CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908 — Page 395

2

between the two Governments, instead of insisting on their being kept apart as a purely commercial transaction.

He next proceeds to relate what a shock it was to the deputies to find, on arrival at Peking, that the statement that the Company had ignored Sheng's letter giving them a limit of six months in which to begin work, which the Chekiang people had relied on as a strong argument in support of their case, was incorrect, and that as a matter of fact the Company had sent a reply six days after the receipt of Sheng's letter.

The letter then proceeds:-

"It is a common complaint that, although the Edict authorizing the construction of the line by native merchants has been issued more than two years and rails have been laid and trains commenced running, a fact of which all China was aware, the British made no protest until quite recently, when they suddenly changed their attitude and attempted to force a loan on the two provinces. The true facts of the case are that on the day the Imperial Edict was promulgated the British Minister addressed a despatch to the Wai-wu Pu saying that the expression 'Chekiang railways' meant the railways of the whole province, and asking if the Soochow Hangchow-Ningpo Railway was included in this. If it was he requested an explanation of the reversal of the previous Concession to the British Company. The Wai-wu Pu answered that they were communicating with the Board of Commerce and the Governor of Chekiang and that they would reply later. This was nothing more than a pretext for delay.

"Three days later, having received no reply, the British Minister went to the Wai-wu Pu and made inquiries into the matter. After that, every three or four days there came a despatch pressing for a reply, and when no reply was forthcoming the Minister again went to the Wai-wu Pu to inquire in person, and, getting no reply to his verbal inquiries, he again sent in a despatch.

"The new British Minister, on arrival, sent in a despatch summarizing the previous history of the case and again pressing for a reply. The Wai-wu Pu continued to evade giving any answer, one day alleging as an excuse that Prince Ching was not at the Board, and another that such and such a Minister was not present; and when the Prince and the Minister did appear at an interview they said that some method of arrangement could be found and that there was no hurry, or that the case had now gone on for some years and that it was only necessary to find some way of settling it which need not be done at the moment. This sort of talk occurred at every interview with the British Minister, and every one of his despatches remained unanswered.

"About the 6th or 7th moon of last year, being hard pressed for further excuses, the Wai-wu Pu at length requested the British Minister to first settle the question of the Canton-Kowloon Railway. The Minister said there was no objection to this course, but he explained that this did not mean that the Soochow-Hangchow-Ningpo Railway question was to be shelved, but merely postponed until the Canton-Kowloon Railway Agreement had been signed.

"In the 9th moon of last year, on the day that the Agreement for the Canton-Kowloon Railway was signed, the British Minister addressed a despatch to the Wai-wu Pu reminding them of the previous understanding, and requesting them, now that the Agreement for the Canton-Kowloon Railway was signed, to depute an official to resume the negotiations on the subject of the Soochow-Hangchow-Ningpo line. The Wai-wu Pu continued to procrastinate, but the Minister insisted, and said that, although it was two years since the two provinces took over the construction of the railways, he had been unable to obtain any reply to his repeated inquiries, and, as people were now saying that the British had silently acquiesced in the new conditions, he could not consent to any further delay.

"The Wai-wu Pu thereupon replied that they proposed to wait until Wang Ta Hsieh returned to China and then put him in charge of the negotiations. Wang had been Minister in London, and was, moreover, a Chekiang man; he must first come to some arrangement with the Chekiang people. The question was one of vital importance to Chekiang Province, and if the Chekiang people were satisfied Kiangsu could be dealt with in the same way.

16

The British Minister said that this arrangement was satisfactory, but he asked whether it was definitely decided to intrust the negotiations to Wang, and whether he had authority to settle the matter. To this the Wai-wu Pu replied in the affirmative.

"From this it may be seen that the British have never for a moment ceased to urge their claims under the original Concession, while the Wai-wu Pu have merely tried to evade any discussion of the question.”

ness.

3

Mr. Yang then proceeds to relate how Wang, when he took charge of the negotiations, acted entirely on his own responsibility, without consulting his colleagues, and how the proposal for a loan emanated from him. The conclusion he comes to is that the Government, and especially Wang Ta Hsieh, are responsible for the whole business.

The British Minister tells people that neither the Chekiang people nor the British are to blame in this matter, but that the whole responsibility for the present situation lies with the Chinese Government. And, painful as this is to bear, the truth of it cannot be denied."

I have, &c. (Signed)

(No. 17.)

Inclosure 2 in No. 1.

HERBERT GOFFE,

Consul-General Sir P. Warren to Sir J. Jordan.

Shangaae, February 8, 1908. Sir,

WITH reference to my despatch No. 4 of the 15th ultimo, on the subject of the Chekiang Railway loan, I have the honour to transmit herewith translation of a telegram from Tuan Fang to all Viceroys and Governors, instructing them to take measures for the repression of the proposed boycotting movement against British goods, the Hong Kong and Shanghae Bank, and Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

Inclosure 3 in No. 1.

PELTIAM L. WARREN.

Telegram sent by Tuan Fang to all Viceroys and Governors, at the request of Jui Cheng, January 16, 1908. (Translation.)

To here follow the names of thirteen Viceroys, Governors, and Generals].

I HAVE recently been informed that Tseng Shao Ching, of Shanghae, is heading a movement to boycott English goods, the notes of the Hong Kong and Shanghae Bank, and the firm of Jardine, Matheson, and Co., and has already circulated to every The Compradore of the Hsin I port 40,000 copies of a pamphlet to that end. Savings Bank is abetting him, and has been distributing similar pamphlets. Such proceedings are both futile and senseless. They cannot further the interests of the railway, and can only prejudice our country's external relations. The question of the railway has already assumed a more hopeful aspect, but, if inflammatory methods such as these are resorted to, the masses and the merchant classes, being in ignorance of the real facts of the matter, must inevitably be seduced into all kinds of disorder, to the great detriment of trade. Let each one of you therefore instruct his subordinates secretly to put this matter in the proper light before their Chambers of Commerce, and to impress upon them that they shall on no account give any heed or credence to these counsels, nor promulgate them in any way. Should they receive any of the above-mentioned pamphlets they should promptly throw them into the fire. Let them but be guided in their conduct by the efforts on their behalf of the officials and gentry of Chekiang and Kiangsu, and some plan of action will assuredly be found which shall successfully negotiate every difficulty. If they will but avoid all listening to idle gossip to their own undoing it will be infinitely better for the welfare of the whole trading community.

Page 389