[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
[B]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[14044]
со
14858
Prae 8 MY I'
[April 18.]
SECTION 2.
No. 1.
(No. 132. Sir,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.~~(Received April 18.)
Confidential.)
Peking, March 23, 1911. SINCE my despatch No. 86, Confidential, of the 23rd February was written there has been such a continuous exchange of notes between the Russian Legation and the Wai-wu Pu that it has been difficult to follow the sequence of events or disentangle clearly from a mass of conflicting statements the exact points of the controversy. The following narrative may, however, be accepted as a fairly accurate account of what has occurred.
The Russian Government, while professing to be satisfied with the Chinese reply to their first note on all points save that of monopolies, deemed it prudent to invite China to state more explicity the practical interpretation which she proposed to give to her assurances. The Russian Minister, therefore, addressed a further note to the Wai-wu Pu on the 14th March, and its terms, if my information is correct, were of a much more muinatory character than was admitted by the Russian Minister at the time. It stated that while the obligations imposed on China by the treaty of 1881 were acknowledged in theory, they were systematically ignored in practice and that Russian merchants were continually deprived of the rights to which they were entitled under that agreement. It disputed the Chinese contention that the establishment of a Russian consulate at Kobdo was conditional upon the acceptance of tariff regulations and held that the treaty gave no colour to such an argument. It maintained that Russian merchants could import and export goods of any origin whatsoever and insisted that the Chinese pretension that the overland trade was confined so foreign goods was quite untenable. It specially asked for a written assurance from the Chinese Government to the third and fourth paragraphs of the Russian note of the 16th February, the former of which referred to freedom of trade and the latter to the appointment of consuls. It concluded by intimating that assent to these two latter demands was necessary to ensure the continuance of friendly relations.
The Chinese reply to this note dealt categorically with all the points raised in the correspondence.
In view of the fact that Russia did not insist on her original demand for a consulate at Cheng Hua Shih (Shara-sumé), China, it was stated, agreed to the establishment of a Russian consulate at Kobdo.
The second paragraph of the note threw considerable light on the obscure question of the tea trade, which had formed one of the main grievances of the Russian protest. The Russians claimed the right of conveying tea overland from China proper to Russian territory and then reimporting it into Chinese Turkestan. China denied that either the treaty of 1881 or the trade regulations annexed to it gave Russia any such right, and, to reinforce her contention, produced an agreement, signed between the Russian consul and the local authorities at Chuguchak in 1907, which specifically deals with this question. A copy of this document is enclosed, together with copies of statements issued by the Wai-wu Pu and the Russian Legation in which their respective views of its interpretation are explained. An impartial study of these papers and of the treaty stipulations of 1881 appears to me to lead to the conclusion. that the right to reimport tea into Chinese territory was not conceded by China; and that such a transaction was not contemplated by the treaty is clearly shown by the fact that a Russian consul, conversant with the conditions of the trade, signed an agreement expressly excluding the reimportation of produce of Chinese origin.
In the third clause of the Chinese note the Wai-wa Pu admit that Russian merchants are entitled to trade in native produce and live stock in the special regions to which the treaty applies. They agree to place no restrictions upon this trade, and to accord to Russian traders the same treatment they grant to their own people.
As the Russian Legation points out, this clause may be interpreted in such a way
(1974 s-2]
229
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.