1. Britain controlled Johore's external relations but its internal affairs other than such questions as opium farms and railways which affected the adjacent British colony and protected states, remained in the Sultan's hands.

2. Numnonda, Thamsook's article “The Anglo-Siamese Secret Convention of 1897”, Journal of the Siam Society, vol. liii, pt. 1, 01 1965, pp. 45–60Google Scholar, deals with the post-1896 period. It describes the negotiations begun in January 1896, the subsequent application of the Convention and later treaties between Siam and Britain concerning the Malay States.

3. CO273/168 Dickson to C.O. 28 October 1890; FO17/1293 C.O. to F.O. 28 February 1896 enclosing memo, on British interests and policy in the Malay Peninsula.

4. Swettenham's journal, iv, (in the Arkib Negara Malaysia) covering the period 17 April to 22 July 1875 and his tour of the east coast.

5. Skinner, W., Chinese Society in Thailand, 1957, pp. 149 ff.Google Scholar

6. According to Archaimbault, C., “A Preliminary Investigation of the Sam Sam of Kedah and Perlis”, Journal Malayan Branch Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), vol. xxx, pt. 1, 1957, pp. 75–92Google Scholar, they were an admixture of the Malay and Chinese races.

7. Skinner, C., “The Civil War in Kelantan in 1839”, Monograph 2, Malaysian Branch Royal Asiatic Society, 1965, p. 5Google Scholar, says that this occurred in 1791. The Thai records cited in Wenk, K., The Restoration of Thailand under Rama 1, 1782–1809, 1968, p. 103Google Scholar, give different dates varying from 1782–86 (i.e, 2325–2329).

8. Veila, W. F., Siam under Rama 111, 1824–1851, 1957, pp. 60 ff.Google Scholar

9. Swettenham, op. cit.

10. Cameron, W., “On Patani”, JSBRAS, No. 11, 1883, p. 126.Google Scholar

11. Swettenham, , “Some Account of the Independent Native States of the Malay Peninsula”, JSBRAS, no. 6, 1880.Google Scholar

12. Kimberley Papers, Weld, to Kimberley, 17 01 1882.Google Scholar Weld was Governor of the Straits Settlements from 1880–87. For his policy in the central and southern states see Thio, E., British Policy in the Malay Peninsula, 1880–1910, vol. 1, 1969.Google Scholar

13. Satow Papers, PRO 30/33/14/1 Satow, to Currie, 23 12 1884.Google Scholar

14. Ibid. Weld to Satow 18 September 1884.

15. Br Mus. Add. Ms Ripon Papers 43,516, vol. xxvi, Ripon to Rosebery 22 July 1893.

16. F017/1293 CO. memo, enclosed in C.O. to F.O. 28 February 1896. Foreign Office Confidential Print 6252, Precis of information concerning the Straits Settlements and the Native States of the Malay Peninsula prepared by the Intelligence Division of the War Office.

17. CO273/120 Weld to Derby 9 May and 30 May 1883.

18. CO273/160 Report of Acting Consul for the Siamese Western Malay States, W. E. Maxwell, enclosed in Smith to C.O. 17 May 1889.

19. CO273/164 Low's memo, for Lucas 6 July 1889.

20. See Linehan, W., “History of Pahang”, JMBRAS vol. xiv, pt. 2, 1936.Google Scholar

21. FO69/172 Clifford's memo, on Kelantan and Trengganu enclosed in C.O. to F.O. 23 January 1896.

22. Kimberley Papers, Ripon, to Kimberley, 25 05 1895.Google Scholar

25. e.g. CO273/134 Braddell, to Swettenham, 12 03 1862Google Scholar enclosed in Smith to C.O. 25 May 1885; CO273/164 Low's memo for Lucas 6 July 1889; Satow Papers PRO SO/33/2/9 Smith to Satow 5 January 1885.

