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
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

> > > >
カラー New!IIIFカラー高解像度 白黒高解像度 PDF   日本語 English
0427 India and Tibet : vol.1
インドとチベット : vol.1
India and Tibet : vol.1 / 427 ページ(カラー画像)

New!引用情報

doi: 10.20676/00000295
引用形式選択: Chicago | APA | Harvard | IEEE

OCR読み取り結果

 

PAYMENT OF INDEMNITY   353

conceded by His Majesty's Government for payment

direct by the Chinese should be cancelled. But this was

not eventually insisted on, and payments were received by

the Government of India through the Hong Kong and

Shanghai Bank.

In regard to the third instalment, Mr. Chang proposed,

on December 27, 1907, that he should hand it over in the

form of a cheque to the Indian Government. But the

latter again stood out for receiving it from a Tibetan.

It was due only to a misunderstanding that payment in

the previous year had been accepted direct before orders

on the subject had arrived. As regards this proposal of

the Chinese, Mr. Morley, though he doubted the advantage

of raising the point, saw no objection, as the Tsarong

Sha-pé was then in Calcutta, to payment being made by

the Tibetan Government through him to the Government

of India.

But this method of payment Mr. Chang refused, and

wrote to Sir Louis Dane : I regret to say that I am

unable to meet your wishes that Tsarong Sha-pé should

himself tender payment. I have received very explicit

instructions from my Government on this subject, that

the third instalment of the indemnity (Rs. 8,33,333 :5 : 4)

is to be handed over in the form of a cheque only by

myself." When the matter arose in discussion at a

meeting on January 10, Mr. Chang intimated that he

based his objection to the proposal on the fact that direct

dealings between us and the Tibetan authorities would be

involved in it. It was no longer possible, the Government

of India thought, to doubt Chang's firm determination

that Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, to the exclusion of

all local autonomy, should be indicated, and that direct

communication of all kinds between our officials and

Tibetans should be prevented. It appeared that Mr.

Chang was being supported in this attitude by the

Chinese Government, and that it was doubtful if we could

expect, without further guarantee, loyal fulfilment of the

Lhasa Convention as interpreted by His Majesty's

Government. Chinese claims might exist which con-

travened our distinct rights under the Lhasa Convention,

23