INFIDENTIAL.
C. O.
43304
RECR 1969 7 DEC 05
Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Lunsdowne.-(Received December 5, 6 r.M.)
Peking, December 5, 1905, 5-·50 A.M.
No. 230.) Telegraphic.)
YOUR telegram No. 185 [3rd December: Hankow-Canton Railway). The following are the main points of the opinion I expressed to the Governor of long Kong :---
The suggestion that the French should share with us emanated from the French Finister at Peking, who on hearing that Chang proposed to borrow British money upported the Belgian pretension, that Belgium was entitled to build the railway in consequence of the American concession having fallen through. He informed me of
this himself,
Belgian pretension, which is quite untenable, is based on Sheng's letter given fon p. 246 of "Rockhill's Collection of Treaties."
Chang has given us a promise in regard to this matter, for which we have given valuable consideration.
French co-operation will not help us in this business any more than it has done in the Szechuan and Hankow Railway, as they are distrusted by the Chinese. Reasons of this mistrust are mainly the Tonquin and Yunnan political railway, and the support accorded by the French Government to usurp authority by the Roman Catholic missionaries all over the country.
It seems to me that, before we consider any such French proposal, the French Government ought to abandon their opposition to the British Chairman with casting rote of the Chinese Central Railways.
I would add the following to the above views expressed to the Governor of Hong Kong:--
The only way in which French could be admitted to participation without at once attracting the notice of Chinese would be by the Chinese Central Railways undertaking the Canton-Hankow line instead of British and Chinese Corporation. But even then it would not be long before it became publicly known that the French had 45 per cent. and the Belgians 10 per cent. participation, and we should incur the same odium as e abused American Development Company did for letting in the Belgians and French. Premature disclosure in the press of the terms of Anglo-French Agreement to railway had a great deal to do with the prohibition to borrow money for the Szechuan-Hankow Railway, sent from Peking to the Viceroy of Wuchang.
Moreover, there is nothing in the Articles of Association of the Chinese Central Railways which would prevent French Legation from claiming the right to intervene officially on behalf of French capital involved, as they have done successfully in case of Luhan Railway, a Belgian undertaking, which they have dominated because they contributed three-fifths of the money. The Chinese would be afraid of a similar thing happening in this case,
I understand grounds of general policy which make it undesirable to reject French advances, but I would urge that these should in no case be favourably enter- tained, unless France gives way about the Chairman question. We ought to maintain the rights accorded to us by Chang in regard to supply of material and engineers; half latter were to be Japanese, and we cannot now ignore this part of stipulation.
Last sentence of your telegram: After careful consideration I remain of opinion that we have nothing to lose by waiting.
[1049-367]
나.
581