No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Lord Lansdowne and the ‘Anti-German Clique’ at the Foreign Office: Their Role in the Making of the Anglo-Siamese Agreement of 1902
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
Extract
To students of British diplomatic history during the period before the First World War the recognition of the existence of strong anti-German feelings among the more influential officials at the Foreign Office is as significant as the politics of the Wilhelmstrasse with regard to German foreign policy is for German diplomatic historians. In the last few years, a considerable amount of work has appeared on the manner in which foreign policy was formulated in England from about the middle of Lord Salisbury's third ministry to the Foreign Secretaryship of Sir Edward Grey. Although the initial conclusions about the influence of the so-called anti-German clique may be still open to debate, there has been comparatively wide acceptance of the view that relations between the new Foreign Secretary after 1900, Lord Lansdowne, and the more important members of the clique were generally poor. While it is not the aim here to discuss this particular matter any further, some new light will be thrown on the unusual agreement in principle that existed between Lansdowne and some of the members of the anti-German clique over the question of British policy towards Siam and the Malay Peninsula in 1901 – 02. The chief personalities who were involved in this matter were Sir Francis Bertie, senior Assistant Under-Secretary and former head of the American and Asiatic Department at the Foreign Office, and Louis Mallet, who was at that time précis writer to the Foreign Secretary. In examining the common ground that existed between Lansdowne and his official advisers, it is hoped to correct a somewhat mistaken impression that has recently been created of the Foreign Office's attitude towards British strategic interests in the Siamese Malay States.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1972
References
1 Steiner, Z.S., The Foreign Office and Foreign Policy, 1898–1914, Cambridge, 1969, pp. 61–66Google Scholar; “The Last Years of the Old Foreign Office, 1898–1905”, The Historical Journal, (Cambridge), VI, 1 (1963), pp. 59–90Google Scholar; and Monger, G.W., The End of Isolation, British Foreign Policy, 1900–1907, London, 1963, pp. 99–103.Google Scholar
2 Klein, Ira, “British Expansion in Malaya, 1897–1902”, Journal of Southeast Asian History, (Singapore), IX, 1 (March 1968), p. 56.Google Scholar
3 On British policy up to the conclusion of the Anglo-French Declaration, see Jeshurun, Chandran, “The Anglo-French Declaration of January 1896 and the Independence of Siam”, Journal of the Siam Society, (Bangkok), LVIII, 2 (July 1970), pp. 105–126.Google Scholar
4 Klein, Ira, “Britain, Siam and the Malay Peninsula, 1906–1909”, The Historical Journal, XII, 1 (1969), p. 124.Google Scholar
5 For a detailed discussion of the Foreign Office under Salisbury and Lansdowne see Steiner, The Foreign Office, passim.
6 Cf. especially, Klein, “Britain, Siam and the Malay Peninsula”, p. 120, where Mr. Klein speaks of “British expansion in Malaya in 1902” and “British aggrandizement” in discussing “the aggressive tactics of High Imperialism”.
7 The most recent studies of the background to the 1897 Secret Convention are Thio, Eunice, “Britain's Search for Security in North Malaya, 1886–1897”, Journal of Southeast Asian History, X, 2 (September 1969), pp. 279–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Jeshurun, Chandran, “The British Foreign Office and the Siamese Malay States, 1890–97”, Modem Asian Studies, (London), 5, 2(1971), pp. 143–159.Google Scholar
8 There has been, so far, no detailed published study on the origins and working of the Secret Convention and Dr. Thio is the only one who has come closest to explaining Britain's motives in negotiating with Siam in 1897. See Thio, “Britain's Search for Security”, pp. 297–298.
9 Ibid., p. 294; also Chandran, “The British Foreign Office”, pp. 153–154.
10 On this see Jeshurun, Chandran, The Burma-Yunnan Railway: Anglo-French Rivalry in Mainland Southeast Asia and South China, 1895–1902, Papers in International Studies, Southeast Asia Series No. 21, Athens, Ohio, 1971.Google Scholar
11 For a detailed discussion of this, see Thio, “Britain's Search for Security”.
12 Chandran, The Burma-Yunnan Railway, Chapter III.
13 Thio, “Britain's Search for Security”, footnote 75, p. 296.
14 Memorandum by Hamilton, Secret, 19 November 1895, Cabinet Papers, Series 1, Miscellaneous Records, Vol. 2, Public Record Office, London. The paper was printed at the India Office and the only other copy I have come across is in the Curzon Papers, MSS. Eur. F. 111/90, India Office Library, London.
15 Ibid.
16 Thio, “Britain's Search for Security”, pp. 297–303.
17 See, for example, Ibid., p. 299.
18 There is very little published work on this aspect of Anglo-Siamese relations.
19 Memorandum respecting Siam by Louis Mallet, 9 January 1902, Confidential, Printed for the of the Foreign Office, enclosed in Foreign Office to India Office, 22 January 1902, P[olitical and] S[ecret,] H[ome] C[orrespondence, Vol.] 201, [India Office Libray, London.] This is the only copy of the document that I have come across so far.
20 Mallet, however, emphasised that in some cases, such as in Kedah, the Siamese acted in strict compliance with the Convention and there was generally a more liberal attitude towards the difficulties faced by the Siamese at the Foreign Office than at the Colonial Office. Ibid.
21 See Bunnag, Tej, “The Provincial Administration of Siam from 1892 to 1915: A Study of the Creation, the Growth, the Achievements, and the Implications for Modern Siam, of the Ministry of the Interior under Prince Damrong Rachanuphap”, Unpublished D. Phil, dissertation, Oxford University, 1968, pp. 245–264Google Scholar. I am indebted to Dr. Tej for permission to refer to his study and to use his conclusions on the nature of the changes in the administrative structure of the Malay provinces and states carried out by the Ministry of the Interior.
22 Memorandum respecting Siam by Mallet, 9 January 1902, PSHC/201.
23 Salisbury to George Greville (British Minister at Bangkok), Tel., No. 11, 23 April 1899, F[oreign] O[ffice Series] 69, [Siam, Original Correspondence, Vol.] 198, [Public Record Office, London.]
24 Sir Arthur Godley (Permanent Under-Secretary at the India Office) to Sir Walter Lawrence (Private Secretary to the Viceroy), 15 February 1900, Curzon Papers, MSS. Eur. F. 111/86.
25 See Rivett-Carnac to Curzon, Confidential, 3 March 1900; 30 October 1900, Curzon Papers MSS. Eur. F. 111/178; Reginald Tower (British Minister at Bangkok) to Lansdowne, No. 20, Secret, 8 February 1902, (Received 17 March), F.O. 69/227; see also Rivett-Carnac to Lawrence, 21 February 1902, Curzon Papers, MSS. Eur. F. 111/86.
26 Minute by Mallet on Tower to Lansdowne, No. 31, Confidential, 20 February 1902, (Received 31 March), F.O. 69/227.
27 Minute by Bertie, 5 April 1902, on Tower to Lansdowne, No. 32, Confidential, 20 February 1902, (Received 31 March), F.O. 69/227.
28 Minute by Lansdowne, undated, on Memorandum by Rivett-Carnac, 13 February 1902, F.O. 69/236.
29 Lansdowne to Curzon, 10 April 1902, L[ansdowne] P[apers], F.O. 800/145, Public Record Office, London.
30 Minute by F.A. Campbell (a Senior Clerk in the Far Eastern Department who was promoted to Assistant Under-Secretary in July 1902), 18 March 1902, on Tower to Lansdowne, No. 20, Secret, 8 February 1902, F.O. 69/227.
31 Minute by Bertie on Ibid.
32 Minute by Lansdowne on Ibid.; Lansdowne to Tower, Tel., No. 19, 19 March 1902, F.O. 69/232.
33 Tower to Eric Barrington (Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary), 13 February 1902, (Received 17 March), LP, F.O. 800/142.
34 Tower to Lansdowne, 10 March 1902, LP, F.O. 800/142.
35 Minute by Barrington on Tower to Barrington, 13 February 1902, LP, F.O. 800/142.
36 Tej Bunnag, “The Provincial Administration of Siam”, pp. 263–269.
37 [Tengku] Abdul Kadir Kamarsedin [sic] to Swettenham, 13 August 1901, enclosed in Swettenham to Chamberlain, 3 September 1901, Colonial Office: Straits Settlements, Original Correspondence, Series 273, Vol. 270, Public Record Office, London. The Siamese did not, of course, recognize the Patani governor's hereditary position and merely called him, for official purposes, Phraya Phiphit (or Wichit) Pakdi. He was, in fact, the last Sultan of Patani, Tengku Abdul Kadir Kamaruddin, who had succeeded Sultan Sulaiman Saifuddin as Rajah of Patani in 1899.
38 This is borne out by the fact that both the Foreign and Colonial Offices often referred to Patani, Kelantan and Trengganu in the same breath as if they were all on an equal footing. In Patani, however, the Siamese had suppressed a number of serious rebellions in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and reduced this historically ancient political entity into the Seven Malay Provinces, the ethnic individuality of which was ignored in the reforms of 1901.
39 Tej Bunnag, “The Provincial Administration of Siam”, pp. 271–275. Ira Klein's account of Malay opposition to Siamese rule, based as it is on patently suspect sources such as the opinions of Swettenham and Hugh Clifford, the British Resident of Pahang, as well as the unreliable information of British officials serving in the Siamese Government, can hardly be taken seriously. Klein, “British Expansion in Malaya”, pp. 58–60. Luang Rayaphabdi died on his way to Bangkok when his boat sank in a storm.
40 Lansdowne to Tower, Tel, No. 2, Confidential, 7 January 1902, F.O. 69/232. As the Anglo-Siamese negotiations can be dated from early 1902, it is impossible to argue that, in attempting to strengthen the British position in the Siamese Malay States. Lansdowne was risking “friction with France precisely when he was seeking a precious rapprochement”. The Lansdowne-Cambon conversations on Siam only began in mid-1902. Ibid., p. 67.
41 Monger, The End of Isolation, Chapters 1, 2 and 3, passim; Steiner, The Foreign Office, pp. 55–65.
42 Minute by Bertie, 9 November 1901, LP, F.O. 800/115. Also reproduced in B[ritish] D[ocuments on the Origins of the War, 1898–1914, Edited by G.P. Gooch and Harold Temperley, London, 1927, Vol.] II, pp. 73–76.
43 Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 28 December 1901, F.O. 69/237.
44 Lansdowne to Chamberlain, 31 December 1901, JC 11/21/14, [Joseph Chamberlain Papers, University of Birmingham Library, Birmingham.]
45 The story is fully related in Tower to Lansdowne, 10 March 1902, LP, F.O. 800/142.
46 Lansdowne to Tower, 15 April 1902, (Copy), LP, F.O. 800/142.
47 Tower to Lansdowne, Tel, No. 33, 25 May 1902, F.O. 69/232.
48 Minute by Bertie, 26 May 1902, F.O. 69/237.
49 On this see Andrew, C.M. and Kanya-Forstner, A.S., “The French ‘Colonial Party’: Its Composition, Aims and Influence, 1885–1914”, The Historical Journal, XIV, 1(1971), pp. 118–119Google Scholar. Oddly enough, the Comité de l'Asie Française appears to have preached the idea of Anglo-French cooperation in Siam not because of a fear of Germany but rather of Japan embarking upon a more dynamic policy in Siam.
50 Minute by Bertie on Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 20 May 1902, F.O. 69/237.
51 Minute by Lansdowne on Ibid..
52 Minute by Campbell on Colonial Office to Foreign Office, 5 June 1902, F.O. 69/237.
53 Minute by Lansdowne on Ibid..
54 Minute by Lansdowne on Swettenham to Lucas, Private, 4 June 1902, (Copy), communicated to the Foreign Office by Lucas, F.O. 69/237. There was certainly no decided opinion in the Foreign Office as to the real nature of the Siamese position in the Malay Peninsula and while the colonial claims that the Malays there were only waiting to come under British protection were treated cautiously, there was, nevertheless, a fear that, should the Malays succeed in driving out the Siamese, Britain might lose out to some foreign Power through sheer default.
55 Ibid..
56 Minute by Bertie, 3 August 1902, F.O. 69/237.
57 It has been established that Cambon made these advances to Lansdowne in the summer of 1902, although the French Foreign Minister, Théophile Delcassé, does not appear to have authorised them. See Andrew, Ć., Théophile Delcassé and the Making of the Éntente Cordiale, London, 1968, pp. 181–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Guillen, Pierre, “Les accords coloniaux franco-anglais de 1904 et la naissance de l'Entente Cordiale”, Revue D'Histoire Diplomatique, (Paris), LXXXII, (October-December 1968), p. 316.Google Scholar Bertie's minute of 3 August, however, states categorically that Cambon had “given indications of an intention on the part of France to make suggestions to H.M.G.” for an understanding in Siam.
58 Minute by Bertie, 3 August 1902, F.O. 69/237. My italics.
59 Archer to Lansdowne, Tel., No. 54, 20 August 1902, F.O. 69/232. Even if the Siamese were ignorant of Cambon's overtures to Lansdowne, they are unlikely to have missed the overt references to the need for an Anglo-French agreement in Siam which began to appear in the Bulletin du Comité de l'Ásie Française during July and August 1902. See Andrew and Kanya-Forstner, “The French ‘Colonial Party’”, p. 118.
60 Minute by Bertie, 20 August 1902, on Ibid.
61 Lansdowne to Chamberlain, 23 August 1902, JC 11/21/20.
62 Lansdowne to Sir Edmund Monson (British Ambassador in Paris), No. 316A, Very Confidential, 6 August 1902, BD, II, pp. 264–266.
63 Swettenham to Chamberlain, 15 July 1902, and marginal comments by Lansdowne (August 1902?), JC 14/2/9/2.
64 Lansdowne to Chamberlain, 23 August 1902, JC 11/21/20.
65 See draft telegram to Archer, August 1902, F.O. 69/237.
66 This is the case in a recent study which, in seeking to correct the basically sound premise of earlier authors such as Virginia Thompson and Sir Richard Winstedt as to the significance of the 1904 Entente Cordiale agreements for the subsequent acquisition of Siamese territory by France in 1907 and Britain in 1909, misinterprets the Anglo- Siamese Agreement of 1902. See Klein, “Britain, Siam and the Malay Peninsula”, pp. 119–120.
67 Lansdowne to Chamberlain, 23 August 1902, JC 11/21/20.
68 Chamberlain to Balfour, 24 August 1902, (Copy), JC 11/5/6.
69 Balfour to Chamberlain, 26 August 1902, F.O. 69/237. There is no real contradiction in these statements and Lansdowne's earlier assertion that Britain could not be entirely disinterested in the growth of French influence in the Mekong Valley as the prospect of a friendly understanding with France brought with it the assurance that the position in their respective spheres would be clearly defined, thus, removing the unfortunate ambuigity of the 1896 Declaration.
70 Minute by Mallet. 4 September 1902, F.O. 69/238.
71 Minute by Bertie, 4 September 1902, on Ibid.
72 Minute by Lansdowne on Ibid.
73 See, for example, Minute by Lansdowne, 12 September 1902, LP, F.O. 800/115. Some of the important communications between the Foreign Office and Lansdowne, which are not in the private papers, are kept with F.O. 83, Vol. 1907, “1898–1902, Telegrams to and from the Secretary of State when absent”, at the Public Record Office, London.
74 Minute by Bertie, 12 September 1902, F.O. 69/238.
75 Chamberlain to Swettenham, 15 September 1902, (Copy), JC 14/2/9/3.
76 Lansdowne to Sanderson, 16 September 1902, LP, F.O. 800/115.
77 See the original texts in F.O. 93, “Protocols of Treaties”, Vol. 95/16, Public Record Office, London.
78 Duke, Pensri (Suvanij), Les Relations entre la France et la Thailande (Siam) aux XIX siècle d'apres les archives des affaires étrangéres, Bangkok, 1962, pp. 239–243.Google Scholar
79 See Andrew and Kanya-Forstner, “The French ‘Colonial Party’”, p. 118; Andrew, Théophile Delcassé, pp. 257–258. The Convention was eventually not ratified by the French Chamber and Delcassé had to agree to negotiate a new treaty in February 1903.
80 Draft memorandum by Lansdowne, 21 October 1902, F.O. 69/239.
81 Lansdowne to Chamberlain, 23 October 1902, JC 11/21/22.
82 See Numnonda, Thamsook, “Negotiations regarding the cession of the Siamese Malay States, 1907–1909”, Journal of the Siam Society, LV, 2(July 1967), pp. 227–233.Google Scholar
83 See Curzon to Lord George Hamilton, Tel., Private, 27 September 1903, Lord George Hamilton Papers, MSS. Eur. F.123/67; India Office Library, London; Minute by Lansdowne, 30 September 1903, F.O. 69/251; Reginald Paget (British Minister at Bangkok) to Lansdowne, No. 104, Confidential, 25 October 1903, (Received 7 December), and minutes thereon by Lansdowne, F.O. 69/246.
84 Steiner, The Foreign Office, p. 65; Bertie once referred to Lansdowne as “the little man”. Monger, The End of Isolation, p. 102.
85 Cf. Klein, “British Expansion in Malaya”, pp. 53–68; “Britain, Siam and the Malay Peninsula”, p. 120.