(16)
peoples. The new Taotai (though not personally ill-disposed) was afraid of provoking Imperial censure or punishment if he did not protest against an undertaking which possessed only local official sanction. Hence his letter to the Consul—a very different document to that which Sir Charles Dilke would have us believe it to be. But I have not yet done with the tissue of misstatements contained in the railway paragraph of Sir C. Dilke's article. He goes on to say that, according to the Taotai, "in the formation of the Woosung railroad a number of public roads, pathways, and water-courses have been destroyed, to the great inconvenience of the population. Bridges have been built over creeks, and the passage of boats laden with cargo prevented," and these allegations seem, he says, "unanswerable." He may be astonished—some of his readers certainly will be—to learn that they do not contain one grain of truth. No public road, pathway, or water-course whatever has been destroyed. On the contrary, whenever met with they have been carefully preserved and essentially improved. Not a single bridge has been built where it did not previously exist, and in all cases they have been made superior to their former height so as to less than ever impede boat navigation! Yet, Sir Charles Dilke "does not know how" Mr Medhurst or Sir Thomas Wade can clear themselves of the imputations he has seen fit to cast upon them in this connection.
It is somewhat difficult to write with gravity of our learned critic's apprehensions concerning a Russian "alliance" with China, and the consequent ruin of our commerce on the China Coast. His study of Russian progress in China must have been deep indeed, and his knowledge of the conditions of Russian trade on the frontiers of China, something that passes average acquirements. He deplores our "high-handed proceedings towards the Chinese Government," inferentially contrasting it with a contrary action on the part of Russia. Such ignorance of the actual facts—Russia being described by the unanimous voice of Mandarindom as the most high-handed and least just of all Western Powers with whom China comes in contact—while placing the critic beyond the pale of consideration, does not exempt him from the strongest condemnation. Ignorance is no excuse for dogmatism when the ignorant man essays to teach others without even pretending to adequate knowledge.
(17)
Upon the Blockade question Sir C. Dilke falls into the same blunders as those entertained for a long period by officials more able than himself to affect the well-being of this colony. For readers in England only is it necessary to observe that recent representations have convinced the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the complaints made were well founded; and a full recognition of this fact is implied in the arrangement made under the Chefoo Convention whereby it is agreed that a Consul, Chinese Official, and Officer appointed by the Hongkong Government shall meet to discuss the Blockade, and if possible unite in suggesting a means of removing all causes of future complaint. The logic of facts is unanswerable, and in this case no arguments are needed to show that Sir Charles Dilke has condemned this Colony with the same intemperate haste as that which distinguishes so much of his comment on Chinese matters in the paper under review.
Sir Charles Dilke's generally correct appreciation of other matters as regards Hongkong and Canton rather justifies than renders unnecessary the refutations of his misstatements which I have felt impelled to bring forward. His remarks as to the probable decrease of the import trade, directly the Chinese undertake to manufacture for themselves the goods they now obtain from us, his regret at the discontinuance of the Hongkong Mint, and his sketch of Canton, are written in a way that makes one deplore the extent to which hasty generalization and inaccuracy have conspired to render his other comments injurious and most unjust.
With reference to the Yunnan question, Sir Charles Dilke, it may be premised, appears to have been curiously misled regarding one very important point. "Many who well know the facts," he observes, "believe, as I believe, that we have a bad case." I am not aware that, as regards the facts, any concealment has been practised on the general community; and Sir
389