401
C.0
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majestys Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[6100]
No. 1.
[February 21.]
BE IF MAR 10 SECTION 1.
}
(No. 37.) Sir,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received February 21.)
Peking, January 31, 1910. SINCE my despatch No. 464 of the 13th December was written, there has been considerable correspondence between the Portuguese chargé d'affaires and the Wai-wu Pu on the subject of the island of Dom Joao, which I think it desirable to summarise for your information.
On the Sth ultimo M. de Brederode sent a memorandum to the Wai-wu Pu pro- testing against the violation of the status quo, and requesting the restitution of the vessels seized by the Chinese landing party. The reply of the Wai-wu Pu was to the effect that Dom Joao "is within the Chinese boundaries," and that the act of capture of malefactors on the island was one with which "the Portuguese must not interfere." In support of the view that Dom Joao is Chinese territory, the Wai-wu Pu quoted part of a note addressed by the Tsung-li Yamên to the Portuguese chargé d'affaires on the 25th April, 1897. This note recorded an arrangement according to which neither China nor Portugal was to garrison Dom Joao, and the status quo established by the treaty of 1887 was not to be disturbed pending a settlement of the question of sovereignty over the island, but the part quoted by the Wai-wu Pu omitted the reference to China's withdrawal from the island, and made it appear that Portugal had recognised the Chinese claim to sovereignty. M. de Brederode in his reply of the 14th December pointed this out, and again asked that the Viceroy of Canton should be instructed to observe the status quo established by the treaty of 1887, which, he main- tained, confirmed the right of jurisdiction exercised by the Portuguese over Dom Joao since the year 1875.
On the 18th December the Wai-wu Pu replied that there had never been the slightest trace of Portuguese administration at Dom Joao, and again refused to instruct the Viceroy of Canton in the sense desired, while M. de Brederode, in a further note of the 21st December, repeated his contentions and request.
Yet another refusal to consider the matter was received by M. de Brederode at the beginning of the present month. He made a further appeal a few days later and has now received the note, copy of which I have the honour to enclose, in which the Wai-wu Pu definitely refuse, in a somewhat curt manner, to depart from the attitude which they have adopted.
As reported in my despatch No. 493 of the 29th ultimo, I drew the attention of the Grand Councillor Na to the incident at my interview with his Excellency on the 24th ultimo, and pointed out the serious consequences which might have arisen had a Portuguese force been present and a conflict taken place between them and the Chinese landing party.
I have, &c.
(for Sir John Jordan)
W. G. MAX MÜLLER.
Enclosure in No. 1.
Excellency,
Prince Ching to M. de Brederode.
January 24, 1910,
RE the island of Dom Joac, on the 27th of the 11th moon (8th January, 1910), I had the honour to receive another note from your Excellency, saying:
"The Portuguese Government considers the island of Dom Joao as a territory in litigation between Portugal and China. If Portugal sent soldiers there it was because China had sent her soldiers first; and as soon as China engaged to withdraw her soldiers, Portugal acceded to do the same, thus showing her desire to maintain the I still request that status quo of 1887, without addition, diminution, or alteration. orders be given to local authorities to restore the boats, &c., &c."
[2633 -1]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.