The following correspondence will iNustrate the present position of the Mackay treaty with reference to its mining clause, and will prove that the Treaty is not effective.
A British merchant in Shanghai owns some mining land in China wishes to develop same, wrote to his Consul in the district concerned, immediately upon the receipt of Router's telogeam (which appeared in our calamus on the 21st ult.) in which Burl Perey informed the public that the Government had no idea that the Mackay Treaty was ineffective, calling the Consul's attention to this statement of the Government in the House of Commons, and asking whether he was now in a position to demand permit for the opening of this mine. A reply was received on Monday.
(In the following letters all names have been for obvious reasons, for the present, suppressed.)
British Consulate, Dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 6th inst. enquiring whether you can count upon Consular support in demanding @ permit to work——mines in The position, as regards the Treaty rights of British subjects to buy land or work mines in the interior of China was fully stated in a private letter which I addressed to you on the 5th of December last, and to which I would ask you to refer. Sir Ernest Satow has informed me that he regards the interpretation of the Mackay Treaty given by me in that letter as entirely correct."
Extracts from above-mentioned letter of December 5th from the British Consul have received your private letter of the Ist inst asking me to indicate how you should proceed in order to open mines in property owned by you in this prises by foreigners in China was dealt with by @ circular from Legation to the Consuls, dated 18th July 1899, which is published in China Blue Book No. 1, 1900, p. 286. In this circular, whi was approved by the Foreign Office, was pointed out that foreigners had still no treaty right to buy land other than for missionary purposes or to work mines in the interior of China; but that the regulations issued by the Mining Board served to show the conditions
capital to be employed in Chinese mining under hiccer the Chinese Government was pre} to allow foreign skill and
operations.
These regulations had already been protested against by His Majesty's Minis-for; others were subsequently issued which were also unsatisfactory. you are aware, the British and American Commercial Treaties of,1902 and 1903 stipulated that China should recast her Mining Rules, so as to offer no impediment to the attraction of foreign capital, and that foreigners should be permitted to carry on mining operations in compliance with these rules. The rules, a5 recast, have not been officially communicated to the Consulates, very perishly because, as reported by H. M.
minister, not fulfilling the terms of the Treaty. But the rules have been publish 4 such as they are, I am afraid tered, any foreigner opiate for mining conces-to be guided by them if negotiate with any prospect of success. I can find nothing in the new Treaties which confers, as you seem to suggest, a right to open mines where they please, irrespective of the regulations and conditio.s which may be imposed by the Chinese Government. apart, however, from the question of Treaty rights, I fully recognise ths desirability of encouraging British enterprise in assisting the develupment of mining resources in this province, and I shall, of course, be glad to give you judi general assistance and support as is in my power in any negotiations you may under ike for " mining concession."
From the above it ly evident that today, a. the moment of writing this, in spire of " Government statement in the House of Commons, British subjects are unable to demand " permit to mine in China, except under regulations which the Ministers thomse: ves have rejected, With these letters before us there is so need of further evidence to prove the fact that the Mackay Treaty, as far as this -subject at any rwe is concerned, is ut: terly ineffective. Let us remember that in the Mackay Treaty, signed in 1902, China entered into solemn engagements to initiate and conclude within one ye.r from the signing of the Treaty, a series of mining laws based upon accepted Western procedure. More than two and a-half years after this date weare in the same position as we were before the treaty was signed, and a British morchsat told officially by his Consul that he has no right to demand, and cannot demand, a permit. It is interesting to occurred on the ground floor of house compare the statement of Earl Percy, speaking for the Government, as reported in Reuter's telegram of the 20th ult. that the Government has no knowledge that the Treaty is not effective, and the Consul's letter, quoted above, officially controverting the statement of the Government to Patliament.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.