Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-27T20:11:26.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Struggle for the Mekong Banks 1892–1896

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Claire Hirshfield
Get access

Extract

The relationship of England and France in the last two decades of the nineteenth century was an unhappy one, marked by acrimony, discord and mutual suspicion. Though the French and English states represented the chief bastions of western European parlia-mentarianism, ideological similarities are rarely sufficient to counteract a long tradition of ill-will. Bitterness had begun to poison the atmosphere of Anglo-French relations at the time of the British occupation of Egypt in 1882, and in the years that followed anglo-phobia appeared to have achieved endemic proportions in France. Great Britain's inclination toward the Triple Alliance was so marked in French eyes that she was generally regarded as the “fourth partner in the concern.” This viewpoint contributed greatly to the inflamed state of Anglo-French relations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1968 , pp. 25 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 05 3, 1893Google Scholar, private letter, Public Record Office, Belfast, Dufferin papers (hereafter cited as DP), D.1071H/01/3.

2. Same to same, Paris, Nov. 3, 1893, Public Record Office, London, Foreign Office, France (27), 3121 (hereafter cited as PRO, FO 27/), no. 450c.

3. This present study seeks to illuminate the larger issue of Anglo-French discord in the late nineteenth century by focusing upon the conflict in Southeast Asia. Aside from memoirs and autobiographical works, my principal source has been the British Foreign Office papers in the Public Record Office, London. Additional light has been shed by the private papers and correspondence of the Marquis of Dufferin and Ava, ambassador to Paris during the Siamese crisis. His private papers which have been heretofore un-examined have recently become available in Belfast; they are a source of highly valuable information concerning the evolution and the final resolution of the crisis.

4. Magrai, Sao Saimong, The Shan states and the British annexation, Data paper no. 57 (Ithaca, 1966), p. 243.Google Scholar

5. Thompson, Virginia, French Indo-China (New York 1942), pp. 365–67.Google Scholar

6. Mitton, G. E. (ed.), Scott of the Shan hills (London 1936), pp. 209–13.Google Scholar

7. Salisbury, to Egerton, , London, Feb. 16, 1892Google Scholar, PRO, FO, Siam (422), 34/no. 34.

8. Foreign Office to India Office, 02 19, 1892Google Scholar, ibid., no. 37.

9. India Office to Foreign Office, 03 4, 1892Google Scholar, ibid., no. 39.

10. Ibid.

11. Salisbury, to Dufferin, , London, 05 10, 1892Google Scholar, ibid., no. 43.

12. India Office to Foreign Office, 05 27, 1892Google Scholar, ibid., no. 45 At this time the India Office was involved in settling the Burma frontier with both Siam and China. Adhesion to Waddington's proposals ran the risk of interposing difficulties in these negotiations with Siam and China (ibid.).

13. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 10 26, 1892Google Scholar, ibid., no. 53; Foreign Office to India Office, 11 7, 1892Google Scholar, ibid., no. 55. See also memorandum by Rosebery enclosed in Waddington to Ribot, London, Dec. 24, 1892, France, Ministère des affaires étrangères, Documents diplomatiques francais, 1871–1914, 1st series (Paris 1934), (hereafter cited as DDF), X, 121–123.Google Scholar

14. India Office to Foreign Office, 11 17, 1892, PRO, FO 422/34/no. 58.Google Scholar

15. Rosebury, to Waddington, , London, 12 23, 1892Google Scholar, ibid., no. 64; “addington to Ribot, London, Dec. 24, 1892, DDF, X, 121–123.

16. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 01 13, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 27/3118/no. 20.

17. Curzon, George, “India between two fires,” Nineteenth century, XXXIV (08 1893), 177Google Scholar; Vagts, Alfred, “William II and the Siam episode,” American historical review, XLV (07 1945), 834.Google Scholar

18. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 02 7, 1893, PRO, FO 422/35/no. 11.Google Scholar

19. Same to same, Paris, Feb. 20, 1893, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/3. See also Waddington, to Develle, , London, 03 9, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 262–63.Google Scholar

20. Rosebery, to Yotha, Haha, London, 05 5, 1893, PRO, FO 422/35/no. 68.Google Scholar

21. The role of Jones throughout the episode was somewhat dubious. It is clear that Jones was openly hostile to France's “unjust and brutal aggression on a peaceful neighbor.” Moreover, he conveyed openly to Rosebery his feeling that England had direct interests at stake and could not remain unconcerned with “the open violation of peace and international law which would be committed in this part of the world” (Jones, to Rosebery, , Bangkok, 04 28, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 36.

