The Journal of the Siam Society Vol. LXXII, Part 1-2, 1984 - Khamkoo

THE 1902 SIAMESE-KELANTAN TREATY 127
leaders were "greatly disturbed by what they conceived to be the extremely aggressive
attitude" which the British representative in Bangkok had adopted under the influence
of the Governor-General in Singapore.9 5
To be fair, there existed slight differences between the forward policy supporters
m the Straits Settlements and the imperialists in the Foreign and Colonial Offices.
While Swettenham and other senior Straits Settlements officials advocated the expansion
of British authority and prestige regardless of Siam and Great Britain's earlier commitments
to her, both the Foreign Office and, to a lesser degree, the Colonial Office were
more aware of the damaging consequences of such an extreme stand to British interests
in the world-wide context and were only willing to push Siam so far and no further.
Thus once the talks in Bangkok reached an impasse because of Tower's uncompromising
attitude, Lansdowne, accepting the validity of the Siamese request to continue the main
negotiations in London, was willing to grant the Siamese their request. 97
Meanwhile,
he also instructed the Colonial Office to relax its pressure on Siam which was being
exercised by the Straits Settlements Government.98
Yet it was also Lansdowne who
had no hesitation to employ threat as soon as he believed the negotiations were being
stalled by the Siamese.99
The Siamese made it abundantly clear that they were alarmed by the change
they found in the official FO attitude, which pronounced "a menace from its political
side, and [had] a grasping character from its financial side, neither of which appeared
96. Lansdowne to Tower, May 27,1902, (confidential). King Chulalongkorn also recorded his
sentiments concerning the aggressive attitude of British officials in his letter to Phraya Suriya,
Siamese Minister in Paris, "In our long association with England, never before has there
been such an experience . . . There has not been a British representative who possesses no
sympathy whatever towards us as Mr. Tower and Mr. Paget. the present Charge D'Affaires . . .
they are overbearing. ruthless and threatening in the similar manner as the French. It is
natural that I should feel disillusioned and fed up with them even more than with the French,
since for a very long time we [ the Siamese and British] have been able to discuss and work
out our differences in a just and fair manner . .. My.feeling is that the Foreign Office now
exercises no power. It seems that Sir Frank [ Swettenham] was the person endowed with all
the power exercised by the FO." R. 5 M 62/79-89, Chulalongkorn to Suriya, March 17,
121 (1903), NAT.
97. FO 422/56 Devawongse to Prasiddhi, May 26, 1902; Lansdowne to Tower, May 30, 1902,
(telegraphic).
98. ibid. FO to CO, May 31, 1902; FO to Co, June 6, 1902. One of the measures to reduce the
pressure was to send the Sultan of Kelantan back to his State with no promise of British
protection.
99. FO 4 22/56 Lansdowne to Archer, August 19, 1902, telegraphic, "I added ... that within a
reasonable time, say, the end of September, we expected a reply, and that His Majesty's
Government would, failing that, have to resort to other means of settling the question".