CO129-382 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 552

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]

550

AFFAIRS OF CHINA.

CONFIDENTIAL.

CO [March 6.]

10672SHOTIO

SROTION 2.

[8173]

(No. 69.) Sir,

No. 1.

Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.~(Received March 6.)

Peking, February 15, 1911. I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith the translation of a note in which the Wai-wu Pu reply to the contents of the communication 1 addressed to them on the 30th January, copy of which was enclosed in my despatch No. 44 of the 31st January. The Chinese Government maintain their attitude of protest against the Burmah expedition, and adduce arguments in support of their claim to territory which the adoption of the Irrawaddy-Salween watershed as the frontier would place under British dominion.

I telegraphed the full contents of this note to you yesterday in my telegram No. 39.

Enclosure in No. 1.

I have, &c.

J. N. JORDAN.

Sir,

Prince Ching to Sir J. Jordan,

Peking, February 13, 1911. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of the 30th ultimo on the subject of the Burmah-Yunnau frontier.

[Quotes note of the 30th January from "The Chinese Government having"

to "the Ngawchaung line."]

I would observe that the question of this frontier has been in a state of confusion for many years; both sides have maintained a different line, as the boundary and the map of the frontier made by Shih Taotai and Consul Litton certainly cannot be taken as proof of an agreement on this point. Moreover, the watershed indicated by Sir Ernest Satow was merely an ex parte pronouncement by one side, and never received the assent of the Chinese Government. Seeing then that the boundary line had not been clearly marked out, there was no other means of arriving at a definite conclusion except by appointing officers to make a fresh delimitation, and my Board repeatedly asked that this should be done. The action of His Majesty's Government, on the other hand, in dispatching troops to Pien-ma without waiting for a joint delimitation and administering the country through British officers is certainly not in keeping with amicable relations between our two countries.

As regards the Pien-ma native villages being subject to the Teng Keng chieftain, Consul Litton's original proposal for a lease in perpetuity on the precedent of the Meng Mao triangle was in itself a clear recognition of Chinese overlordship; moreover, there are records from the Tao Kuang period of the payment of taxes and duties, and to this day those tribes when they go to law bring their plaints to the district magistrate of Pao Shan.

Again, Sir Ernest Satow and your Excellency have repeatedly stated in your notes that His Majesty's Government were willing to pay compensation in lieu of the presents and dues hitherto received from the native headmen by Teng Keng, which is a further undoubted admission that these native villages are subject to China.

Moreover, the villages of Tzu Chu and Hpare have from of old been ruled by the two Fuyi, Yang and Tso, of Ming Kwang, and the certificates of hereditary rank issued to them by the Board of War in the Tao Kuang period still exist.

The above constitute the most conclusive arguments and the clearest proof, as His Majesty's Government must themselves fully appreciate.

[1918 -2]