[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
119
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[43193]
CO
624
RECO Rens 7 JAN JI
[November 28.]
SECTION 3.
No. 1.
Mr. Max Müller to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received November 28.)
(No. 411.) Sir,
Peking, November 11, 1910. THE negotiations between the diplomatic body and the Chinese Government in regard to the question of the Whangpoo Conservancy and the nomination of a successor to M. de Rijke in the post of engineer-in-chief have reached a point where I considered it necessary to refer to you for instructions before committing myself.
In my despatch No. 211 of the 28th June, I reported the purely negative result of a meeting held by the heads of missions principally interested in this question to discuss the dismissal of M. de Rijke, and I enclosed a copy of a letter addressed by the Conservancy Board to the consular body at Shanghai justifying and refusing to withdraw their notice of the termination of M. de Rijke's agreement.
This letter was forwarded by the senior consul to the doyen of the diplomatic body. with the request that we should support their protest against the dismissal of M. de Rijke. It was duly circulated by M. de Kuczynski among the heads of missions, but owing to the fact that many of them were dispersed for their summer holiday, the process of circulation took even longer than usual, and only resulted in disclosing a considerable divergence of opinion among them as to the course to be pursued. The French Minister wrote that, in his opinion, the wording of article 2 of the 1905 agreement made it clear that the dismissal of the engineer-in-chief could only be effected "pour des raisons jugées valables par la majorité des Ministres intéressés," and it lay therefore with the diplomatic body to pronounce on the proper interpretation of clause 5 of M. de Rijke's agreement. M. de Margerie added that he shared my view as to the real meaning of that clause (see my despatch No. 211 of the 28th June), namely, that M. de Rijke could not be dismissed before the 7th June, 1911. Others of my colleagues apparently held that any interference on the part of the diplomatic body was uncalled for, while still a third party adhered to the opinion of the American Minister, who is a lawyer, that we should be on stronger ground if instead of basing our representations on the wording of M. de Rijke's contract, to which we were not parties, we took our stand on article 2 of the 1905 agreement, and maintained that unless the Chinese Government could prove to our satisfaction that the whole conservancy work was finished, they had no right to dismiss the engineer-in-chief without the consent of the majority of the foreign representatives.
As I have already reported in my despatch No. 361 of the 13th ultimo, a meeting of the diplomatic body was held on the 1st of that month, at which the whole question of the Whangpoo Conservancy in general, and the dismissal of M. de Rijke in particular, were discussed, and at which it proved possible by mutual concessions to arrive at a certain unanimity in regard to the course to be pursued. In regard to the question of the departure of M. de Rijke, an agreement was greatly facilitated by the announcement made by the Dutch Minister that his countryman was now willing to go. M. Beclaerts stated that M. de Rijke was an old man, and that in remaining on in China he was sacrificing personal to public interests. Already a year ago M. de Rijke had talked to him of his intention of resigning for reasons of health, on the ground that he had not received the support to which he was entitled. Naturally his amour-propre made it difficult for him to leave before the successful result of his work was clearly established. Now, however, everyone-the Chinese Government, the consular body, the chambers of commerce, and the British engineering experts, were unanimous in approving his work. M. de Rijke had, therefore, nothing to gain by remaining on in China, rather the contrary.
The meeting at once saw in this declaration of the Dutch Minister a means of arriving at a satisfactory solution of a thorny question without any sacrifice of principle, but as the French Minister and I pointed out, it was impossible for us to accept the dismissal of the cngineer-in-chief in the form in which it had been presented to us; the agreement of 1905 was still in force, and under that agreement the dismissal of the engineer-in-chief and the appointment of his successor were
[2982 ee-3]
B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.