362
6
On the night of the 20th December some men from torpedo-boat "No. 036" were on shore drinking at Kee Cheung's store in the city. Two engine-room artificers named Hayward and Bushby appear to have had too much to drink, Hayward being in the worse condition of the two. It seems that he went out into the street and made trouble with the Chinese. A crowd collected and things became lively, missiles of various sorts being thrown. The police, who had arrived on the scene, kept the crowd back, and would seem to have behaved in a reasonable and proper manner.
The sequel was that Bushby, who appears to have been on the whole less to blame than Hayward, was arrested by the police and taken off to the police station. Hayward, in the meantime, had been taken on board the torpedo-boat by a patrol sent on shore for the purpose of bringing the men off.
The Lieutenant in command of the torpedo-boat, Mr. Kirby, was dining at His Majesty's Consul's house when Kee Cheung's compradore came up to report the trouble, Mr. Kirby and His Majesty's Consul went to the torpedo-boat, where they ascertained that Hayward had been brought on board, but that Bushby was still on shore. They then landed, accompanied by two unarmed bluejackets, and proceeded to Kee Cheung's store. A good many people were collected in the street outside the store but, though excited, they did not attempt to interfere in any way. At the store His Majesty's Consul learnt that Bushby had been arrested and taken off to the police station. He proceeded there, and the officer in charge of the station knowing who he was handed over the man at his request, and he conveyed him back to the ship.
The whole matter was a drunken brawl, but it occurred at a most unfortunate time, and might have had serious consequences. As it was, however, beyond the copy it afforded the native papers, and the untrue reports that were circulated about in Canton and elsewhere, nothing further happened.
Mr. Kirby and His Majesty's Consul called on the Taotai, and the former tendered his apologies for the regrettable affair. At a later date His Majesty's Consul saw the Taotai and, at the request of the Admiral, apologized also on his behalf for the conduct of the two men.
The Taotai treated the matter in a very friendly spirit, but suggested that in future when men on shore leave were visiting any place in the city, they should be accompanied by some one able to interpret; and that parties landed for rifle practice should not bring their rifles through the city—both reasonable suggestions.
On his part, His Majesty's Consul asked him to issue instructions that, whenever a seaman was arrested by the native police, some one should be immediately sent off to the man's ship, so that a patrol could be landed without delay to take him over, and convey him on board to be dealt with.
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government. C.O.
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[10444]
(No. 99.)
No. 1.
14855
[March 27.]
SECTION 1.
20 APR 08
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received March 27.)
Peking, February 29, 1908. Sir,
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatches No. 506 of the 11th December, 1907, and No. 12 of the 8th ultimo, transmitting copies of correspondence with the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company (Limited) on the question as to whether the transfer of the property from the old Chinese Company was actually confirmed by Imperial Decree.
After a careful examination of the arguments adduced by the Company in this correspondence, and especially of the translation of the Memorial to the Throne presented by Li Hung-chang and Chang Yen Mao in July 1901, I can only maintain the view that the Company's contention is not borne out by that document.
This Memorial and the Rescript attached thereto, as Sir Ernest Satow pointed out in his despatch No. 183 of the 24th May, 1904, contemplated the addition of foreign capital to the existing Chinese enterprise, so as to change it into a Chinese and foreign co-operative Company with limited liability, but I have been unable to find therein any disclosure of the actual course of action which had been pursued.
In all analogous cases where a foreign Syndicate or foreign capital has been granted privileges in China beyond the limits of the Treaty ports, and not provided for by Treaty—as, for example, in the case of the Peking Syndicate, the Anhui Mining Company, and the Railway Agreements of the British and Chinese Corporation—the documents have been submitted to the Throne and communicated to the Legation by the Board of Foreign Affairs, after receiving the Imperial approval. If it could be shown that some such procedure had been followed, there would be no room for doubt in the present instance, but there is no evidence forthcoming to prove that the transfer deed of the 19th February, 1901, which was drawn up in English, was ever laid before the Emperor.
It is true that an allusion is made in the Memorial to an Agreement having been drawn up and a telegram sent to London "to register the Company." But the original Chinese of this passage is somewhat more vague. The words "the Company" do not occur, and a literal translation would read: "And so an Agreement was made and a telegram sent to London to register, to commence operations from the beginning of the twenty-seventh year." There is nothing here to indicate that a British Company, under English law, and independent of Chinese control, had been formed or was implied by the "addition of foreign capital."
It appears to me, therefore, that the most that can be said is that the Rescript sanctioned whatever the Memorial proposed, and it is clear from the wording of the Rescript that the Throne interpreted the Memorial in a sense entirely different from that adopted by the Company.
Fortunately the question is not an acute one, although it might become so if the Company attempt to enforce in practice a claim to exclusive mining rights over the Kaiping coal-field. The present observations are therefore only evoked by the Company's insistence upon arguments which could not, in my opinion, be used effectively in their favour.
