[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
[217]
No. 1.
79
2765
[January 8
TRIG 28 JAN 101
SECTION 3.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.~(Received January 3, 1910.)
(No. 464.) Sir,
Peking, December 13, 1909. MY despatch No. 406 of the 5th November foreshadowed the prospect of a deadlock in the negotiations between Portugal and China respecting the delimitation of Macao, and I have now the honour to report the subsequent developments which have issued in this result.
The Portuguese memorandum of the 21st October, copy of which is enclosed herewith, deals with the question of Lapa, and cites historical evidence to prove that Portugal had effectively occupied portions of the island in early times; that this occupation had been recognised by the Chinese authorities; and that China had never asserted more than a nominal claim to it. The document concluded by stating that Portugal could never think of giving up the rights which she had thus acquired- rights which were indispensable for the safety of Macao-in return for any agreement which could only produce friction, and might endanger the peace of the East.
The reply of the Chinese commissioner, presented at a meeting of the 30th October, of which a copy is also enclosed, asserted that the three islands of Lapa, Dom João, and Vongcam contained no trace of Portuguese occupation, and must be left out of consideration. He stated, somewhat peremptorily, that if the discussion were made to embrace any territory other than Macao, Taipa, and Colovan, the question could not be settled.
The last meeting of the commission took place on the 13th November, when the Portuguese delegate submitted an exhaustive statement (copy enclosed"), reviewing the whole course of the negotiations, and laying stress on the moderation of his demands, which showed that he was prepared to agree to a partition of the islands of Lapa, Vongcam, and Dom João. He complained that the Chinese commissioner had ignored every fact and document which served to prove Portuguese occupation of the places in question. The language of the Chinese commissioner, he added, bore an unfortunate resemblance to that employed by the Canton agitators, and was so uncompromising as to preclude all hope of a settlement. In these circumstances he had no resource but to suggest arbitration to his Government, and he hoped that the Chinese delegate would recommend a similar course to the Government at Peking.
The Chinese commissioner replied that, though personally in favour of arbitration, he could not undertake to recommend it to his Government, and he suggested that negotiations might be resumed at some other place and with different commissioners.
On the 18th November I received your telegram No. 186 stating that the Portuguese Government had decided to demand arbitration, and instructing me to support the demand. Your subsequent telegram of the 24th November added that the Portuguese Government were about to make a formal proposal of arbitration, but that they wished to have some understanding that the status quo should not be disturbed in the meanwhile, and I was instructed to inform the Chinese Government of this. M. Brederode, with whom I was in daily communication, did not receive his instructions from Lisbon until the 26th November. He was then informed by his Government that, in formally proposing arbitration, he was to demand that the status quo should be clearly defined beforehand and strictly observed, pending the decision of The Hague Tribunal. M. Brederode, after consulting with me, pointed out to his Government the impossibility of insisting beforehand on a clear definition of the status quo. In their reply the Portuguese Government explained that their object in demanding a definition of the status quo was due to the fear that the Viceroy at Canton night provoke collisions in the islands and waters in dispute during the arbitration proceedings. They added that they would waive this demand if I assured them that there was no ground for their apprehension, and that I considered the wording suggested by myself a sufficient guarantee against this
[2605 c-8]
* Not printed.
ril
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.