107
2
States Government were animated by no unfriendly feelings at all towards Russia, and indeed they had mentioned in the memorandum that they would be ready to accept the participation of Russia and of others in the Aigun Railway. M. Isvolsky tossed the question of participation on one side. I said that, from an interview which M. Kokovtsoff had recently with an American correspondent, he had appeared to be willing to settle the Harbin question by a compromise, and even to part with the East Chinese Railway. M. Isvolsky said that the correspondent had entirely misunderstood the remarks of M. Kokovtsoff, and had greatly uxaggerated them. There was no question of parting with the Eastern Chinese Railway, and as to Harbin, the question was still as it had been.
I saw little object to be gained by prolonging the conversation, and I therefore turned to other matters.
I have, &c.
A. NICOLSON.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government
rB]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[155]
(No. 679.) Sir,
No. 1.
2765
RECO
Rent 28 JAN 10
[January 3.]
SECTION 7.
Sir A. Nicolson to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received January 3, 1910.)
St. Petersburgh, December 27, 1909. M. ISVOLSKY mentioned to me yesterday that he had been "très ému" when he ascertained that the American memorandum relative to the internationalisation of the Manchurian railways differed in a material particular from the memoranda which had been delivered at Paris and at Tokyo. In both the latter documents mention had been made of an alternative scheme, namely, that connected with the Chen-Chow- Aigun Railway, but in the memorandum which had been communicated to him by the United States Embassy no allusion was made to this line. He had asked Mr. Rockhill to explain the divergence, and the latter had replied that he took all responsibility for the omission on himself, and that he wished to confine the attention of the Russian Government to the main and larger question.
M. Isvolsky, in his conversation with me, again dwelt on the important effect which the Aigun Railway would have on Russian interests, and he again asked me whether a final contract had been signed with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government. I told him that I could not give him any information on this point, as I had none to give. He remarked that he was not sure whether British support of and participation in a line from Chen-Chow to Aigun was not a departure from the engagements between Russia and England as laid down in the notes which were interchanged between Sir C. Scott and Count Muravielf in June 1899. He was looking into this question. I endeavoured to ascertain from him what were his views on the larger scheme proposed by the United States Government; but he confined himself to stating that he much doubted if Japan would fall in with the scheme. I observed that if the larger scheme were realised, Russia would probably feel more at ease in regard to Japanese aspirations and competition. His Excellency avoided a direct reply,
I have, &c.
A. NICOLSON.
[2605 c-7
-7]