I have, &c. (Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
[2895 dd-1]
362
6
On the night of the 20th December some men from torpedo-boat "No. 036" were on shore drinking at Kee Cheung's store in the city. Two engine-room artificers named Hayward and Bushby appear to have had too much to drink, Hayward being in the worse condition of the two. It seems that he went out into the street and made trouble with the Chinese. A crowd collected and things became lively, missiles of various sorts being thrown. The police, who had arrived on the scene, kept the crowd back, and would seem to have behaved in a reasonable and proper manner.
The sequel was that Bushby, who appears to have been on the whole less to blame than Hayward, was arrested by the police and taken off to the police station. Hayward, in the meantime, had been taken on board the torpedo-boat by a patrol sent on shore for the purpose of bringing the men off.
The Lieutenant in command of the torpedo-boat, Mr. Kirby, was dining at His Majesty's Consul's house when Kee Cheung's compradore came up to report the trouble, Mr. Kirby and His Majesty's Consul went to the torpedo-boat, where they ascertained that Hayward had been brought on board, but that Bushby was still on shore. They then landed, accompanied by two unarmed bluejackets, and proceeded to Kee Cheung's store. A good many people were collected in the street outside the store but, though excited, they did not attempt to interfere in any way. At the store His Majesty's Consul learnt that Bushby had been arrested and taken off to the police station. He proceeded there, and the officer in charge of the station knowing who he was handed over the man at his request, and he conveyed him back to the ship.
The whole matter was a drunken brawl, but it occurred at a most unfortunate time, and might have had serious consequences. As it was, however, beyond the copy it afforded the native papers, and the untrue reports that were circulated about in Canton and elsewhere, nothing further happened.
Mr. Kirby and His Majesty's Consul called on the Taotai, and the former tendered his apologies for the regrettable affair. At a later date His Majesty's Consul saw the Taotai and, at the request of the Admiral, apologized also on his behalf for the conduct of the two men.
The Taotai treated the matter in a very friendly spirit, but suggested that in future when men on shore leave were visiting any place in the city, they should be accom- panied by some one able to interpret; and that parties landed for rifle practice should not bring their rifles through the city-both reasonable suggestions.
On his part, His Majesty's Consul asked him to issue instructions that, whenever a seaman was arrested by the native police, some one should be immediately sent off to the man's ship, so that a patrol could be landed without delay to take him over, and convey him on board to be dealt with.
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government. C.O.
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[10444]
(No. 99.)
No. 1.
14855
[March 27.]
SECTION 1.
20 APR 08)
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received March 27.)
Peking, February 29, 1908. Sir,
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatches No. 506 of the 11th December, 1907, and No. 12 of the 8th ultimo, transmitting copies of correspon. dence with the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company (Limited) on the question as to whether the transfer of the property from the old Chinese Company was actually confirmed by Imperial Decree.
After a careful examination of the arguments adduced by the Company in this correspondence, and especially of the translation of the Memorial to the Throne presented by Li Hung-chang and Chang Yen Mao in July 1901, I can only maintain the view that the Company's contention is not borne out by that document.
This Memorial and the Rescript attached thereto, as Sir Ernest Satow pointed out in his despatch No. 183 of the 24th May, 1904, contemplated the addition of foreign capital to the existing Chinese enterprise, so as to change it into a Chinese and foreign any disclosure co-operative Company with limited liability, but I have been unable to find therein of the actual course of action which had been pursued.
In all analogous cases where a foreign Syndicate or foreign capital has been granted privileges in China beyond the limits of the Treaty ports, and not provided for by Treaty as, for example, in the case of the Peking Syndicate, the Anhui Mining Company, and the Railway Agreements of the British and Chinese Corporation-the documents have been submitted to the Throne and communicated to the Legation by the Board of Foreign Affairs, after receiving the Imperial approval. If it could be shown that some such procedure had been followed, there would be no room for doubt in the present instance, but there is no evidence forthcoming to prove that the transfer deed of the 19th February, 1901, which was drawn up in English, was ever laid before the Emperor.
It is true that an allusion is made in the Memorial to an Agreement having been drawn up and a telegram sent to London "to register the Company." But the original Chinese of this passage is somewhat more vague. The words "the Company" do not occur, and a literal translation would read: "And so an Agreement was made and a telegram sent to London to register, to commence operations from the beginning of the twenty-seventh year." There is nothing here to indicate that a British Company, under English law, and independent of Chinese control, had been formed or was implied by the "addition of foreign capital."
It appears to me, therefore, that the most that can be said is that the Rescript sanctioned whatever the Memorial proposed, and it is clear from the wording of the Rescript that the Throne interpreted the Memorial in a sense entirely different from that adopted by the Company.
Fortunately the question is not an acute one, although it might become so if the Company attempt to enforce in practice a claim to exclusive mining rights over the Kaiping coal-field. The present observations are therefore only evoked by the Company's insistence upon arguments which could not, in my opinion, be used effectively in their favour.
I have, &c. (Signed)
J. N. JORDAN.
'
:
[2895 dd-1]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.