}
:
573
62
The fourth is a large place north of the Wen River, 110 south-west of Wei Hsien. The limit is 50 li
the
The fifth is within a radius of 250 li from Chefoo as a limit.
Note. In the Chinese version of the first of the above there is an evident slip of pen, Yishui being used for Yichou. This has been corrected in the above translation. The descriptions are so badly worded as to be unintelligible in the Chinese version without a map showing what areas are meant.
(Translator.)
63
Shantung as desired by His Majesty's Government. The effect would thus be that this Legation would be placed in direct opposition to the German Legation, without any possibility of an anderstanding being arrived at, while the Chinese Government would hold aloof from a discussion regarded by them as affecting solely the two Governments concerned.
Under these circumstances I trust that your Lordship may be disposed to cause representations to be made to the German Government, and in the meantime, until I receive your Lordship's further directions, I am taking upon myself the responsibility of postponing action upon the instructions conveyed in your Lordship's despatch.
I have, &c. (Signed) ERNEST SATOW.
(Translation.)
Inclosure 2 in No. 68.
Baron von der Goltz to Prince Ch'ing.
THE Deutsche Gesellschaft für Bergbau und Industrie received permission in 1899 to work mines in five localities. Among these there was one described as a radius of 250 ii from Chefoo, and apart from territory given to another Power the Company named was at liberty to open mines in any part of this area. This point has been the subject of frequent correspondence with your Highness.
Now the Convention of the 5th October, 1898, between China and Great Britain states that a belt of 10 English miles, i.e., 30 Chinese li, from the bay of Wei-hai Wei is leased to the British Government. Within this radius of 10 English miles the German Company have, of course, no right to open mines. But if the territory is outside this radius and so above the 10 miles distance, and is within the ruining area of the six localities, the German Company has obtained abroad the right to mine.
I now notice in the newspapers a statement that the Wei-hai Gold Mining Company intend to begin mining operations at a place where there is gold at a distance of 15 miles from Wei-hai Wei, and that permission has already been granted. It is therefore my duty to address this note to your Highness for the purpose of stating that this place was long ago granted to the German Company, and cannot, therefore, be given to any one else, and that the Wei-hai Gold Mining Company has no mining rights outside the leased territory.
February 19, 1903.
(No. 370.) My Lord,
No. 69
Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Lansdowne.--(Received December 21.)
Peking, November 3, 1903. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch No. 276 of the 11th September last, instructing me to point out to the Chinese Government that the granting within the British zone of influence at Wei-hai Wei of mining rights to a German Company would be incompatible with the spirit of the Wei-hai Wei Convention, and to press the Chinese Government to instruct the Governor of Shantung to complete the Agreement with the Commissioner for the regulation of mining operations to be carried on by the Wei-hai Wei Mining Company in the area known as Tiger Hill.
In my despatches Nos. 346 and 361 of the 8th and 29th ultimo respectively, I had the honour to report a conversation with my German colleague on this question, and to furnish further details showing the proceedings that had been taken by the German Chargé d'Affaires in what appears to be an erroneous interpretation of the original Concession to the German Mining Company. My German colleague is, I believe, inclined to take much the same view of the question as I do myself, but considers himself unable, without instructions from his Government, to adopt any step to undo the effect of M. von der Goltz's note of the 9th February last to the Chinese Government.
From past experience I have reason to anticipate that the Chinese Government would not venture to comply with such a request as I am instructed to address to them, unless they were assured in advance of the concurrence of the German Govern- ment, and the only result would be a refusal on their part to instruct the Governor of
No. 70.
Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Lansdowne.-(Received December 21.)
(No. 373. Very Confidential.) My Lord,
Peking, November 4, 1903. I HAD an opportunity yesterday of conversing with my French colleague respecting the agreement he has recently signed with the Chinese Government for the construction and working of the Yunnan-fu Railway. As your Lordship is aware the Concession was originally granted to the French Government, who then entered into a contract with a Company for its construction, and in M. Dubail's Convention the details are now arranged for. The management, he informs me, will be entirely in the hands of the French Company.
I could not help commenting on the fatuous way in which the Chinese Govern- ment have, by conceding to foreign Companies in the enjoyment of the protection of their Governments, the right of working the railways, abandoned in foreign hands the control of the principal arteries of communication, and I instanced the Franco-Belgian line from Peking to Hankow, which is only Chinese in name.
M. Dubail responded that this was the only condition under which the Chinese could secure the construction of the railways which they had learnt now to regard as indispensable for the development of the national wealth. The Yunnan-fu Railway was a purely commercial undertaking, and not intended, as some supposed, to facilitate the absorption of Yunnan and Kwangsi. France already possessed in Indo-China all the territory she could desire. Yünnan was a poor and mountainous region, which was not worth the efforts that would be required for its acquisition. Such an enter- prise would require an army of 50,000 men, and entail an enormous expenditure.
It might appear a somewhat inconsistent proceeding to devote several millions to the construction of a railway into the heart of so poor and sterile a region, but M. Dubail observed that it was hoped by this means to develop to a remunerative extent the commercial relations of Tonquin and Southern China.
I referred to the recent suggestions made by the native press in China and else- where, that other Powers would be stimulated by the example of Russia to claim their share in the territorial spoils of Chiua.
My colleague replied that he did not believe it could be worth the while of the Powers to partition China. Where were they to find the staff of administrators and the troops required to garrison their respective portions, supposing, as he said emphatically, they could agree among themselves as to the limits of their respective shares. He considered that it was far better in the general interest to leave China intact, and to seek to promote commercial and other foreign enterprise on that basis.
I said that I heartily agreed with him. It was clear that a partition of China could not be amicably arranged. Who was to settle the boundaries ? Personally I had always been averse to the suggestion put forward by some of my countrymen that the Yang-tsze Valley should be recognized as peculiarly the British sphere. One would understand this idea as long as the Yang-tsze Valley was regarded as length without breadth, but when the advocates of this policy were examined as to its lateral extension, they at first knew not what to say, and afterwards a little geographical study showed that the Yang-tsze basin extended over about two-thirds of China Proper. I could not see where the men were to be found to undertake the task of governing such a huge territory. His view, therefore, was coincident with my own.
I thought it desirable to make this declaration of faith to M. Dubail, because of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.