[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government 15
[B]
CHINA RAILWAYS.
CONFIDENTIAL.
CO 23223
RECTJuly 6.] Rs.28 10. 10. SECTION 1.
[24331]
No. 1.
Sir,
China Association to Foreign Office.-(Received July 6.)
159, Cannon Street, London, July 5, 1910, THE question of railway extension in Manchuria has for some time been engaging the attention of the committee of the China Association.
The growth of the export trade in this region, even with the present imperfect means of transport, has been so rapid of recent years that it is now of first-class importance to many British firms, and even to various manufacturing industries in this country.
When it was learned that the Chinese Government had entered into a new contract to build a line of railway from Chiuchow to Aigun, via Tsitsilar, the news was welcomed by the association as likely to still further promote a growing trade, and to largely benefit British interests alike in imports and exports. It was also felt that the development of that territory would be of great importance to China, as her prosperity depends to a great extent upon the development of her exports.
The committee of the China Association has, no definite information as to the precise nature of the contract for this railway, though it is generally understood that it was to be financed by an American syndicate, that China proposes to build the line herself, and that the construction was to be entrusted to a British firm of contractors, who will purchase a considerable proportion of the materials in this country.
But, apart from the particular interests involved, what the China Association desire is that the obstacles which have supervened, and which have apparently blocked the project for the time being, should be removed, and that China should be left free to develop her railways in her own way.
The objections to this particular railway have come from Russia and Japan, both of whom claim separate but similar rights to intervention or participation, but the extent and nature of such claims, so far as the association is aware, are still vague and undefined.
and other newspapers
The association has also noted a statement in the "Times
to the effect that His Majesty's Minister at Peking "had called the attention of the Chinese Government to the necessity of consulting the Russian and Japanese Govern- ments before concluding arrangements for the construction of the Chinchow-Aigun Railway."
The committee assume, of course, that His Majesty's Government had good and sufficient reason for tendering this advice to China, if, in fact, it was so tendered, but the result unfortunately has been to make an impression among a large number of members of the association that legitimate British interests are being sacrificed to the susceptibilities of these two Powers, and that the settled policy of "the open door" has not been maintained.
The committee fully admit that Russia and Japan may reasonably claim to have some right to be consulted as to railway development in Manchuria, but, on the other hand, it is contended that neither of them can, by merely putting forward vagne elaims, bar the path of progress indefinitely.
The committee therefore respectfully urge that the time has come for His Majesty's Government to obtain from the Russian and Japanese Governments definite information as to what is the nature of their objection to the construction of this railway, or what rights of participation they claim. The objection cannot be based on strategic grounds, because, by article 7 of the Treaty of Portsmouth, both Powers bound themselves to exploit their respective railways in Manchuria for commercial and industrial purposes, and not for strategic purposes.
If Russia alleges the Scott-Mouravieff Convention of 1898, it will not be overlooked that that convention was an agreement between England and Russia, by which China is in no way bound; that we are not seeking for a railway concession within what was then the Russian sphere, but merely claiming that China should be allowed to develop
[2813 -1]