This afternoon I addressed a further despatch to the Admiral, copy inclosed, forwarding copy of a communication, translation and copy sent herewith, received during the course of the day from the Viceroy, in which he states that the increased British patrol is an infringement of China's sovereign rights, and that the Provincial Government cannot be held responsible for any injury to British trade resulting from its institution. The Provincial Government, except at spasmodic intervals, has for years past shut its eyes to a constant series of attacks by robbers ashore and afloat, keeping the law-abiding populace in a state of perpetual anxiety and insecurity with its concomitant injury to international trade; the friendly advice of His Majesty's Government and its Representatives has throughout been treated with the scantest courtesy; the responsibility of the Provincial Government for outrages on British subjects and their property has been resolutely denied, and, when no satisfaction for our moderate, well-considered, and just demands is obtainable, leaving us no alternative but to ourselves protect our own subjects and their property, our action is characterized as infringing the sovereign rights of China. Past history, in so far as this piracy question is concerned, has not shown that a succession of Viceroys has apparently paid much heed to the remonstrances of the Central Government, and for the Provincial Government to now bring forward the plea of an infringement of China's sovereign rights is merely interesting as evidence of the crooked reasoning of the ordinary Chinese official mind. As to the covert threat that the extended patrol of our ships may involve injury to British trade, the more I consider this matter, the less likely such an eventuality appears. British merchants have a large share in the export trade of this port, and it is hardly probable that the Chinese merchant over a question such as this will refuse to sell his goods through whatever medium. The coasting steamers are largely British-owned and a necessity to shippers at the ports of departure and to local consignees; while the commercial interdependence of Hong Kong and Canton must render any attempt at an effective boycott an absolute failure.
Active resistance to the patrol by the local naval and military forces is not, I think, to be anticipated; while, though there is always a possibility of rioting, appearances do not exhibit any tendency in that direction.
Sir Arthur Moore, as stated in my immediately preceding despatch, feels very strongly on the matter of the ownership of local British launches, and has set forth his views in his despatch to the Admiralty mentioned above. While, as I have previously intimated, largely sharing in his Excellency's opinion, it has to be borne in mind that China is not a well-ordered and administered country, that we have fought hard for our commercial foothold, that everything of British interest direct or indirect has its value to us, and that drastic regulations in the infancy of commercial and political experiments are not always advisable. I have already, in my despatch No. 12 of the 5th February last, submitted a set of elastic but sufficiently severe regulations which appeared to me likely to very greatly improve the conditions under which British launches are owned and run. I did not claim that they would be a panacea for all ills and some amendment may be advisable. I shall therefore reconsider them in conjunction with the proposals made in Inclosure 6 to the Admiral's despatch to the Admiralty and report to you the result of my deliberations.
Page 17
period of many years, have proved completely unavailing. Promises have not been wanting, but only of the class made to be broken. I do not attach much importance to the hint that British trade may suffer, nor to the somewhat hysterical outcry in the native press; in fact, I feel rather inclined to welcome the latter, as it acknowledges the lawless condition of the province, and may act as a lever to move the Chinese Government to energetic action on their own account.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
R. W. MANSFIELD.
(Translation.)
Sir,
Inclosure 17 in No. 1.
Viceroy of Canton to Consul-General Mansfield.
Canton, December 3, 1907.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of his Excellency the Admiral's communication on the piracy question transmitted to me by you.
while
In reply, I have the honour to state that the prevention of piracy belongs properly to the internal administration of China, and that I am quite unable to admit that Great Britain has any right to interfere. As the new scheme recently framed by me is only now coming into effect, it is impossible to foretell at this early stage its failure; if, after it has been put into operation, anything objectionable in it is found, it can be at once remedied. But if the Admiral refuses to wait, and insists on sending his own vessels to patrol the waterways by way of a demonstration of force, then I maintain that this will be an infraction of the sovereign rights belonging to China, and an act which would not be undertaken by a friendly Power. I am therefore unable to accept any responsibility for action so taken. The Chinese are gradually becoming more enlightened as time goes on, but if, owing to any action such as I have indicated above, the people's resentment is roused, and British trade suffers in consequence, this Government will be unable to hold itself liable therefor.
As for the "Sainam" case, over twelve of the pirates have already been executed, and the offer of a compassionate allowance to the family of the murdered missionary has been made in extension of the requirements of international law. Piracies occur all over the world, and in view of their prevalence in the Canton Province I have already agreed to add vessels to patrol the waterways and act together in an earnest endeavour to give protection to both foreign and Chinese trade. The Admiral's proposed course of action is not, I contend, permitted by the rules of international law.
In conclusion, I have the honour to request you to transmit the contents of this despatch to his Excellency the Admiral.
I avail, &c.
(Signed)
R. W. MANSFIELD.
Inclosure 16 in No. 1.
Consul-General Mansfield to Admiral Sir A. Moore.
Canton, December 3, 1907.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt this morning of your letter of the 29th November, covering copy of your despatch to the Admiralty on the subject of the suppression of piracy in the Canton delta.
I have now the honour to inclose copy of my Report to Sir John Jordan of the negotiations during your visit here. The inclosures in this Report I do not send, as they are already in your hands.
I also inclose translation of a further despatch just received from Viceroy Chang, in which he protests against the proposed British patrol of the waterways, which he characterizes as an infraction of the sovereign rights of China and an unfriendly act, forgetting that innumerable friendly representations on this subject, extending over a
Sir,
Admiral Sir A. Moore to Sir J. Jordan.
'King Alfred,” at Hong Kong, December 5, 1907.
I HAVE the honour to forward herewith, for your Excellency's information, copy of a letter which I have this day addressed to His Britannic Majesty's Consul-General, Canton, relative to the suppression of piracy question.
Sir,
I have, &c.
(Signed) A. W. MOORE,
Admiral and Commander-in-chief..
Inclosure 19 in No. 1.
Admiral Sir A. Moore to Consul-General Mansfield.
King Alfred," at Hong Kong, December 5, 1907.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, inclosing copy of your despatch to Sir John Jordan, No. 60, dated the 1st idem, and a translation of a further despatch from Viceroy Chang protesting against our patrol of the waterways around Canton.
[2846 h-4]
F
39
16
This afternoon I addressed a further despatch to the Admiral, copy inclosed, forwarding copy of a communication, translation and copy sent berewith, received during the course of the day from the Viceroy, in which he states that the increased British patrol is an infringement of China's sovereign rights, and that the Provincial Government cannot be held responsible for any injury to British trade resulting from its institution. The Provincial Government, except at spasmodic intervals, has for years past shut its eyes to a constant series of attacks by robbers ashore and afloat, keeping the law-abiding populace in a state of perpetual anxiety and insecurity with its concomitant injury to international trade; the friendly advice of His Majesty's Government and its Represen- tatives has throughout been treated with the scantest courtesy; the responsibility of the Provincial Government for outrages on British subjects and their property has been resolutely denied, and, when no satisfaction for our moderate, well-considered, and just demands is obtainable, leaving us no alternative but to ourselves protect our own subjects and their property, our action is characterized as infringing the sovereign rights of China. Past history, in so far any way as this piracy question is concerned, has not shown that a succession of Viceroys has apparently paid much heed to the remon- strances of the Central Government, and for the Provincial Government to now bring forward the plea of an infringement of China's sovereign rights is merely interesting as evidence of the crooked reasoning of the ordinary Chinese official mind. As to the covert threat that the extended patrol of our ships may involve injury to British trade, British the more I consider this matter, the less likely such an eventuality appears. merchants have a large share in the export trade of this port, and it is hardly probable that the Chinese merchant over a question such as this will refuse to sell his goods through whatever medium. The coasting steamers are largely British-owned and a necessity to shippers at the ports of departure and to local consignees; while the commercial interdependence of Hong Kong and Canton must render any attempt at an effective boycott an absolute failure.
Active resistance to the patrol by the local naval and military forces is not, I think, to be anticipated; while, though there is always a possibility of rioting, appearances do not exhibit any tendency in that direction.
Sir Arthur Moore, as stated in my immediately preceding despatch, feels very strongly on the matter of the ownership of local British launches, and has set forth his views in his despatch to the Admiralty mentioned above. While, as I have previously intimated, largely sharing in his Excellency's opinion, it has to be borne in mind that China is not a well-ordered and administered country, that we have fought hard for our commercial foothold, that everything of British interest direct or indirect has its value to us, and that drastic regulations in the infancy of commercial and political experiments are not always advisable. I have already, in my despatch No. 12 of the 5th February last, submitted a set of clastic but sufficiently severe regulations which appeared to me likely to very greatly improve the conditions under which British launches are owned and run. I did not claim that they would be a panacea for all ills and some amendment may be advisable. I shall therefore reconsider them in conjunction with the proposals made in Inclosure 6 to the Admiral's despatch to the Admiralty and report to you the result of my deliberations.
17
period of many years, have proved completely unavailing. Promises have not been wanting, but only of the class made to be broken. I do not attach much importance- to the hint that British trade may suffer, nor to the somewhat hysterical outery in the native press; in fact, I feel rather inclined to welcome the latter, as it acknowledges- the lawless condition of the province, and may act as a lever to move the Chinese Government to energetic action on their own account.
I have, &c. (Signed)
(Translation.)
Sir,
R. W. MANSFIELD.
Inclosure 17 in No. 1.
Viceroy of Canton to Consul-General Mansfield.
Canton, December 3, 1907. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of his Excellency the Admiral's. communication on the piracy question transmitted to me by you.
while
In reply, I have the honour to state that the prevention of piracy belongs properly to the internal administration of China, and that I am quite unable to admit that Great Britain has any right to interfere. As the new scheme recently framed by me is only now coming into effect, it is impossible to foretell at this early stage its failure; if, after it has been put into operation, anything objectionable in it is found, it can be- at once remedied. But if the Admiral refuses to wait, and insists on sending his own vessels to patrol the waterways by way of a demonstration of force, then I maintain that this will be an infraction of the sovereign rights belonging to China, and an act which would not be undertaken by a friendly Power. I am therefore unable to accept any responsibility for action so taken. The Chinese are gradually becoming more enlightened as time goes on, but if, owing to any action such as I have indicated above, the people's resentment is roused, and British trade suffers in consequence, this Government will be unable to hold itself liable therefor.
As for the "Sainam "case, over twelve of the pirates have already been executed, and the offer of a compassionate allowance to the family of the murdered missionary has been made in extension of the requirements of international law. Piracies occur all: over the world, and in view of their prevalence in the Canton Province I have already agreed to add vessels to patrol the waterways and act together in an earnest endeavour to give protection to both foreign and Chinese trade. The Admiral's proposed course of action is not, I contend, permitted by the rules of international law.
In conclusion, I have the honour to request you to transmit the contents of this. despatch to his Excellency the Admiral.
I avail, &c.
Inclosure 18 in No. 1.
Sir,
I have, &c.
(Signed)
R. W. MANSFIELD.
Inclosure 16 in No. 1.
Consul-General Mansfield to Admiral Sir A. Moore.
Canton, December 3, 1907.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt this morning of your letter of the 29th November, covering copy of your despatch to the Admiralty on the subject of the suppression of piracy in the Canton delta.
I have now the honour to inclose copy of my Report to Sir John Jordan of the negotiations during your visit here. The inclosures in this Report I do not send, as they are already in your hands.
I also inclose translation of a further despatch just received from Viceroy Chang, in which he protests against the proposed British patrol of the waterways, which he cbaracterizes as an infraction of the sovereign rights of China and an unfriendly act, forgetting that innumerable friendly representations on this subject, extending over a
Sir,
Admiral Sir A. Moore to Sir J. Jordan.
'King Alfred,” at Hong Kong, December 5, 1907.
I HAVE the honour to forward herewith, for your Excellency's information, copy of a letter which I have this day addressed to His Britannic Majesty's Consul-General, Canton, relative to the suppression of piracy question.
Sir,
I have, &c.
(Signed) A. W. MOORE,
Admiral and Commander-in-chief..
Inclosure 19 in No. 1.
Admiral Sir A. Moore to Consul-General Mansfield.
King Alfred," at Hong Kong, December 5, 1907.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge with thanks the receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, inclosing copy of your despatch to Sir John Jordan, No. 60, dated the 1st idem, and a translation of a further despatch from Viceroy Chang protesting against our patrol of the waterways around Canton.
[2846 h-4]
F
39
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.