of the local situation coincided with that reported to me on the 19th instant by His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghae, who considered that the disturbances have no political significance, and that they originated in the refusal of the authorities to reduce taxation, in spite of the failure of the harvest.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
Agreement belonged to the responsible officials who made it. The British and Chinese Corporation could not fix a definite date, and he instanced the Shanghae-Nanking Agreement, which had taken over a year to negotiate. The delay was not intentional, and the Corporation hoped for a speedy settlement.
This was before the constitution of the Board of Commerce.
Memorialist submits that his letter to Mr. Brenan was quite reasonable, but suggests the inference that Mr. Brenan's reply was not. He complains of further delay and neglect to enter into negotiations subsequently to the letter. Out of this further delay arose the whole question of cancellation.
In September 1905 came the Decree in answer to a request emanating from the Censor Chu Hsi En, authorizing the people of the province to build the railway themselves, and ordering the cancellation of the preliminary Agreement with the Memorialist then wrote to the Corporation to be arranged by memorialist. Corporation, and a correspondence ensued leading to present situation. Memorialist suggested that as the preliminary Agreement called for alteration in the event of local difficulty, the fact that local difficulty now existed ought to supply sufficient reason for the cancellation even without the delay. In March 1906 memorialist's connection with the negotiations came to an end, and he handed over to the provincial officials.
Memorialist goes on to remark that although there is no real proof of the Corporation's consent to cancellation, there is ample evidence on his part of his having negotiated for cancellation,
Memorialist explains that the British Minister's refusal to negotiate with him arose from the fact that the preliminary Agreement, not having received Imperial sanction, it could not be completely relied on as a binding document, hence the reluctance to discuss the question with the original negotiator. Memorialist admits, however, later on, that the British and Chinese Corporation could not be said to have tacitly agreed to cancellation, but qualifies this admission by saying that the provincials are not without reason on their side.
Editor's note is rather sarcastic about this Memorial, and it asks why did not Sheng admit the existence of Mr. Brenan's reply to his letter before, and why does he now qualify his former vehement statements with "buts" and "possiblys"? It also points out that Shêng waited till the Provincial Delegates were on the point of arriving in Peking and then hastened to tell the Emperor that the British and Chinese Corporation letter of the 15th June, 1904, existed a fact which he had denied in Hankow.
Inclosure in No. 1.
Secret Memorial of Shông Kung-pao recapitulating the facts regarding the Suchow-Hangchow-Ningpo Railway,
(Précis translation.)
MEMORIALÍST explains that having been ordered by an Imperial Rescript, handed to him personally by the Council of State, to prepare a Memorial to explain once and for all whether the draft Agreement with regard to the Soo-Hang-Yung line ever was actually cancelled, and whether the British and Chinese Corporation ever did tacitly acquiesce (in view of the numerous Memorials that keep on coming from various officials all claiming that the draft Agreement had been cancelled by agreement with Sheng Kung-pao), he has the honour to recapitulate the facts of his connection with this question from first to last.
Memorialist then proceeds to describe the original arrangement with Sir Claude MacDonald, and quotes the draft Agreement made between himself and Jardine, Matheson, and Co. Memorialist then adds that it was understood that alterations were to be made in this Agreement if the Governors should find local objections.
On the 11th June, 1904, memorialist wrote to Mr. Brenan, the representative of the Syndicate, explaining that there were other applicants to build the line, and that the delay ought not to be prolonged. A limit of six months from the date of this letter was given within which to carry out the survey and make an estimate, failing which the undertaking would lapse by default. On the 18th June, 1904, memorialist received a reply from Mr. Brenan to the effect that he had notified the Corporation of memorialist's desire to come to an early settlement, but that he was unable to agree to the six months' notice, because the right to decide upon the limit of an
255
2
munications. All of them are Chekiang or Kiangsu men, and it is obvious that their appointment is intended to show that provincial interests will not be disregarded.
On the 22nd instant Wang Ta-hsieh called upon me. He was careful to explain that he desired merely to talk with me unofficially on the subject of the Chekiang Railway. It had been suggested to him that he might try to smooth over the difficulty, and he was willing to make the attempt if I saw no objection to his reappearance in this matter. If only some change could be made in the terms of the loan the "face" of the provincials would be "saved.” As an example, he suggested that the period of redemption might be shortened.
I replied that one change would lead to another, and if the terms were sufficiently satisfactory for the Tien-tsin-Yang-tszo Railway there was no reason why they should be changed in the case of the Chekiang line. I had understood from Mr. Bland that his Excellency had been reappointed to conduct the negotiations, and my only advice was that the Agreement should be signed without further vacillation.
