[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
28381
CHINA RAILWAYS.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[Jun 30 1908]
SECTION 1.
(No. 309.) Sir,
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Sir F. Bertie.
Foreign Office, June 30, 1908.
M. CAMBON gave me to-day a Memorandum from M. Pichon on the subject of the claim made by France for the extension of the Shansi Railway in China.
In giving me the Memorandum, he said that he had received a letter from M. Pichon, on which he wished to make some comment to me as between himself and me.
What had happened was this: The French had been doing their best to cope with the Chinese revolutionaries on the Tonking frontier; in doing this they were helping the Chinese. While in pursuit of some of the revolutionaries, Chinese troops had killed one officer and some French soldiers. That was the reward of the French for trying to help the Chinese.
The Viceroy of Yunnan had in every way shown a very hostile disposition to the French.
The French had now made a claim for repatriation. Nothing about the Shansi Railway was made one of the conditions, but the French Minister had been charged to observe that for two years no negotiations between the French and Chinese had made any progress or come to anything. Meanwhile, the Chinese had settled various matters with us and other nations. The French Minister had, therefore, been instructed to say that the Chinese Government ought now to settle at least one question with the French, and this prolongation of the Shansi Railway had been chosen as it was an old matter long due to the French.
At this point, without saying anything to his French colleague, and presumably on Chinese information, Sir John Jordan had adopted the Chinese view of the case, and we had immediately made a representation at Paris. Mr. Morrison, the "Times" correspondent in Peking, had also taken the Chinese view in a way very hostile to France.
I told M. Cambon that we had no control over Mr. Morrison, who was a man of very independent character, and who was quite sincere, but often took the Chinese view of things. As for Sir John Jordan, he was certainly acting in good faith. He was anxious to encourage Anglo-French co-operation in other railway matters, and genuinely feared that the French demand as regards the Shansi Railway would prejudice this co-operation.
M. Cambon said he did not for a moment doubt the good faith of Sir John Jordan, but he was afraid that Englishmen in the Far East, having long been accustomed to rivalry with the French, did not understand the present changed situation. For instance, in the case of the Hankow-Canton Railway, Mr. Bland had stated to the French that the Chinese would not sign an Agreement with an Anglo-French group, but only with an English one. Therefore, Mr. Bland had said, the English must proceed alone and share something with the French afterwards. The French Minister had made inquiries of the Wai-wu Pu as to why they objected to sign with the French. They had informed him that they would have had no objection whatever to do so had Mr. Bland and the English group expressed the least desire that the French should participate.
With regard to the Hankow-Peking Railway, a Franco-Belgian undertaking which the Chinese were anxious to buy back, Mr. Hillier, of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, had arranged with the Chinese for a loan for that purpose without saying a word to the French, who were those primarily interested in the railway.
I told M. Cambon that I was very slightly acquainted with the Hankow-Peking business, but, as regards the Hankow-Canton line, what he had told me about the Chinese attitude was directly the opposite to what I had previously heard.
[1814]
(ner
386
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
0.
28381
CHINA RAILWAYS.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[Jun2014 AUG 08
SECTION 1.
(23033]
(No. 309.) Sir,
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Sir F. Bertie.
Foreign Office, Jure 30, 1908. M. CAMBON gave me to-day a Memorandum from M. Pichon on the subject of the claim made by France for the extension of the Shanshi Railway in China.
In giving me the Memorandum, he said that he had received a letter from M. Pichon, on which he wished to make some comment to me as between himself and me.
What had happened was this: The French had been doing their best to cope with the Chinese revolutionaries on the Tonking frontier; in doing this they were helping the Chinese. While in pursuit of some of the revolutionaries, Chinese troops had killed one officer and some French soldiers. That was the reward of the French for trying to help the Chinese.
The Viceroy of Yunnan had in every way shown a very hostile disposition to the French.
The French had now made a claim for repatriation. Nothing about the Shanshi Railway was made one of the conditions, but the French Minister had been charged to observe that for two years no negotiations between the French and Chinese had made any progress or come to anything. Meanwhile, the Chinese had settled various matters with us and other nations. The French Minister had, therefore, been instructed to say that the Chinese Government ought now to settle at least one question with the French, and this prolongation of the Shanshi Railway had been chosen as it was an old matter long due to the French.
At this point, without saying anything to his French colleague, and presumably on Chinese information, Sir John Jordan had adopted the Chinese view of the case, and we had inmediately made a representation at Paris. Mr. Morrison, the "Times correspondent in Peking, had also taken the Chinese view in a way very hostile to France.
I told M. Cambon that we had no control over Mr. Morrison, who was a man of very independent character, and who was quite sincere, but often took the Chinese view of things. As for Sir John Jordan, he was certainly acting in good faith. He was anxious to encourage Auglo-French co-operation in other railway matters, and genuinely feared that the French demand as regards the Shanshi Railway would prejudice this co-operation.
M. Cambon said he did not for a moment doubt the good faith of Sir John Jordan, but he was afraid that Englishmen in the Far East, having long been accustomed to rivalry with the Freuch, did not understand the present changed situation. For instance, in the case of the Hankow-Canton Railway, Mr. Bland had stated to the French that the Chinese would not sign an Agreement with an Anglo-French group, but only with an English one. Therefore, Mr. Bland had said, the English must proceed alone and share something with the French afterwards. The French Minister had made inquiries of the Wai-wu Pu as to why they objected to sign with the French. They had informed him that they would have had no objection whatever to do so had Mr. Bland and the English group expressed the least desire that the French should participate.
With regard to the Hankow-Peking Railway, a Franco-Belgian undertaking which the Chinese were anxious to buy back, Mr. Hillier, of the Hong Kong and Shanghae Bank, had arranged with the Chinese for a loan for that purpose without saying a word to the French, who were those primarily interested in the railway.
I told M. Cambon that I was very slightly acquainted with the Hankow-Peking business, but, as regards the Hankow-Canton line, what he had told me about the Chinese attitude was directly the opposite to what I had previously heard.
[1814 gg-1]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.