24. FO69/81 Palgrave, to Granville, 28 06 1882Google Scholar; FO69/85 Newman to Granville 6 November 1883, FO69/100 Satow, to Granville, 20 06 1885.Google Scholar

25. FO69/145 Siwettenham to Currie (private) 29 July 1891 reporting on a conversation with Prince Prisdang.

26. The Times 25 02 1886.Google Scholar

27. F069/113 I.O. to F.O. 18 October 1886: By “Malay provinces” Harmand meant the Siamese Malay vassal states.

28. FO422/34 Gould, to Salisbury, 29 06 1888.Google Scholar

29. See Kiernan, V. G., “Britain, Siam and Malaya: 1875–1885”, Journal of Modem History, vol. xxviii, no. 1, 03 1956Google Scholar; FO69/104 Salisbury's comment on Currie's minute 27 August 1885; Satow Papers, PRO 30/33/15–1 diary entry on 13 July 1887.

30. FO69/1S6 Salisbury's minute on memoranda by Currie and Jervoise 28 and 7 March 1889.

31. See Kiernan, V. G., “The Kra Canal Projects of 1882–5”, History, vol. xli, 1956.Google Scholar

32. He was a naval architect, an MP and Lord of the Treasury during the short Gladstonian Administration of 1886.

33. FO69/110 Satow to Iddesleigh 23 December 1886; Satow Papers PRO/30/33/15–1 entry in journal on 18 December 1886.

34. CO273/141 Satow to Weld 29 October 1886; Satow Papers, PRO 3O/33/2–9 Satow to Weld 20 July 1886.

35. CO273/156 F.O. to C.O. 16 March and 16 April 1888.

36. CO273/140 Weld to C.O. 21 June 1886.

37. Satow Papers, PRO 30/33/2–9 Weld, to Satow, 30 05 1886.Google Scholar

38. FO69/116 Satow to F.O. 11 and 13 April 1887.

39. Satow Papers, PRO 30/33/15–1 entry in diary on 13 July 1887.

40. FO69/133 Gould to F.O. 10 December 1889.

41. FO69/139 Extract from the Standard enclosed in Captain F. W. Lowther's letter to Sir James Fergusson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, 11 December 1890. A similar report appeared in the Times and aroused considerable attention in Malaya. See Straits Times article on “The Munroe Doctrine in Malaya” 29 01 1891.Google ScholarThe Hong Kong Daily Press and the French Siecle also commented on the report.

42. FO69/137 Admiralty to F.O. 10 June 1889 with enclosures.

43. CO537/47 Minutes on G.S. Clarke, to Meade, 22 12 1890.Google Scholar

44. FO69/145 Salisbury's minute on C.O. to F.O. 16 January 1891:

45. Ibid: F.O. to I.O. 20 January 1891. Cross accordingly wrote to Lansdowne: “Lord Salisbury ia very anxious about Siam. He learns that the Germans are thinking of a settlement there, to which we should all strongly object, and he is anxious to get the Siamese to bind themselves not to give any of their territory to any foreign Power. He thinks that they may be induced to do this, if we can arrange some easy terms as to the boundary in the north”.

Lansdowne Papers, B.M.I.S 420/14 Correspondence with the Secretary of State for India, Cross to Lansdowne 30 January 1891. On the attitude of India and the Chiengmai Treaty, see Chandran, J. “British Foreign Policy and the Extraterritorial Question in Siam”, JMBRAS, Vol. xxxviii, pt. 2, 1965, pp. 292 ff.Google Scholar

46. Foreign Office Confidential Print on Siam, pt. 1 (6S72) Memo, of two conversations between Sanderson and Vemey 22 July 1891.