Wang Ta-jên denied that he had been officially reappointed, and expressed the opinion that a settlement could not be expected for some time to come.
I was received at the Wai-wa Pu on the same day by the Grand Secretary Na Tung, who confirmed Wang Ta-jên's statement that no actual change had been made in the negotiator. According to the Grand Secretary, Mr. Liang could not divest himself of his responsibility by merely writing a letter to Mr. Bland. Liang Ta-jên remained as negotiator, but the Prince wished the other officials, who were natives of the provinces concerned, to use their good offices in rendering him assistance. Some progress was being made by the efforts of the provincial delegates, balf of whom had returned home in order to explain the situation to their fellow provincials. There was now no more talk of resisting the loan, and it only remained to thoroughly pacify the feeling which had been provoked. His Excellency could not say how long this would take. The local disturbances were unimportant, and it was no longer considered necessary to send troops from Peking,
This view of the local situation coincided with that reported to me on the 19th instant by His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghae, who considered that the disturbances have no political significance, and that they originated in the refusal of the authorities to reduce taxation, in spite of the failure of the harvest.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
3
Agreement belonged to the responsible officials who made it. The British and Chinese Corporation could not fix a definite date, and he instanced the Shanghae-Nanking Agreement, which had taken over a year to negotiate. The delay was not intentional, and the Corporation hoped for a speedy settlement.
This was before the constitution of the Board of Commerce.
Memorialist submits that his letter to Mr. Brenan was quite reasonable, but suggests the inference that Mr. Brenan's reply was not. He complains of further delay and neglect to enter into negotiations subsequently to the letter. Out of this further delay arose the whole question of cancellation.
In September 1905 came the Decree in answer to a request emanating from the Censor Chu Hsi En, authorizing the people of the province to build the railway them- selves, and ordering the cancellation of the preliminary Agreement with the Memorialist then wrote to the Corporation to be arranged by memorialist. Corporation, and a correspondence ensued leading to present situation. Memorialist suggested that as the preliminary Agreement called for alteration in the event of local difficulty, the fact that local difficulty now existed ought to supply sufficient reason for the cancellation even without the delay. In March 1906 memorialist's connection with the negotiations came to an end, and he handed over to the provincial officials.
Memorialist goes on to remark that although there is no real proof of the Corporation's consent to cancellation, there is ample evidence on his part of his having negotiated for cancellation,
Memorialist explains that the British Minister's refusal to negotiate with him arose from the fact that the preliminary Agreement, not having received Imperial sanction, it could not be completely relied on as a binding document, hence the reluctance to discuss the question with the original negotiator. Memorialist admits, however, later on, that the British and Chinese Corporation could not be said to have tacitly agreed to cancellation, but qualifies this admission by saying that the provincials are not without reason on their side.
Editor's note is rather sarcastic about this Memorial, and it asks why did not Sheng admit the existence of Mr. Brenan's reply to his letter before, and why does he now qualify his former vehement statements with "buts" and "possiblys"? It also points out that Shêng waited till the Provincial Delegates were on the point of arriving in Peking and then hastened to tell the Emperor that the British and Chinese Corporation letter of the 15th June, 1904, existed a fact which he had denied in
Hankow.
Inclosure in No. 1.
Secret Memorial of Shông Kung-pao recapitulating the facts regarding the Suchow- Hangchow-Ningpo Railway,
(Précis translation.)
MEMORIALÍST explains that having been ordered by an Imperial Rescript, handed to him personally by the Council of State, to prepare a Memorial to explain once and for all whether the draft Agreement with regard to the Soo-Hang-Yung line ever was actually cancelled, and whether the British and Chinese Corporation ever did tacitly acquiesce (in view of the numerous Memorials that keep on coming from various officials all claiming that the draft Agreement had been cancelled by agree- ment with Sheng Kung-pao), he has the honour to recapitulate the facts of his connection with this question from first to last.
Memorialist then proceeds to describe the original arrangement with Sir Claude MacDonald, and quotes the draft Agreement made between himself and Jardine, Matheson, and Co. Memorialist then adds that it was understood that alterations were to be made in this Agreement if the Governors should find local objections.
On the 11th June, 1904, memorialist wrote to Mr. Brenan, the representative of the Syndicate, explaining that there were other applicants to build the line, and that the delay ought not to be prolonged. A limit of six months from the date of this letter was given within which to carry out the survey and make an estimate, failing which the undertaking would lapse by default. On the 18th June, 1904, memorialist received a reply from Mr. Brenan to the effect that he had notified the Corporation of memorialist's desire to come to an early settlement, but that he was unable to agree to the six months' notice, because the right to decide upon the limit of an
255
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.