CO129-471 - Public Offices - 1921 — Page 308

4

2. These notifications, which were issued during my absence from the colony, are couched in terms which I should not have sanctioned aud cannot approve. I have to request that you will inform the Bureau for Foreign Affairs that disapprove of the terms of these notifications, and that I greatly regret that such discourteous expressions should have been used.

3. I desire however, to make it clear that these observations relate only to the wording of the notifications and not to the principles involved. The only Government of China which is recognised by this Government is that of his Excellency Hs Shih-ch'ang, and this being so it, is impossible to allow Hong Kong to be the scene of demonstrations in honour of a rival President, or to permit of loans being raised there for his support. Moreover, the prohibition of demonstrations was essential in the public interests, as they would undoubtedly have led to breaches of the peace, while the fact that the Wai-chiao Pu has notified to the foreign representatives in China that loans made to provincial authorities without the approval of the Central Government will be regarded as invalid rendered it necessary to warn the people of the colony against subscribing to such loans under a misapprehension as to their security.

4. I take this opportunity of acknowledging your letter No. 44 of the 17th May. recording an interview between yourself and Mr. C. C. Wu. It is my desire to maintain with the authorities in Canton the friendliest relations compatible with the policy indicated in paragraph 3 of this letter, but Mr. Wu will, I am sure, recognise that there is likely to be some difficulty in doing so if those authorities allow the circulation of and themselves appear to credit such ridiculous rumours as that His Majesty's gunboats supply arms to the Kwangsi forces or that my visit to His Majesty's Minister at Peking was in any way con ected with the affairs of Kwangtung.

I have, &c.

Enclosure 9 in No. 1.

R. E. STUBBS, Governor.

Consul-General Jamieson to Bureau for Foreign Affairs.

Canton, May 23, 1921.

Sir,

IN reply to your communication of the 13th instant, on the subject of the issue of two leaflets by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs in Hong Kong in connection with certain recent local ceremonies, I have the honour to inform you that his Excellency the Governor of Hong Kong, to whom its contents were communicated, has now written to me in the following sense:-

The notifications in question, which were issued during his Excellency's absence from the colony, are couched in terms which he could not have sanctioned and which hé cannot approve. In expressing his great regret that discourteous expressions such as those complained of should have been used, his Excellency at the same time desires to make it clear that these observations relate only to the wording of the notifications and not to the principles involved. The only Government of China which is recognised by the Government of Hong Kong is that under the Presidency of his Excellency Hsu Shih-ch'ang, and, that being so, it is impossible to allow Hong Kong to be the scene of demonstrations in honour of a rival President, or to permit of loans being raised there for his support. Subject to these reservations it is his Excellency's desire to maintain with the authorities in Canton the friendliest of relations, but he feels sure that it will be conceded that there is likely to be some difficulty in doing so if the latter allow the circulation of, and themselves appear to credit, such ridiculous rumours as that His Majesty's vessels supply arms Excellency's visit to His Majesty's Minister at Peking was in any way connected with to Kwangsi, or that bis the affairs of Kwangtung.

I have, &c.

Enclosure 10 in No. 1.

J. W. JAMIESON.

Précis Translation of Extract from Guilds Press of May 24, 1921.

AT a meeting of the Cabinet held at the President's office on the 23rd instant, the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affaits, Wu Ch'ao-shu, stated that with reference to the

5

two notifications issued by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs in Hong Kong, Mr. Ross, probibiting Chinese in the colony from celebrating the establishment of the new Government and from subscribing to loans, on the subject of which he had been in communication with the British consul-general, he had now received a letter from the latter stating that in a letter just received the Governor of Hong Kong informed him that the notifications had been issued in his absence from the colony, and that he much regretted the improper language used therein. The Governor further hoped that the Canton Government would not believe rumours to the effect that British warships were carrying arms to Wuchow and that his visit to Peking was secretly connected with Canton affairs. Apart from the question of recognition, the time to discuss which had not come, he wished to maintain the friendliest of relations with the Canton Government.

Enclosure 11 in No. t.

Ministry for Foreign Affairs to Consul-General Jamieson.

Dear Mr. Jamieson,

Canton, May 24, 1921.

I HAVE received your letter of the 22nd. The attitude of Sir Reginald Stubbs in promptly disavowing the indefensible wording of the notifications and in denying the rumours which Lave of late been current both in Canton and Hong Kong is nothing less than what we expect from him, and shows broadminded and statesmanlike qualities which are quickly appreciated by the Cantonese ride this morning's press), and which will go far to re-establish the friendliest relations between the two neighbours. It was, of course, unfortunate that the rumours should have gained ground, but it must be admitted that the then apparently unfriendly attitude of the Hong Kong Government gave some excuse for the spread of the one-otherwise incredible-concerning British ships of war (the notifications when we first heard of them were also incredible); and with regard to the other, concerning Sir R. Stubbs's visit to Peking, I have more than once drawn your attention to the fact that it originated in Hong Kong (vide the S. C. Morning Post" of the 30th April). However, now that they are authoritatively disposed of, everybody's peace of mind is restored.

1

While Sir Reginald Stubbe's disavowal of the wording of the notifications is satisfactory as far as it goes, I am sorry that he perhaps out of an excess of loyalty to his subordinates -should not extend his disavowal to the principles involved as well. While the "Government" at Peking is the one still recognised by the British Government, the most that that Government and hence the Hong Kong Government need do is to maintain an attitude of neutrality. Take the case of loans. The notifica- tion is so worded that it warns against loans of all kinds, public subscriptions and private. Such warning against private loans is absolutely and unquestionably indefensible, as every person has perfect freedom to dispose of his own money as he likes. Where it is a case of public subscription, we know that, in war, neutrals have permitted even the issue of public loans by belligerents, e.g., in the Russo-Japanese War, Japanese loans were floated in London and Russian loans in Paris, while Berlin aided both, and of course, in the Great War, when the United States was still a neutral, Allied loans were floated in New York. A closer analogy is the notorious fact that the Sinn Fein campaign funds are largely if not mainly contributed from loans and subscriptions in the United States.

Take the case of celebrations Not to mention the analogy of the reception of Mr. de Valera, the "President of the Irish Republic," in America, when public honours were accorded to him, I would draw your attention to the fact that Dr. Sun's inauguration was publicly celebrated in Manila and even in Washington, where the President of the United States resides and where the Peking Government maintains a representative. I would also point out that at Ipoh and at Singapore, which are under the jurisdiction of the British Government as much as is Hong Kong, public celebrations of the event were also not interfered with. Why should the British Government as represented in the Straits Settlements interpret its duties of neutrality in regard to the rival Governments in China differently from the British Government as represented in Hong Kong!

It is evident therefore that the principles involved in the notifications are hardly less indefensible than the wording. The Hong Kong Government had clearly over- stepped the boundaries of correct neutrality in interfering with demonstrations, moral

(6614 68-7]

C

307