47. Satow Papers PRO 30/33/15–10 Journal entry 28 March 1886 and FO69/109 Satow's telegram to Salisbury 29 March 1886.

48. Kimberley Papers, Kimberley, to Dufferin, 1 01 1885.Google Scholar

49. Cecil, Lady Gwendolen, Life of Robert Marquis of Salisbury, 1921–1922, vol. 4, p. 100 quoting Salisbury to Malet 8 April 1888.Google Scholar

50. Ibid. Salisbury to Malet 21 February 1890.

51. Ibid. pp. 368–371; Grenville, J. A. S., Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy; The Close af the Nineteenth Century, 1964, pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

52. Klein, Ira, “Salisbury, Rosebery, and the Survival of Siam”, The Journal of British Studies, vol. 8, 11 1968, p. 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. For a recent contribution to the subject see Hirschfield, C. “The Struggle for the Mekong Banks, 1892–1896”, Journal of Southeast Asian History, vol. ix no. 1, 03 1968, pp. 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. See Vagts, A., “William II and the Siam Episode”, American Historical Review, vol. xliv (45), 1940, pp. 834–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. FO422/36 Dufferin to Rosebery 9 July 1893.

56. CO537/4/7 F.O. to C.O. 19 August 1893; FO69/151 Sanderson, to Yotha, Phya Maha 1 09 1893.Google Scholar

57. FO17/1184 Rosebery to Dufferin 7 September 1893.

58. Lobanov-Rostovsky, Prince A., Russia and Asia, 1951, pp. 208–210.Google Scholar

59. Kimberley Papers, Weld, to Kimberley, 10 08 1881.Google Scholar

60. CO273/169 Maxwell's report on a consular tour of the Malay states and Siamese provinces north of Penang 6 April 1889.

61. FO69/150 Jones to F.O. 27 August 1893; FO69/155 Scott to F.O. 2 February 1894.

62. CO273/192 F.O. to C.O. 10 November 1893. This started extensive investigations in Holland and Singapore.

63. Kimberley Papers, Kimberley, to Lansdowne, 1 09 1893.Google Scholar

64. Ibid.Ripon, to Kimberley, 18 07 1894Google Scholar; Ripon Papers 43,526 vol. xxxvi, Kimberley, to Ripon, 22 07 1894.Google Scholar

65. Rosebery Papers, Kimberley, to Rosebery, 12 06 1895Google Scholar cited in Klein, Ira, “Salisbury, Rosebery, and the Survival of Siam”, The Journal of British Studies, vol. viii, no. 1, 11 1968, p. 134.Google Scholar

66. Hargreaves, J. D., “Entente Manquée: Anglo-French Relations, 1895–1896”, The Cambridge Historical Journal, vol. xi, no. 1, 1953, p. 70.Google Scholar

67. Foreign Office Confidential Print on Siam, pt. vi, Kimberley, to de Bunsen, 2 04 1896Google Scholar and pt. vii, memo of interview between Salisbury and Maha Yotha 19 July 1895.

68. Curzon Papers, Eur. F111/87 Curzon's memo. “Siam, France and China” 13 08 1895.Google Scholar

69. Sir Andrew Clarko was Governor of the Straits Settlements from 1873–5 and had been responsible for extending British control to Perak, Selangor and Sungei Ujong thus initiating the British advance into the Malay states. In the early 'nineties he was involved in railway and other projects in Siam and the Peninsula.

70. Salisbury Papers, Chamberlain, to Salisbury, 4 09 1895.Google Scholar

71. Cecil, Gwendolen, op. cit., vol. 4, pp. 291–2.Google Scholar

72. Curzon Papers, memo, on “Siam Negociations” undated but initialled by Salisbury. The substance of these discussions held between August and October 1895 may bo found in the Foreign Office Confidential Print on Siam. pt. vii, e.g. Salisbury to de Bunsen 13 August 1895 and Salisbury to Dufferin 18 October 1895. These documents are also in the FO422 files.

75. Hargreaves, , op. cit. p. 72.Google Scholar

74. See footnote 72 “Siam Negociations”.

75. CO273/204 minute on Gov: to Sec. of State 24 June 1895 reassuring the permanent officials who had called attention to the subject.

