This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA TRADE,
CONFIDENTIAL.
(7872)
(No. 28.) Sir,
No. 1.
[March 7.]
SECTION 2.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received March 7.)
Peking, January 20, 1908. IN continuation of my despatch No. 10 of the 6th January, regarding the Nanning Regulations of Trade, I have the honour to inclose a translation of Prince Ch'ing's reply, dated the 9th January, to my note of the 4th January.
His Highness maintains, in this reply, that the local authorities alone are concerned in framing such Regulations, which become operative when approved by the Board of Foreign Affairs, and he refuses to accept the contention of His Majesty's Government that no matter how a port has been opened, the conditions affecting foreign trade should be the same as at Treaty ports.
While not sanguine of achieving any result, I endeavoured, in a note dated the 15th instant, copy of which I have the honour to inclose, to induce the Chinese Government to reconsider the question. I contrasted the state of the ports opened under Treaty with that of places like Chinan-fu, and deprecated a return to the policy of pre-Treaty days, when foreign trade was confined to restricted areas. It was pointed out that even in the case of Harbin and other places in Manchuria "opened by China herself" much more liberal arrangements had been made, and it was asked that maritime trade should be placed in as favourable a position as overland traffic.
Seeing, however, that the position at Chinan-fu has been officially accepted by Germany and that all the Powers seem to acquiesce in arrangements of this kind elsewhere, it is doubtful if the Chinese Government will consent to revise the Nanning Regulations.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
(Translation.) Sir,
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Prince Ch'ing to Sir J. Jordan.
Peking, January 9, 1908. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of the 4th instant on the subject of the Regulations issued by the Chinese authorities in connection with the opening of Nanning. Your Excellency observes that it will be seen from the correspondence which has recently passed between His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton and the provincial authorities that the city of Nanning is still held to be in the interior. Your Excellency proceeds to observe, further, that no matter how a port is opened to foreign trade, His Majesty's Government maintain that the conditions should be the same as at ports opened under Treaty, and you request that instructions may be sent to the provincial authorities to consider the question without prejudice and consult with His Majesty's Consul-General for the satisfactory modification of the Regulations.
In reply, I have the honour to remind your Excellency that Nanning was originally opened by China herself to international trade. It is obvious, therefore, that the duty of making Regulations devolves upon the local authorities, who are only required to refer to this Board prior to putting them into operation experimentally. In the event of such Regulations being found to be not absolutely satisfactory, they can be modified as occasion arises by the local authorities independently. The procedure has nothing whatever in common with that in the case of ports opened under Treaty.
The Board cannot possibly accept the statements in your Excellency's note that no matter how a port is opened to foreign trade the conditions should be the same as at ports opened under Treaty, and that the modification of the Regulations should be...
[2889 g--2]
294
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA TRADE,
CONFIDENTIAL.
(7872)
(No. 28.) Sir,
No. 1.
[March 7.]
SECTION 2.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received March 7.)
Peking, January 20, 1908. IN continuation of my despatch No. 10 of the 6th January, regarding the Nanning Regulations of Trade, I have the honour to inclose a translation of Prince Ch'ing's reply, dated the 9th January, to my note of the 4th January.
His Highness maintains, in this reply, that the local authorities alone are concerned in framing such Regulations, which become operative when approved by the Board of Foreign Affairs, and he refuses to accept the contention of His Majesty's Government that no matter how a port has been opened, the conditions affecting foreign trade should be the same as at Treaty ports.
While not sanguine of achieving any result, I endeavoured, in a note dated the 15th instant, copy of which I have the honour to inclose, to induce the Chinese Government to reconsider the question. I contrasted the state of the ports opened under Treaty with that of places like Chinan-fu, and deprecated a return to the policy of It was pre-Treaty days, when foreign trade was confined to restricted areas. pointed out that even in the case of Harbin and other places in Manchuria "opened by China herself" much more liberal arrangements had been made, and it was asked that maritime trade should be placed in as favourable a position as overland traffic.
Seeing, however, that the position at Chinan-fu has been officially accepted by Germany and that all the Powers seem to acquiesce in arrangements of this kind else- where, it is doubtful if the Chinese Government will consent to revise the Nanning Regulations.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
(Translation.) Sir,
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Prince Ch'ing to Sir J. Jordan.
Peking, January 9, 1908. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of the 4th instant on the subject of the Regulations issued by the Chinese authorities in connection with the opening of Nanning. Your Excellency observes that it will be seen from the correspondence which has recently passed between His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton and the provincial authorities that the city of Nanning is still held to be in the interior. Your Excellency proceeds to observe, further, that no matter how a port is opened to foreign trade, His Majesty's Government maintain that the conditions should be the same as at ports opened under Treaty, and you request that instructions may be sent to the provincial authorities to consider the question without prejudice and consult with His Majesty's Consul-General for the satisfactory modification of the Regulations.
In reply, I have the honour to remind your Excellency that Nanning was originally opened by China herself to international trade. It is obvious, therefore, that the duty of making Regulations devolves upon the local authorities, who are only required to refer to this Board prior to putting them into operation experimentally. In the event of such Regulations being found to be not absolutely satisfactory, they can be modified as occasion arises by the local authorities independently. The procedure has nothing whatever in common with that in the case of ports opened under Treaty.
The Board cannot possibly accept the statements in your Excellency's note that no matter how a port is opened to foreign trade the conditions should be the same as at ports opened under Treaty, and that the modification of the Regulations should be
[2889 g--2]
294
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.