2
fall in discount directly to the cessation of the issues of enormous quantities of subsidiary coins by the Canton Mint in the case of Chinese coins, but to doubt whether the fall in discount on Hong Kong coins may be wholly or chiefly ascribed to the withdrawal of so comparatively small a quantity as we have already withdrawn, and to think that the partial rehabilitation of the Hong Kong coins is due rather to sympathy with the Chinese coins, just as it originally fell in sympathy with the depreciation of those coins.
4. Upon receipt of replies from His Majesty's Minister and His Majesty's Consul-General, I shall address your Lordship further in this matter. On the practically unanimous recommendation of the Committee I have decided not to dispose of the coins withdrawn from circulation, either by shipment to England or otherwise, for the present.
I have, &c. (Signed)
F. D. LUGARD.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.17931]
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[10984]
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Sir J. Jordan.
Foreign Office, April 4, 1908.
I HAVE received your despatch No. 28 of the 20th January, and I approve the terms of the note which you have addressed to Prince Ching on the subject of the opening of Nanning.
I notice that the Wai-wu Pu, in their note of the 9th January, maintain that Nanning was originally opened by China herself," and once more endeavour on that account to lay down the principle that "the procedure has nothing whatever in common with that in the ease of ports opened under Treaty." The circumstances in which the Chinese undertook to open Nanning to international trade do not seem to me to warrant the assertion that it was a voluntary act on their part. You will recollect that in their note to Sir C. MacDonald of the 4th February, 1897, the Tsung-li Yamên pledged themselves to open the port "as a Treaty port and Consular station," and the wording of the note, moreover, expressly implies that the undertaking is to be regarded as a supplementary condition to the Anglo-Chinese Agreement of 1897, modifying the Burma-China Convention of 1894. That the obligation was so regarded by the Chinese Government themselves is clearly proved by the terms of Sir C. MacDonald's telegrams No. 122 of the 12th April and No. 240 of the 29th July, 1898.
The statement in your note to Prince Ching of the 8th June, 1907, that "Nanning is now opened by China herself" is, I take it, a mere recapitulation of the Chinese point of view, and does not in any way weaken the above contention.
The mere fact that the Chinese chose to declare in an Imperial Edict that the port was to be opened in a similar way to Yo-chow and Chin-wang Tao does not alter the circumstances of the case, and we still retain full liberty to insist that Nanning was opened as a "Treaty port" in accordance with the terms of the formal pledge appended to the Burma-China Agreement of 1897.
The question, however, as to whether Nanning was opened voluntarily or not is subsidiary to the larger question of how far we can admit limitation by the Chinese of residence and trade and interference with the organization of the Settlements in ports opened to international trade. The views of His Majesty's Government on these points were communicated to you in my despatch No. 418 of the 29th November, 1906.
In your despatch under reply you state that "all the Powers seem to acquiesce in arrangements of this kind elsewhere," a situation which foreshadows the possibility of our finding ourselves engaged, as at Chinau-fu, in a fruitless and solitary struggle for our full rights, while subjects of other Powers are reaping the benefit of such modified rights as the Chinese may be willing to accord them.
I do not gather from the information supplied by you that other Powers have, in particular instances, acquiesced in the views of the Chinese with any deliberate intention of assisting in the recognition of the principle which the Wai-wu Pu seek to establish, and it seems possible that they may still be induced, before it is too late, to take joint action with us.
You are therefore authorized, should you see no objection, to sound your colleagues, in an informal and unofficial manner, as to the attitude which they intend to adopt towards this question. You might remind them that on the 28th April, 1888, a joint note was presented to the Tsung-li Yamên with regard to the "li-kin-free area of Treaty ports," and point out that the present difficulty is only a further and more dangerous development of the situation which then called for joint intervention.
As a basis of any joint action you may suggest tentatively the view that "the term Treaty port, no matter how any particular port may have been opened, must in all cases be held to include the city and waterways giving access thereto, together with any roads connecting such waterways with the city"; but you should be careful not to commit His Majesty's Government too rigidly to any course which circumstances later on may force them to abandon. In a case of this kind isolated action by His Majesty's Government might provoke the Chinese without in the end securing the object desired and British influence would thereby be weakened.
[2918 d-1]
I am, &c.