76. The text of the declaration may be found in FO69/174.

77. FO69/174 Salisbury, to Howard, 15 01 1896.Google Scholar

78. CO537/48 see minutes by Meade and Chamberlain dated 9 and 10 February respectively on Lucas' Memo. “The Anglo-French Agreement as to Siam” 31 01 1896.Google Scholar

79. Grenville, , op. cit., p. 22Google Scholar: Steiner, Z., “The Last Years of the Old Foreign Office 1899–1905”, The Historical Journal, vol. vi, no. 1, 1963, pp: 59–60:CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80. See above p. 296.

81. FO17/1293 Telegram F.O. to de Bunsen, 24 01 1896.Google Scholar

82. This may be inferred from the reassurance given by Chamberlain to his officials on 10 February 1896: “We are negotiating with Siam on the subject” and “The matter is in hand …” CO537/48 minutes on Lucas's memo. “The Anglo-French Agreement as to Siam” 31 01 1896.Google Scholar

83. Hargreaves, , op. cit., p. 75.Google Scholar

84. FO17/1293 Telegram de Bunsen to Salisbury 25 January 1896. Addressing the Straits Settlements Association in London, Sir Cecil Smith had hinted at the expansion of British Malaya in a northerly direction and maintained that the Federation of the Protected States accepted by Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negri Sambilan in July 1895 was but the beginning of far wider schemes.

85. Ibid. de Bunsen to Salisbury 5 February 1896

86. Ibid. Verney's memo. 2 June 1896.

87. Jacquemyns was formerly a Minister in the Belgian Cabinet. An authority on International Law he had a considerable influence on Siamese foreign policy. For his services he was awarded the highest class of the highest Siamese order which had not been conferred on any European since the 17th century when Phaulkon had beem the recipient;. FO69/169 de Bunsen, to Bertie, F., private, 16 November & 21 12 1806.Google Scholar

88. CO537/48 Lucas' memo. 31 January 1896.

89. Ibid. Sanderson to Fairfield 14 March 1896.

90. Ibid. Chamberlain's minute 12 April 1896.

91. The drafts which passed between the F.O. & C.O. are found in FO17/1294.

92. FO17/1295 de Bunsen, to Salisbury, 5 June, 11 07 1896.Google Scholar

93. FO69/186 C.O. to F.O. 12 March 1897 and Salisbury, to Archer, 5 04 1897.Google Scholar

94. FO69/169 de Bunsen to F.O. 24 October 1896.

95. FO69/176 de Bunsen to F.O. 30 November 1896.

96. FO69/186 Archer to F.O. 7 January and 6 March 1897.

97. FO69/176 Archer to F.O. 15 March 1887; FO69/187 Archer, to Salisbury, 22 03 1897.Google Scholar

98. The text of this treaty was published in the British Foreign and State. Papers, vol. 102, 1908–1909, pp. 124–5Google Scholar and quoted in a footnote in Gooch, G. P., Temperley, H. and Penson, L. M., Editors British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898–1914, vol. 11, 1927, p. 270Google Scholar and more recently im Numnonda's article, op. cit.

99. FO17/1295 Curzon's memo, of his conversation with Svasti 27 July 1896 and Salisbury's minute on it. Salisbury concluded several other secret agreements viz. the Mediterranean Agreements of 1887, the Anglo-German Convention of 1898 and Portuguese Declaration of October 1899.

100. FO17/1294 F.O. to C.O. 26 March 1896.

101. FO17/1296 F.O. to C.O. 27 November 1896.

102. Cecil, Lady Gwendolen, op. cit., pp. 53–4, 290.Google Scholar

103. On Lucas see Thio, , op., cit., p. 140.Google Scholar

104. Thio, E., “A Turning Point in Britain's Malayan Policy”; The Historical Annual Singapore 1957, pp. 6–17Google Scholar; Klein, I., “British Expansion in Malaya 1897–1902”. Journal of Southeast Asian History vol. ix, no. 1, 03 1968, pp. 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar