[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL,
[11321]
C.0. 12195
38
[[March 22.]
SECTION 1.
IRECR
Rice ? APR OF
No. 1.
Question asked in the House of Commons, March 22, 1909.
Sir William Bull-To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, referring to the recent announcements in connection with British and American representations to Russia with regard to the enforcement by Russia of the scheme of territorial jurisdiction and the imposition of taxes on Chinese and foreign residents in the zone of the Russian section of the South Manchurian Railway, has the Government considered that this interpretation of the Portsmouth Treaty of Peace will still further encourage Japan in her reported assumption of territorial jurisdiction in Manchuria, and to persist in her refusal to permit China to extend her railway system for the benefit of the large agricultural regions, of which Fakumen is the centre, west of the Liao River; and, as the first object of our alliance with Japan was the maintenance of China's unimpaired sovereignty, will the Government represent equally forcibly to Japan that Great Britain is under the necessity of reaffirming her previous attitude, and must insist on the necessity of observing Treaty obligations?
Answered by Mr. McKinnon Wood (for Sir Edward Grey).
There appears to be no parallel between the action of the Russian Government at Harbin, to which the honourable Member no doubt refers, and the objection of the Japanese Government to the construction of the Fakumen Railway. This latter subject was fully gone into in the House on the 17th instant, in reply to a question put by the honourable Member for the Epsom Division, and we have nothing to add to what was said on that occasion. His Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that Japan is assuming, or endeavouring to assume, territorial jurisdiction in Manchuria.
[2194 y-1]