22. This is the conclusion of Hall, D.G.E., A history of southeast Asia (London, 1964), p. 656.Google Scholar

23. Constant, Estournelles de to Develle, , London, 05 12, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X., 344146Google Scholar; Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 05 20, 1893, PRO, FO 422/35/no. 93.Google Scholar

24. Same to same, Paris, May 25, 1893, private letter, DP, D.1071H/10/3.

25. Same to same, Paris, June 3, 1893, private letter, ibid.

26. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 06 4, 1893Google Scholar, private letter, ibid., D.D.1071H//02/2.

27. Rosebery, to Victoria, , London, 06 5, 1893Google Scholar, Letters of Queen Victoria, ed. Buckle, O.E. (London 1931), 3rd series, II, 259.Google Scholar

28. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 06 19, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/35/no. 118.

29. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 06 19, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 120.

30. Rosebery, to Yotha, Maha, London, 06 21, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 124.

31. Rosebery, to Phipps, , London, 06 29, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 146.

32. Phipps, to Rosebery, , Paris, 06 30, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 149; Rosebery, to Phipps, , London, 07 14, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 36.

33. Rosebery, to Constant, Estournelles de, London, 07 3, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 9.

34. Rosebery, to Phipps, , London, 07 14, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 36.

35. Same to same, London, July 15, 1893, ibid., no. 48.

36. Rosebery, to Jones, , London, 07 15, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 47.

37. France, Annales de la chambre des deputes, Débats, parlementaires, Sième législature, session ordinaire (Paris 1893)Google Scholar, Pt. II, July 18, 1893, 1246; Rosebery to Phipps, London, July 20, 1893, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 86; Develle to Estournelles de Constant, Paris, July 20, 1893, DDF, X, 447.Google Scholar

38. Diary, July 20, 1893, DP, D.1071H/V/27; Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 07 20, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 90; Constant, Estournelies de to Develle, , London, 07 21, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 447.Google Scholar

39. Salisbury, to Lytton, , London, 04 3, 1889Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/34/no. 11.

40. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 07 22, 1893, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 111.Google Scholar

41. Ibid.

42. Same to same, Paris, July 23, 1893, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/1.

43. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 07 23, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/35/no. 115. See also Constant, Estournelles de to Develle, , London, 07 24, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 456–57.Google Scholar

44. Yotha, Maha to Rosebery, , London, 06 21, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/35/no. 124; Rosebery, to Jones, , London, 07 15, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 47; same to same, London, July 20, 1893, ibid., no. 89.

45. Develle to all diplomatic representatives of France, July 24, 1893, DDF, X, 454–55.Google Scholar Develle believed that England was responsible for Siamese insistence on a medification of territorial demands. The French minister in Bangkok, Pavie, had indicated that but for the influence of Jones and that of the Belgian-born counselor to Prince Devawongse, minister of foreign affairs, namely Rolin-Jaequemins, the Siamese would have accepted the ultimatum in tato and without demur (Develle to Estournelles de Constant, Paris, July 24, 1893, DDF, X, 455).

46. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 07 25, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 145. See also de Constant, Estournelles to Develle, , London, 07 25, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 457–59.Google Scholar

47. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 07 25, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 145.

48. Rosebery, to Victoria, , London, 07 26, 1893Google Scholar, telegram, cypher, Letter of Queen Victoria, 3rd series, II, 285.Google Scholar

49. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 07 26, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 157; same to same, Paris, July 26, 1893, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/1.

50. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 07 27, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 163; same to same, London, July 28, 1893, private letter, DP, D.1071H/02/2.

51. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 07 27, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 174; Develle, to Constant, Estournelles de, Paris, 07 27, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 461.Google Scholar

52. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 07 28, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 194; same to same, London, July 28, 1893, private letter, DP, D.1071H/02/2.

53. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 07 28, 1893Google Scholar, private telegram, ibid., D.1071H/ 01/1; see also Dufferin to Develle, Paris, July 28, 1893, DDF, X, 465–66.Google Scholar

54. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 07 28, 1893.Google Scholar private letter, DP, D.1071H/02/2.

55. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 07 30, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 239; same to same, Paris, July 31, 1893, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/1. See also Constant, Estournelles de to Develle, , London, 07 31, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 469–70.Google Scholar

56. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 07 30, 1893Google Scholar, private telegram, DP, D.1071H/ 02/2; same to same, London, July 31, 1893, private telegram, ibid.

57. Curzon, to Miss Leiter, London, 08 3, 1893Google Scholar, as cited in Earl of Ronaldshay, Life of Lord Curzon (New York, 1927), I, 197.Google Scholar

58. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 07 31, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 240.

59. Yotha, Maha to Rosebery, , London, 08 5, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 272.

60. Enclosures, Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 09 5, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 388.

61. Munro-Ferguson, to Dufferin, , Hamburg, 08 26, 1893Google Scholar, private letter, DP, D.1071H/03/3. “British opinion is anxious concerning us and finds us menacing. It is feared we will not be halted by our success” (de Develle, Estournelles, London, 08 29, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 511–13).Google Scholar

62. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 09 7, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 390. See also de Constant, Estournelles to Develle, , London, 09 12, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 528–29.Google Scholar

63. Rosebery, to Jones, , London, 09 15, 1893, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 402.Google Scholar

64. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 10 2, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., no. 430.

65. Same to same, Paris, Oct. 3, 1893, ibid., no. 434; same to same, Paris, Oct. 4, 1893, ibid., no. 436.

66. Enclosure, same to same, Paris, Oct. 10, 1893, ibid., no. 446.

67. Scott, to Salisbury, , Bangkok, 08 1, 1895, PRO, FO 422/43/no. 18.Google Scholar

68. For a description of these negotiations see Memorandum on communications with the French government respecting Kyaing Cheng, PRO, FO 422/42/no. 156.

69. Diifferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 10 17, 1893Google Scholar, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/1.

70. Same to same, Paris, Oct. 22, 1893, private letter, ibid.

71. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 10 27, 1893Google Scholar, private letter, ibid., D.1071H/ 02/2.

72. Ibid.

73. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 10 29, 1893Google Scholar, private letter, ibid., D.1071H/01/1; same to same, Paris, Oct. 30, 1893, orivate telegram, ibid. See also Develle, to de Constant, Estournelles, Paris, 10 31, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 606–07.Google Scholar

74. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , 10 31, 1893Google Scholar, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/1. For another account of this interview see Develle, to de Constant, Estournelles, Paris, 10 31, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 608.Google Scholar

75. O'Conor, to Rosebery, , Pekin, 10 30, 1893Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 492; Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 11 2, 1893Google Scholar, private telegram, DP, D.1071H/02/2; same to same, London, Nov. 4, 1893, private telegram, ibid. See also Dufferin, to Develle, , Paris, 11 2, 1893Google Scholar, DDF, X, 610–11.Google Scholar

76. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 11 11, 1893Google Scholar, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/1.

77. Rosebery, to Dufferin, , London, 11 14, 1893, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 558.Google Scholar

78. Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 11 19, 1893Google Scholar, private letter, DP. D.1071H/01/1; same to same, Paris, Nov. 21, 1893, PRO, FO 422/36/no. 570.

79. Enclosure, same to same, Paris, Nov. 20, 1893, ibid., no. 569.

80. Same to same, Paris, Nov. 20, 1893, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/1; same to same, Paris, Nov. 21, 1893, private letter ibid.

81. Rosebery to Dufferin, London, Nov. 28, 1893, private letter, ibid., D.1071H/ 02/2; Dufferin, to Rosebery, , Paris, 12 2, 1893Google Scholar, private letter, ibid., D.1071H/ 01/1. For an interesting sidelight on the French reluctance to sign, see Develle to Estournelles de Constant, Paris, Nov. 28, 1893, DDF, X, 657–58Google Scholar; de Constant, Estour-nelles to Develle, , London, 11 29, 1893Google Scholar, ibid., 659.

