本論文分五部分論述，第一、二部分：劉銘傳之退失基隆、劉璈案之過程。劉銘傳之退失基隆談其退失基隆之得失與引起的反彈。劉璈案之過程談到劉璈案發生前，劉銘傳對劉璈有計畫的打壓。第三至第五部分：二劉出身與性行之比較、湘淮畛域、道員的地位與造成的衝突。從這三部份來看二劉關係之所以緊張、所以衝突。劉銘傳於光緒十年以「巡撫銜督辦臺灣事務」，時劉璈任臺灣道，二人於法軍攻臺時不能合作，最後劉銘傳並參劉璈去職流放。劉璈為湘軍領袖左宗棠之部屬，劉銘傳亦為准軍重要將領，兩人有心結，故劉銘傳亦惡劉璈，且劉璈為文人出身，劉銘傳為武人出身，二人自不能合作。由於當時在臺之淮軍較湘軍為少，劉銘傳在對法戰役感覺相當孤立與辛苦。

　　　　　The present essay is divided into five sections. The first two chronicle Liu Ming-ch'uan's loss of Keelung and the Liu Ao case, respectively. In the first case, the paper examines Liu's retreat from Keelung and the ensuing reaction. In the second case, the essay discusses the pressure which Liu Ming-ch'uan planned to place on Liu Ao prior to the occurrence of the Liu Ao case. The third through fifth sections relate the earlier life and comparative personalities of the two Lius, the prejudices between the men of the Hsiang and Huai armies, and the conflict regarding the position of circuit supervisor. These three sections make clear the reason for the tension and resulting conflict between Liu Ming-ch'uan and Liu Ao. When Liu Ming-chuan was dispatched to Taiwan on an imperial mandate to investigate local conditions, Liu Ao was serving as the supervisor of the Taiwan circuit. The failure of the two men to cooperate in the face of France's attack on Taiwan lead Liu Ming-ch'uan to report Liu Ao to the emperor, an act that resulted in the latter's removal from office and exile to a distant post. Liu Ao was a subordinate to Tso Tsung-t'ang, a key leader of the Hsiang Army, while Liu Ming-ch'uan was an important commanding general in the Huai Army. The two men not only had personal conflicts which caused Liu Ming-ch'uan to hate Liu Ao, but also came from different educational backgrounds, a fact which further inhibited their ability to cooperate. Because the forces of the Huai Army stationed in Taiwan were substantially less than those of the Hsiang Army, Liu Ming-ch'uan felt isolated and embattled in his position against the French.