(Signed)
E. GREY.
2
fall in discount directly to the cessation of the issues of enormous quantities of subsidiary coins by the Canton Mint in the case of Chinese coins, but to doubt whether the fall in discount on Hong Kong coins may be wholly or chiefly ascribed to the withdrawal of so comparatively small a quantity as we have already withdrawn, and to think that the partial rehabilitation of the Hong Kong coins is due rather to sympathy with the Chinese coins, just as it originally fell in sympathy with the depreciation of those coins.
4. Upon receipt of replies from His Majesty's Minister and His Majesty's Consul- General, I shall address your Lordship further in this matter. On the practically unanimous recommendation of the Committee I have decided not to dispose of the coins withdrawn from circulation, either by shipment to England or otherwise, for the present.
I have, &c. (Signed)
F. D. LUGARD.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.17931
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[10984]
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Sir J. Jordan.
C O
¡Rec
536
IS MAY 08
[April 4.]
SECTION 1.
(No. 184.) Sir,
Foreign Office, April 4, 1908. I HAVE received your despatch No. 28 of the 20th January, and I approve the terms of the note which you have addressed to Prince Ching on the subject of the opening of Nanning.
K
I notice that the Wai-wu Pu, in their note of the 9th January, maintain that Nanning was originally opened by China herself," and once more endeavour on that account to lay down the principle that "the procedure has nothing whatever in common with that in the ease of ports opened under Treaty." The circumstances in which the Chinese undertook to open Nanning to international trade do not seem to me to warrant the assertion that it was a voluntary act on their part. You will recollect that in their note to Sir C. MacDonald of the 4th February, 1897, the Tsung-li Yamên pledged themselves to open the port "as a Treaty port and Consular station," and the wording of the note, moreover, expressly implies that the undertaking is to be regarded as a supplementary condition to the Anglo-Chinese Agreement of 1897, modifying the Burma-China Convention of 1894. That the obligation was so regarded by the Chinese Government themselves is clearly proved by the terms of Sir C. MacDonald's telegrams No. 122 of the 12th April and No. 240 of the 29th July, 1898.
The statement in your note to Prince Ching of the 8th June, 1907, that "Nanning is now opened by China herself" is, I take it, a mere recapitulation of the Chinese point of view, and does not in any way weaken the above contention.
The mere fact that the Chinese chose to declare in an Imperial Edict that the port was to be opened in a similar way to Yo-chow and Chin-wang Tao does not alter the circumstances of the case, and we still retain full liberty to insist that Nanning was opened as a Treaty port" in accordance with the terms of the formal pledge appended to the Burma-China Agreement of 1897.
The question, however, as to whether Nanning was opened voluntarily or not is subsidiary to the larger question of how far we can admit limitation by the Chinese of residence and trade and interference with the organization of the Settlements in ports opened to international trade. The views of His Majesty's Government on these points were communicated to you in my despatch No. 418 of the 29th November, 1906.
In your despatch under reply you state that "all the Powers seem to acquiesce in arrangements of this kind elsewhere," a situation which foreshadows the possibility of our finding ourselves engaged, as at Chinau-fu, in a fruitless and solitary struggle for our full rights, while subjects of other Powers are reaping the benefit of such modified rights as the Chinese may be willing to accord them.
I do not gather from the information supplied by you that other Powers have, in particular instances, acquiesced in the views of the Chinese with any deliberate intention of assisting in the recognition of the principle which the Wai-wu Pu seek to establish, and it seems possible that they may still be induced, before it is too late, to take joint action with us.
You are therefore authorized, should you see no objection, to sound your colleagues, in an informal and unofficial manner, as to the attitude which they intend to adopt towards this question. You might remind them that on the 28th April, 1888, a joint note was presented to the Tsung-li Yamên with regard to the "li-kin-free area of Treaty ports," and point out that the present difficulty is only a further and more dangerous development of the situation which then called for joint intervention.
As a basis of any joint action you may suggest tentatively the view that "the term Treaty port, no matter how any particular port may have been opened, must in all cases be held to include the city and waterways giving access thereto, together with any roads connecting such waterways with the city"; but you should be careful not to commit His Majesty's Government too rigidly to any course which circumstances later on may force them to abandon. In a case of this kind isolated action by His Majesty's Government might provoke the Chinese without in the end securing the object desired and British influence would thereby be weakened.
[2918 d-1]
I am, &c.
(Signed)
E. GREY.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.