Map to illustrate the Siamese question.

-89--
CONCLUDING NOTE.
IN forwarding this paper, I should not like it to be supposed
that I have not seen the replies of the Siamese Prime Minister to the facts of the case as put forward by Governor
CAVENAGH.
I have endeavoured to cover the arguments of the Court of
Bangkok by the statement at page 82 that " Governor
" CAVEN AGH'S action and statements with regard to Kelantan
" and Trengganu do not seem to have been met by any vigo" rous protest from the Siamese Government."
Had I attempted to give all the correspondence between the
Governor, the Consul and the Siamese Minister, and entered
into a discussion of the various arguments put forward by each
in support of his views, this paper, already too long, would have
grown beyond reasonable limits. 4
The originals or copies of all, or nearly all, these papers are
to be found in the Secretariat here, and I may refer to what
appear to be the two principal documents from the Siamese
Prime Minister ( given at length on pages 92-94 )-one
a very mild remonstrance, addressed to the Consul, when Siamese messengers arrived from Trengganu to report the shelling
of that place by British ships; and the other, the Minister's
remarks on Governor CAVENAGHi'S letter, No. 480, of December,
1862, printed at page 80.
In the first case, the remonstrance;* (dated 25th October,
1862 ), if it can be properly so called, is of a doubtful and
hesitating description. The Minister relies on Article XII.
of the Treaty of Bangkok ( the Article which appears to maintain the independence of Trengganu and Kelantan): he tries
to enlist the personal sympathies of the Consul, by telling him
Siam must deal with Britain through him, and hints that
the Governor of the Straits is interfering with the Consul's
prerogative: and finally the Minister tells the Consul that
the action is "a cause of alarm to a nation of little power that
"never thought of offering resistance." Presumably the nation
* See p. 02.