Mr. Morley, in reviewing these contentions of the Indian Government, said that it must be remembered that when the Government of India, in July, 1907, raised the question of the failure of the Tibetans to fulfil the conditions on which evacuation was to take place, it was decided by His Majesty’s Government that it was “not necessary at present formally to remind the Chinese and Tibetan Governments of such breaches of the Lhasa Convention as have occurred.” Nor had the incidents since reported by the Government of India been considered of sufficient importance to justify a warning either to Tibet or China that there had been a failure to comply with the conditions on which our evacuation of Chumbi depended. The fact that we kept silence at the time that these incidents occurred rendered it impossible, in Mr. Morley’s opinion, to revive them now without exposing ourselves to a charge of bad faith.
There remained the argument that the evacuation of Chumbi would deprive us of our only practical means of bringing pressure to bear on the Chinese Government to expedite a satisfactory settlement of the negotiations now in progress for the revision of the Tibetan Trade Regulations. But though it might be inconvenient to be deprived of this weapon, it appeared to Mr. Morley that, since by our own action we were precluded, for the reasons stated above, from alleging that there had been breaches of the Lhasa Convention of such a nature as to necessitate our retention of Chumbi, it would be an unjustifiable extension of the interpretation to be placed on the conditions laid down in that Convention to maintain, as we should have in effect to do, that the marts cannot be regarded as effectively open till the revised Trade Regulations have been satisfactorily settled. The Lhasa Convention clearly contemplates the marts being conducted under the old Regulations, which in form were sufficiently comprehensive until the new ones were introduced. It contained no stipulation, as it well might have done, that a revision of the Regulations satisfactory to ourselves was essential before the marts at Gyantse and elsewhere could be held to have been effectively opened.
The possibility had also to be borne in mind, given the peculiarities of Chinese diplomacy, that the continued occupation of Chumbi might have no other effect than to increase the obstinacy of the Chinese Government in the matter of the revision of the Regulations. In that case, as time went on, our position would have become increasingly difficult, and if our occupation was seriously protracted, as might not improbably have been the result of delaying evacuation, the whole policy of His Majesty’s Government in Asia would to a certain degree be stultified. A comparison of the British and Chinese drafts of the proposed Regulations showed that the points at real issue in the Regulations were not only those of political status involved in the wording of the preamble, but practical commercial questions of great complexity and inherent difficulty, such as that, for instance, to which the Government of India drew special attention, of the terms under which Indian tea was to be admitted into Tibet. It could not seriously be contended that our occupation was to continue till terms as to tea, satisfactory to the Indian trade, had been accepted by Tibet and China. On the other hand, no line could be logically and defensibly drawn between those matters in the Trade Regulations which were, and those which were not, essential points in the consideration of the question whether the trade-marts had been effectively opened.
The conclusion at which Mr. Morley had arrived was that, on an impartial interpretation of the Lhasa Convention, by the light of the events of the last three years, there were not sufficient grounds to justify a refusal to withdraw from Chumbi, and that, for reasons of policy and expediency, it was desirable that our occupation should terminate at once. Whatever difficulties might be in store for us from Chinese obstructiveness, Mr. Morley was of opinion that our power of coping with them would be diminished, not increased, if we placed ourselves in what would be an essentially false position by declining to withdraw from the Chumbi Valley, in accordance with our pledges and declared intentions.
Sir Edward Grey concurred in the views expressed by the Secretary of State for India in regard to the evacuation of the Chumbi Valley; but he considered that it would be well to point out to the Chinese Government that His Majesty’s Government would expect, in return for evacuation, that their wishes would be met in regard to the Trade Regulations then under discussion at Calcutta, and that conciliatory instructions would be sent to Chang with a view to the speedy conclusion of the negotiations. He had accordingly sent to His Majesty’s Minister at Peking a telegram in the above sense.
The final instalment of the indemnity having been paid, orders for the evacuation of the Chumbi Valley were issued on January 27, 1908.
Thus we deliberately abandoned the sole guarantee for the fulfilment of the Treaty. For years prior to the conclusion of the Lhasa Treaty we had had practical experience that Chinese engagements regarding Tibet were useless. Since the signature of the Lhasa Treaty we had three years’ evidence that the Chinese were trying to evade its execution. Its provisions had not been fulfilled, and have not yet been carried out, six years after it was signed. Extreme moderation had been shown; concession after concession had been made. With a broad-mindedness in which some might suspect indifference we had given way point after point. In spite of all this, the Chinese were not observing the Treaty. And yet we gave up the one and only material guarantee for its fulfilment.
Now, at least, when we had withdrawn from Chumbi, and when we had been complacent in so many respects, we might fairly have expected that a change of tone would have come over Chinese policy. But, as we have on many other occasions experienced, the Chinese are not always most reasonable when we are most accommodating. And from the time we evacuated the Chumbi Valley they commenced a great forward movement in Tibet, which has resulted in the practical extinction of the Tibetan Government, and necessitated our despatching a much larger number of troops than we had in Chumbi to Gnatong, an inhospitable spot over 12,000 feet above sea-level, where they still have a 15,000-feet pass between them and Chumbi, and can, in consequence, exert only one-quarter of the moral effect they had in Chumbi itself.
But before this movement actually commenced, the Chinese had concluded some Trade Regulations with us; again at the instance of the Chinese Government, who seem to have a shrewd suspicion that these various agreements bind us to a far greater extent than they confer benefit on us. On April 7, 1907, the Chinese Government had notified our Minister at Peking that if the Government of India would appoint a special representative, Mr. Chang would proceed to Calcutta to negotiate the new Trade Regulations with him. Sir John Jordan, in accordance with instructions he had received, pointed out that under Article III. of the Lhasa Convention it was the Tibetan Government who should appoint a delegate to negotiate a revision of the Trade Regulations. We were, however, willing not to insist on negotiating these Trade Regulations exclusively with delegates of the Tibetan Government. But before the negotiations began a Tibetan delegate should be appointed by the Tibetan Government, with full power to negotiate and sign on behalf of the Tibetan Government in such a manner as to bind that Government to the settlement arrived at. This delegate should then be associated with Mr. Chang and proceed together with him to Simla, to negotiate there with a special representative of the Government of India.