This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[22276]
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received June 29.)
81
[June 29.]
SECTION 3.
1
(No. 208.) Sir,
Peking, May 11, 1908.
I HAVE the honour to report that in August last M. Boissonnas, the French Chargé d'Affaires, consulted me on the question of agreeing to the reinstatement of a Chinese official who had been degraded as a consequence of the Boxer troubles of 1900.
I expressed the view that there were grave objections to reopening questions settled in the course of the peace negotiations of 1901, and that although there might be, as he suggested, cases of injustice, it seemed to me safer to adhere to the decisions of our predecessors. I promised, however, to look into the circumstances of this particular case and let him have a reply.
On finding that six British missionaries had been murdered in the district where this official held a command, I wrote to M. Boissonnas, pointing out this fact and declining to take any action in his favour.
The incident passed out of my mind till my attention was called to a Rescript in the "Peking Gazette" of the 15th February, reinstating the official in question.
Owing to important business with the Wai-wu Pu at that time I did not make immediate inquiries of that Department, but asked the French Minister, M. Bapst, if he could give me any information on the subject since it was one which I felt bound to take up.
Hearing nothing from M. Bapst, I addressed the Wai-wu Pu on the 27th February in the note copy of which I have the honour to inclose.
On the following day Messrs. Campbell and Mayers were at the Wai-wu Pu, and were shown by the Grand Secretary Na Tung a letter written by the Roman Catholic Bishop, Mgr. Jarlin, to the Wai-wu Pu, in which it was stated that the British Minister had been consulted by the French Legation, and had offered no objection to the reinstatement of Yang Hung-li.
On learning this I at once sought my French colleague and M. Boissonnas. The latter said that while fully understanding my objection to reopening settled cases of that period, he had gathered the impression that I would probably not protest in this instance if the punishment was rescinded. He had, however, never authorized the Bishop to communicate as he had done with the Wai-wu Pu. I replied that I had never intended to convey such an impression, since I could hardly acquiesce in the pardon of an official under the circumstances in question, and I expressed my surprise that the Wai-wu Pu had been encouraged to take such a step without consulting me personally.
M. Bapst called in the evening and expressed much regret for the misunderstanding. I also received a visit from Mgr. Jarlin, greatly perturbed at the mistake which he had made. From his account it appeared that he had no interest whatever in Yang Hung-li. He had been approached by a Chinese General who had befriended the Catholic missionaries in various parts, and who wished to see Yang Hung-li restored to office. In order to oblige the Chinese General the Bishop had interested himself in the case.
On my next visit to the Wai-wu Pu, I explained what had occurred, and invited them to find a solution of the difficulty in which they had placed themselves by acceding to the wishes of the French Bishop in so complaisant a manner.
After my return from the south, I again made inquiries, and intimated to his Excellency Yuan Shih-k'ai that, while I had no desire to press the matter to an extreme, the Chinese Government should show that the irregularity was being corrected as far as possible. A few days later I received the note, a translation of which is inclosed, and which appears to me to offer a satisfactory settlement of the case.
I have, &c.
(Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
[1819 ƒ-3]
1
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
/ AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[22276]
No. 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received June 29.)
81
[June 29.]
{
SECTION 3.
1
(No. 208.) Sir,
Peking, May 11, 1908. I HAVE the honour to report that in August Inst M. Boissonnas, the French Chargé d'Affaires, consulted me on the question of agreeing to the reinstatement of a Chinese official who had been degraded as a consequence of the Boxer troubles of 1900.
I expressed the view that there were grave objections to reopening questions settled in course of the peace negotiations of 1901, and that although there might be. as he suggested, cases of injustice, it seemed to me safer to adhere to the decisions of our predecessors. I promised, however, to look into the circumstances of this particular case and let bin have a reply.
On finding that six British missionaries had been murdered in the district where this official held a command, I wrote to M. Boissonuas, pointing out this fact and declining to take any action in his favour.
The incident passed out of my mind till my attention was called to a Rescript in the "Peking Gazette" of the 15th February, reinstating the official in question.
Owing to important business with the Wai-wu Pa at that time I did not make immediate inquiries of that Department, but asked the French Minister, M. Bapst, if he could give me any information on the subject since it was one which I felt bound to take up.
Hearing nothing from M. Bapst, I addressed the Wai-wu Pu on the 27th February in the note copy of which 1 have the honour to inclose.
On the following day Messrs. Campbell and Mayers were at the Wai-wn Pu, and. were shown by the Grand Secretary Na Tung a letter written by the Roman Catholic Bishop, Mgr. Jarlin, to the Wai-wu Pu, in which it was stated that the British Minister had been consulted by the French Legation, and had offered no objection to the rein- statement of Yang Hung-li.
On learning this I at once sought my French colleague and M. Boissonnas. The latter said that while fully understanding my objection to reopening settled cases of that period, he had gathered the impression that I would probably not protest in this instance if the punishment was rescinded. He had, however, never authorized the Bishop to communicate as he had done with the Wai-wu Pu. I replied that I had never intended to convey such an impression, since I could hardly acquiesce in the pardon of an official under the circumstances in question, and I expressed my surprise that the Wai-wu Pa had been encouraged to take such a step without consulting me personally.
M. Bapst called in the evening and expressed much regret for the misunder- standing. I also received a visit from Mgr. Jarlin, greatly perturbed at the mistake which he had made. From his account it appeared that he had no interest whatever in Yang Hung-li. He had been approached by a Chinese General who had befriended the Catholic missionaries in various parts, and who wished to see Yang Hung-li restored to office. In order to oblige the Chinese General the Bishop had interested himself in the case.
On my next visit to the Wai-wa Pu, I explained what had occurred, and invited them to find a solution of the difficulty in which they had placed themselves by acceding to the wishes of the French Bishop in so complaisant a manner.
After my return from the south, I again made inquiries, and intimated to his Excellency Yuan Shih-k'ai that, while I had no desire to press the matter to an extreme, the Chinese Government should show that the irregularity was being corrected as far as possible. A few days later I received the note, a translation of which is inclosed, and which appears to me to offer a satisfactory settlement of the case.
I have, &c.
(Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
[1819 ƒ-3]
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.