CO129-371 - Public Offices - 1910 — Page 166

2

late years, and I took the opportunity of an incorrect wording of the Taotai's despatch--which made it appear that the consuls were his "subordinates "-to tell the Taotai in a friendly conversation that the Viceroy would be conforming more closely to the rules of official intercourse arranged between the diplomatic body and the Tsung-li Yamên in 1880 (Hertslet's "China Treaties," pp. 81 to 83) if he wrote direct to the consuls on such an important subject. The Taotai took back his despatch and sent me one more appropriately worded.

It may seem trivial to insist upon these unimportant points of etiquette, but unless our right of access on equal and courteous terms to the high provincial authorities is constantly maintained they endeavour to keep us at arm's length, and our efforts to settle international cases are apt to be wasted on the numerous buffers which are interposed.

The newly appointed Viceroy Ch'en Ku'ei-lung still lingers in Peking, whither he has proceeded from his late post of Viceroy of the Hu-Kwang provinces. He is a native of Kuei-Chou and has only come to the front since June 1900, when he was appointed Vice-Governor of Peking. He is said to have had Boxer sympathies and to be of an easy-going and irresolute disposition.

I have, &c.

H. E. FULFORD.

•

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Governmentio

AFFAIRS OF CHINA.

f

CONFIDENTIAL.

[1974]

No. 1.

164

3502 [January 18.]

Rice SECTIO 3 CEB 10

Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received January 18, 1910.)

(No. 493.) Sir,

Peking, December 29, 1909. THE instructions contained in your telegrams Nos. 199 and 201 of the 16th and 20th December with regard to the question of the delimitation of Macao were duly executed on the 24th December, as reported in my telegram No. 203 of that date.

I called at the Wai-wu Pu by special appointment and delivered to the Grand Secretary Na-t'ung a note, copy of which is enclosed herewith, embodying the sense of your telegram No. 199, His Excellency read it through carefully and then proceeded to remark on its contents. The first point he took was the statement that the Chinese Government had decided that arbitration was not acceptable. He said that he was unaware of such a decision, and on being asked to explain not only the categorical language of Liang Tun-yen to me personally on the 10th December but also the wording of the Wai-wu Pu's note to the Portuguese chargé d'affaires of the same date, argued that what the Chinese Government had refused was arbitration by The Hague Tribunal only. Pressed to explain his meaning more clearly, he said that the possibility of friendly mediation in another form was not excluded, and that his Government were not committed to a general refusal of arbitration. To some further questions and a suggestion that I should be glad to be in a position to make a definite communication to you on the point, be answered that he could say no more until he had talked the matter over with Prince Ching.

He next drew attention to the expression "aggressive action" and contended that China had done nothing and was doing nothing which could be construed in that sense. Nothing was further from their thoughts, and the central Government had issued the most stringent instructions to the Canton authorities to abstain from all action which might tend to provoke trouble with the Portuguese at Macao.

To this I replied that however peaceful the intentions of the Chinese Government might be there was no disguising the fact that the relations between Kuangtung and Macao were of a character to raise apprehensions of violence sooner or later, and T thought it reasonable that a grave view should be taken of the recent action of the Canton admiral in pursuing pirates and arresting them on Dom Joao, where a serious incident had previously occurred in 1897. If Portuguese troops had been present on Dom Joao at the time a conflict would have been the natural consequence, and the aggressors would have been the Chinese. It was to avoid such an eventuality that His Majesty's Government, who were bound by long-standing treaty obligations to Portugal, had addressed the warning contained in the note. Na-t'ung assured me that the Chinese Government had not lost sight of the 1661 treaty with Portugal, and fully realised the British Government's position in the matter. He was very sensible of the friendly nature of your intervention, and concluded by repeating that China was thoroughly aware of the situation in Kuangtung, and would take every precaution in her power to avoid a collision.

I have, &c.

J. N. JORDAN,

Your Highness,

Enclosure in No. 1.

Sir J. Jordan to Prince Ch'ing.

December 24, 1909.

YOUR Highness is aware that in the negotiations between China and Portugal for the delimitation of the boundaries of Macao, in accordance with article 2 of the Peking Treaty of the 1st December, 1887, I have, under instructions from His Majesty's Government, constantly used my best efforts to promote an amicable understanding. At an interview on the 10th December I endeavoured to the best of my ability to persuade the Wai-wu Pu that the Portuguese request to submit the

[2605 ----4]

----་