§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government how far the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1899 affects the proposal to build a railway from Chinchow to Aigun. The Convention lays down that this country engages not to seek for any railway concession north of the Great Wall of China in return for a similar undertaking by Russia in the Yangtsze Valley. In November last I drew attention in this House to the fact that Russian financiers had intimated their intention of 766 participating in railway enterprise in the Yangtsze Valley, and I asked whether, in those circumstances, British subjects were still debarred from enterprise north of the Great Wall. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, in a reply couched in language all too kind to me, stated that the proposed participation by Russians did not appear to contravene the terms of the Anglo-Russian Convention, and he went on to add that" His Majesty's Government did not anticipate that British participation in railway enterprises north of the Great Wall of China on similar terms to those on which the Russians were engaged in the Yangtsze Valley would occasion any protest on the part of the Russian Government."
Since that time there appears to have been some change in the policy of His Majesty's Government, for on March 23 the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replying to a Question in another place, said—
In the matter of the Chinchow-Aigun Railway, in which His Majesty's Government have been pressed to take an active part, they are unable to do so as they are bound to pay some regard to the provisions of the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1899, which has never formally teen abrogated.I am advised that the terms under which it is proposed to construct this railway north of the Great Wall are considerably more favourable to China than are the terms under which Russian financiers propose to construct the railway in the Yangtsze Valley. If His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Russian loan in the Yangtsze Valley does not contravene the terms of the Agreement, then the proposal to construct this railway north of the Great Wall would not appear to do so either. What is sauce for Russia in the Yangtsze Valley should be sauce for Great Britain north of the Great Wall. There appears to be some feeling that this country is being made the catspaw of Japan in regard to Manchuria and Mongolia. That is not a question into which I propose to enter at the present moment. But I trust that His Majesty's Government will make it clear that, so far from backing up those who oppose the construction of this railway, they will take at any rate as active a part in promoting the enterprise of British subjects north of the Great Wall as the Russian Government have done in the matter of the enterprise of Russian financiers in regard to the railway in the Yangtsze 767 Valley, and that it is not to be the open-door policy in the Yangtsze Valley and the spheres of influence policy north of the Great Wall, but the same policy in both regions.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEThe noble Earl has stated quite correctly the purpose of the Agreement of 1899. The proposed Chinchow-Aigun Railway would begin north of the Great Wall, and, therefore, at first sight might seem to fall within the scope of the Agreement; but it is, of course, also true that China proposes to construct the line, and therefore, in a strict sense, it might be argued that this particular line does not fall within the terms of the Agreement. If it does not fall within the letter of the Agreement His Majesty's Government think that it certainly does fall within its spirit, because the Russian Government have intimated to us that on strategical and economic grounds generally they consider themselves interested in the scheme for the line. When the noble Earl compares the two spheres it must be remembered that this line runs right up to the Russian frontier, and I believe actually crosses the Russian railway. The Government have been pressed to take an active part in the matter because British contractors are interested in it; and it is only this regard to the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement which in our opinion forbids us to do so. But it would be altogether a misapprehension to say that in doing this we are running counter to the British or American interests involved. We are obliged to take the line that in view of the terms of the Agreement it is not proper for us to exercise diplomatic interference in the particular region in which it is proposed that this railway should be made.