Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:24:14.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Foreign Office and the First Chinese Indemnity Loan, 1895

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. McLean
D. McLean
Affiliation:
Pembroke College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the 1890s the concept of laissez-faire still dominated the attitude of the Foreign Office to the question of overseas loans and investment. Unlike its European counterparts, the British Government had no tradition of interference in the world of high finance, nor were there any formal channels of communication between die City and the Foreign Office whereby a community of interests might be established or policies correlated. In the mid-nineteenth century there had been little need for closer contact. The power of British finance had ensured ample opportunities for British investment in fields where foreign competition was virtually non-existent. Such communication as had been considered necessary could be effected through hints in speeches, social contacts, or personal relationships - strictly informal procedures which, apart from Disraeli&s bid for the Suez canal shares, had produced minor and unspectacular results.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 1973 , pp. 303 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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 For a full discussion of this topic, see Piatt, D. C. M., Finance, Trade, and Politics in British Foreign Policy, 1815–1914 (Oxford, 1968).Google Scholar

2 See Langer, W. L., The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1890–1902 (1935), 1, 186–7.Google Scholar

3 Wright, S., Hart and the Chinese Customs (Belfast, 1950), p. 657.Google Scholar

4 Cameron to Sanderson, 7 May 1895, F.O. 17/1252.

5 Memorandum by Sanderson of 7 May 1895, F.O. 17/1252.

6 Ibid.

7 Romanov, B. A., Russia in Manchuria, 1892–1906 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1952), p. 65.Google Scholar

8 Memorandum by Sanderson of 7 May 1895, F.O. 17/1252.

9 Gosselin to Kimberley, 14 June 1895, F.O. 64/1350

10 Romanov, op. cit. p. 65.

11 Gosselin to Kimberley, 14 June 1895, F.O. 64/1350.

12 Cameron to Sanderson, 9 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

13 Memorandum by Sanderson of 10 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253

14 Romanov, op. cit. p. 66.

15 Sanderson to Kimberley, 8 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

16 Cameron to Sanderson, 9 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

17 Memorandum by Sanderson of 10 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

18 Memorandum by Cameron to the Foreign Office of 10 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

19 Memorandum by Sanderson of II May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

20 Memorandum by Sanderson of 13 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

21 Rosebery to Sanderson, 15 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253

22 Memorandum by Sanderson of 13 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

23 Memorandum by Sanderson of 13 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

24 Memorandum by Sanderson of 14 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

25 Memorandum by Sanderson of 13 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

26 Memorandum by Sanderson of 15 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

27 Memorandum by Sanderson of 16 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

28 Hanotaux to Montebello, 17 May 1895, Documents Diplomatiques Français, 1871–1914 (Paris, 1951),Google Scholar 1st ser., xn, 19; and Poidevin, R., Les relations économiques et financières cntre la France et l'Allmagne, 1898–1914 (Paris, 1969), p. 77.Google Scholar

29 Hanotaux to Montebello, 19 May 1895, D.D.F., 1st ser., XII, 23.

30 Cameron to Sanderson, 18 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

31 Kimberley to O'Conor, 20 May 1895, F.O. 17/1242.

32 Wright, op. cit. p. 659.

33 Lascelles to Kimberley, 10 July 1895, F.O. 65/1491.

34 Memorandum by Sanderson of 15 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

35 Memorandum by Sanderson of 16 May 1895, and minute on it by Kimberley, 16 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

36 Rosebery to Sanderson, 17 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

37 Cameron to Sanderson, 18 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

38 Young, L. K., British Policy in China, 1895–1902 (Oxford, 1970), p. 28.Google Scholar

39 Kimberley to O'Conor, 18 May 1895, F.O. 17/1242.

40 Cameron to Foreign Office, 19 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

41 Cameron to Kimberley, 19 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

42 Ibid.

43 Speech by Sir M. Hicks-Beach to the Swansea Chamber of Commerce in Jan. 1895, see Pelcovits, N. A., Old China Hands and the Foreign Office (New York, 1948), p. 214; speech by A. J. Balfour as reported in The Times of 11 June 1895, see Pelcovits, op. cit. p. 214; Young, op. cit. p. 2.Google Scholar

44 Platt, op. cit. pp. i-xx, 85, 95, 307.

45 Kimberley to O'Conor, 19 May 1895, F.O. 17/1242.

46 Cameron to Kimberley, 21 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

47 Cameron to Sanderson, 20 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

48 Kimberley to O'Conor, 20 May 1895, F.O. 17/1242.

49 Ibid.

50 Kimberley to Sanderson, 20 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

51 Minute by Sanderson on draft of Kimberley to O'Conor, 20 May 1895, F.O. 17/1242.

52 Memorandum by Sanderson of 20 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

53 Cameron to Kimberley, 21 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

54 Cameron to Sanderson, 22 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

55 O'Conor to Kimberley, 22 May 1895, F.O. 17/1235.

56 Kimberley to Dufferin, Lascelles and Malet, 21 May 1895, F.O. 27/3223 and F.O. 65/1493.

57 Lascelles to Kimberley, 21 and 22 May 1895, F.O. 181/729(2) and F.O. 65/1491.

58 According to Wright, op. cit. p 659, Rothstein was sent to Paris in May to make the overture to the Rothschilds. According to Gosselin, Rothstein was passing through Berlin on the return journey to St Petersburg on 14 June: see Gosselin to Kimberley, 14 June 1895, F.O. 64/1352. Romanov, op. cit. p. 67, however, only refers to him as spending 29–30 May in Paris. It is uncertain therefore whether Rothstein was in France continuously from mid-May to 14 June 1895.

59 Memorandum by Sanderson of 26 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

60 Kimberley to Malet, 24 May 1895, F.O. 64/1349.

61 Memorandum by Sanderson of 26 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

62 Herbette to Hanotaux, 24 May 1895, D.D.F., 1st ser., XII, 41.

63 Dufferin to Kimberley, 29 May 1895, F.O. 27/3223.

64 Memorandum by Sanderson of 26 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253.

65 Ibid.

66 The Times, 31 May 1895.

67 Gosselin to Kimberley, 10 June 1895, F.O. 64/1350.

68 Mohrenheim to Hanotaux, 27 May 1895, D.D.F., 1st scr., XII, 48.

69 Montebcllo to Hanotaux, 30 May 1895, D.D.F., 1st ser., XII, 50.

70 Hanotaux to Montebello, 31 May 1895, D.D.F., 1st ser., XII, 60.

71 Hanotaux to Montebello, 12 June 1895, D.D.F., 1st ser., XII, 75.

72 Montebello to Hanotaux, 2 June 1895, D.D.F., 1st ser., XII, 62.

73 Kimberley to O'Conor, 5 June 1895, F.O. 17/1242.

74 The Economist, 8 June 1895.

75 Gosselin to Kimberley, 14 June 1895, F.O. 64/1352.

76 Gosselin to Kimberley, 14 June 1895, F.O. 64/1352.

77 Gosselin to Kimberley, 10 June 1895, F.O. 64/1350.

78 Gosselin to Kimberley, 11 June 1895, F.O. 64/1352. In a wider context, too, active German support was unlikely. The realization that a naval station on the China coast could best be obtained by keeping good relations with Russia, and the wish to prevent the Russo-French alliance from becoming too firm an association, both worked to create a passive response from Berlin. In addition there was the growing interest of the kaiser during the summer to divert the attention of Russia away from Europe towards the Far East. See Langer, op. cit. 1, 189–90.

79 Dufferin to Kimberley, 7 June 1895, F.O. 27/3223.

80 Gosselin to Kimberley, 10 June 1895, F.O. 64/1350.

81 Kimberley to O'Conor, 13 June 1895, F.O. 17/1242.

82 O'Conor to Kimberley, 13 June 1895, F.O. 17/1243.

83 O'Conor to Kimberley, 15 June 1895, F.O. 17/1243.

84 Gosselin to Kimberley, 14 June 1895, F.O. 64/1352.

85 Gosselin to Kimberley, 15 June 1895, and minute on it by Sanderson, F.O. 64/1352.

86 Lascelles to Kimberley, 16 and 19 June 1895, F.O. 181/729(2).

87 O'Conor to Kimberley, 19 June 1895, F.O. 17/1243.

88 Memorandum by Sanderson of 13 May 1895, F.O. 17/1253; Gosselin to Kimberley, 28 June 1895, F.O. 64/1350.

89 Kimberley to O'Conor, 24 June 1895, F.O. 17/1242.

90 Howard to Kimberley, 28 June 1895, F.O. 27/3221.

91 Gosselin to Kimberley, 28 June 1895, F.O. 64/1350.

92 Romanov, op. cit. ch. III.

93 Lascelles to Kimberley, 10 July 1895, F.O. 181/729(2).

94 Poidevin, op. cit. p. 78.

95 The Times, 13 June 1895.

96 The Times, 26 Sept. 1895.

97 Montebello to Hanotaux, 12 June 1895, D.D.F., 1st ser., XII, 82.

98 Lascelles to Kimberley, 12 June 1895, F.O. 65/1491.