82. Memorandum on communications with the French government respecting Kyaing Cheng, PRO, FO 422/42/no. 156.

83. Dufferin, to Kimberley, , Paris, 01 31, 1895Google Scholar, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/1. For Hanotaux's views see Hanotaux, to Courcel, , Paris, 02 12, 1895Google Scholar, DDF, XI, 569–70Google Scholar; same to same, Paris, Feb. 18, 1895, ibid., 570–71.

84. Kimberley, to Dufferin, , London, 02 22, 1895Google Scholar, PRO FO 422/40/n. 47.

85. Dufferin, to Kimberley, , Paris, 05 23, 1895Google Scholar, ibid., no. 129; same to same, Paris, June 7, 1895, private letter, DP, D.1071H/10/1. For the French view see Courcel, to Hanotaux, , London, 04 2, 1895Google Scholar, DDF, XI, 649–50Google Scholar; same to same, London, April 3, 1895, ibid., 656; Hanotaux, to Courcel, , Paris, 05 20, 1895Google Scholar, ibid., XII, 25; Courcel, to Hanotaux, , London, 05 21, 1895Google Scholar, ibid., 29.

86. Duffering, to Salisbury, , Paris, 07 9, 1895Google Scholar, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/1.

87. Scott, to Salisbury, , Bangkok, 08 1, 1895Google Scholar, PRO, FO 422/43/no. 18.

88. Salisbury, to Howard, , London, 08 13, 1895Google Scholar, ibid., no. 28; Courcel, to Hano-taux, , London, 08 14, 1895Google Scholar, DDF, XII, 167–69.Google Scholar

89. Same to same, London, Aug. 29, 1895, ibid., 196–7; Hanotaux, to Courcel, , Paris, 08 30, 1895Google Scholar, ibid., 198–99.

90. Hanotaux, to Courcel, , Paris, 09 28, 1895Google Scholar, ibid., 217–19; some to same, Paris, Oct. 15, 1895, ibid., 242–43; Salisbury, to Dufferin, , London, 10 18, 1895, PRO, FO 422/44/no. 85.Google Scholar

91. Courcel, to Hanotaux, , London, 10 23, 1895Google Scholar, DDF, XII, 258–59Google Scholar; Salisbury, to Dufferin, , London, 10 23, 1895, PRO, FO 422/44/no. 95.Google Scholar

92. Ibid.

93. Salisbury, to Howard, . London, 11 6, 1895Google Scholar, ibid., no. 114; same to same, London, Nov 12 1895, ibid., no. 116. See also Sanderson, to Dufferin, , London, 12 20, 1895Google Scholar, private letter, DP, D.1071H/02/1. The draft of the agreement was included in this letter along with a covering dispatch from Salisbury. The draft agreement was also included in Courcel, to Hanotaux, , London, 12 20, 1895Google Scholar, DDF, XII, 359–61.Google Scholar

94. Dufferin, to Salisbury, , Paris, 12 24, 1895Google Scholar, private letter, DP, D.1071H/01/1.

95. Dufferin, to Sanderson, , Paris, 01 16, 1896Google Scholar, private letter, ibid., D.1071H/03/6. The valley of the Menam in terms of which Salisbury had defined Siam contained four fifths of the Siamese population and was the economic heart of the country (Hall, , p. 662). It thus represented a formidable buffer.Google Scholar

96. Dufferin, to Munro-Ferguson, , Paris, 03 6, 1896Google Scholar, private letter, DP, D.1071H/03/6. Others denounced the settlement also, notably Lord Rose-bery; despite British recognition of Siamese suzerainty over the “reserved zone,” it seemed inevitable to many that the French would soon move to add this “zone” comprising the western watershed of the Mekong within Siam to their possessions (Mangrai, Sao Saimong, p. 259).Google Scholar

97. Dufferin, to Munro-Ferguson, , Paris, 03 6, 1896Google Scholar, private letter, DP, D. 1071H/03/6.

98. Scott, to Salisbury, , Bangkok, 08 1, 1895, PRO, FO 422/43/no. 18.Google Scholar

99. Speech of Lord Dufferin, Paris, March 5, 1894, as quoted by SirLyall, Alfred, The Life of the Marquis of Dufferin and Ava (London 1905), II. 276Google Scholar. See also his speech of June 2, 1896, ibid., 291.