国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
| |||||||||
|
Tibet and Turkestan : vol.1 | |
チベットとトルキスタン : vol.1 |
30o Tibet and Turkestan
pressure to bear on the Chinese Resident in order to secure reparation. There is, however, at present no evidence that the mischief is to be directly attributed to Tibetan officials, and it is in our opinion necessary to make allowances for the difficulties of the Chinese Resident's position in respect to the Tibetans.
Letter from the Government of India, in the Foreign Department, to the Right Honourable Lord George F. Hamilton, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for India, dated Simla, the 3rd September, 1895. (Received the 23rd September, 1895.)
Our Despatch, dated the 25th June, 1895, informed Her Majesty's Government of the position of affairs on the Sikkim-Tibet border. We have since been in further correspondence with Sir Nicholas O'Conor, and on the loth August instructions were issued that our demarcation party should break up and that Mr. White should return to Gantok.
2. The Chinese Resident in Tibet suggested postponement of demarcation until after five years from the date on which the Trade Regulations attached to the Convention of 1890 came into force. His Excellency the Viceroy has declared his inability to seriously discuss such a suggestion and has communicated to the Chinese Resident a hope that nothing will prevent the work being carried out amicably next year.
From the Viceroy to the Secretary of State for India, dated 15th February, 1896.
(Telegraphic)
Please see our letter of 3rd September, 1895, and your despatch of 6th December, 1895. There are grounds for believing that the Tibetans possess reasonable claims in the extreme north of Sikkim to a tract of land which is excluded from Tibet by the boundary line laid down in the Convention. The tract in question is of no value to Sikkim. Would you
|
Copyright (C) 2003-2019
National Institute of Informatics(国立情報学研究所)
and
The Toyo Bunko(東洋文庫). All Rights Reserved.
本ウェブサイトに掲載するデジタル文化資源の無断転載は固くお断りいたします。