383
(4)
visit to some of the principal ports has led him to form. They are in his own words "prejudices" still, and standing by them solves do but little harm. But when they are set forth on paper, and the reasons which he adduces in their support are found to owe their inception to perversions of fact, they are calculated to do some harm. It is nothing to me that Sir Charles Dilke is an "Advanced Radical." Much as that lowers him in the estimation of the more sensible portion of the community, it leaves him—like the cook—a critic still; unlike that estimable member of a household, he possesses the power conferred by education and travel to influence large numbers of his fellow-creatures for good or evil. It will be my endeavour to expose and refute some of the errors into which he has fallen and to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the statements upon which he has reared so curious an edifice of misrepresentation.
Taking his first assertion, in regard to the prejudices with which he undertook his investigations, I find that one of their causes consisted in a sentence in the China Mail: "Let us say to China this must be done because we choose." The ingenuousness of selecting an isolated sentence, apart from its context, to prove that its writer preached the doctrine of coercion pure and simple, may be conformable to the ideas of an "Advanced Radical," but is not calculated to win general admiration. That these words were used to indicate a course of action which would result in benefit to China rather than to foreigners, and furnish the native officials with a constantly-needed excuse for complying with demands which they approve but dare not grant for fear of the mob, is conveniently ignored. So too the quotation from the North China Herald respecting the much-abused "gunboat." One of the paragraphs which "formed his prejudices" was this "The gunboat will once more at least appear on the stage in China, for its mission is not yet ended, and premature attempts to dispense with it will only make its employment the more necessary and prolonged." That its mission was not then ended is best shown by the fact that Sir Thomas Wade, with whose opinions on some
(5)
points, our judicious critic expresses his perfect concurrence, found it necessary to detain four powerful steam frigates at Chefoo while arranging the (sadly inadequate) terms of the Chefoo Convention. I do not desire to enlarge upon these points. Sir Charles touches them with an airy off-handedness which may be imitated in refutation. But enough has been said to show both disingenuousness and an absence of the most ordinary political foresight on his part — not the less obvious that the British Minister has been compelled to falsify the tenor of Sir Charles Dilke's remark.
The "mendacious telegrams from China, which during some years weekly murdered missionaries, or insulted ambassadors, in the innocent columns of the English papers," form the next subject of Sir Charles Dilke's diatribe. As he does not deem it necessary to give any example of the telegrams in question, it is somewhat difficult to disprove their mendacity; but inasmuch as the writer of this paper drafted a large number of those transmitted to Europe, especially during the negotiations regarding the Audience Question, he will not perhaps be thought quixotic in challenging Sir Charles to produce one single telegram which was "mendacious" or which, except as altered by the telegraph officials in transmission—alterations for which neither Reuter's agent nor the writer was responsible—was not in accord with actual fact. It may be further added that except in very few cases the telegrams passed through untampered with, and that the additions or alterations made by their recipients were, in most cases, of the most innocent nature. Republished, as most of them were, in a special organ devoted to Chinese matters, they seldom escaped the attention of the sender; and though provoking mistakes were made in the names of persons and places, nothing was ever detected to justify particular remonstrance. As regards the sender of the Shanghai telegrams I am unable to say whether he had, or had not, graver cause of complaint. But I can recall only a few instances of inaccuracy, and none of "mendacity," in those which appeared in the London journals. So much for the second ground of Sir C. Dilke's "prejudices" regarding matters in China,
383
(4)
visit to some of the principal ports has led him to form. They are in his own words "prejudices" still, and standing by them- solves do but little harm. But when they are set forth on paper, and the reasons which he adduces in their support are found to owe their inception to perversions of fact, they are calculated to do some barm. It is nothing to me that Sir Charles Dilke is an "Advanced Radical." Much as that lowers him in the estimation of the more sensible portion of the community, it leaves him-liko the cook-a critic still; unlike that estimable member of a house- hold, he possesses the power conferred by education and travel to influence large numbers of his fellow-creatures for good or evil. It will be my endeavour to expose and refute some of the errors into which he has fallen and to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the statements upon which he has reared so curious an edifice of misrepresentation.
Taking his first assertion, in regard to the prejudices with which he undertook his investigations, I find that one of their causes consisted in a sentence in the China Mail:
"Let us say to China this must be done because we choose." The ingenuousness of selecting an isolated sentence, apart from its context, to prove that its writer preached the doctrine of coercion pure and simple, may be conformable to the ideas of an "Advanced Radical," but is not calenlated to win general admiration. That these words were used to indicate a course of action which would result in benefit to China rather than to foreigners, and furnish the native officials with a constantly-needed excuse for complying with de- mands which they approve but dare not grant for fear of the mob, is conveniently ignored. So too the quotation from the North China Herald respecting the much-abused "gunboat." One of the paragraphs which "formed his prejudices" was this "The gunboat will once more at least appear on the stage in China, for its mission is not yet ended, and premature attempts to dispense with it will only make its employment the more necessary and prolonged." That its mission was not then ended is best shown by the fact that Sir Thomas Wade, with whose opinions on some
(5)
points, our judicious critic expresses his perfect concurrence, found it necessary to detain four powerful steam frigates at Chefoo while arranging the (sadly inadequate) terms of the Chefoo Convention. I do not desire to enlarge upon these points. Sir Charles touches them with an airy off-handedness which may be imitated in refuta- tion. But enough has been said to shew both disingenuousness and an absence of the most ordinary political foresight on his part --not the less obvions that the British Minister has been com- pelled to falsify the tonour of Sir Charles Dilke's remark.
The "mendacious telegrams from China, which during some years weekly murdered missionaries, or insulted ambassadors, in the innocent columns of the English papers," form the next subject of Sir Charles Dilke's diatribe, As he does not deem it necessary
to give any example of the telegrams in question, it is somewhat difficult to disprove their mendacity; but inasmuch as the writer of this paper drafted a large number of those transmitted to Europe, especially during the negociations regarding the Audience Question, he will not perhaps he thought quixotic in challenging Sir Charles to produce one single telegrasu which was "men- dacious " or which, except as altered by the telegraph officials in transmission-alterations for which neither Reuter's agent nor the writer was responsible--was not in accord with actual fact. It may be further added that except in very few cases the telegrams passed through untampered with, and that the addi- tions or alterations made by their recipients were, in most cases, of the most innocent nature. Republished, as most of them were, in a special organ devoted to Chinese matters, they seldom escaped the attention of the sender; and though provoking mistakes were made in the names of persons and places, nothing was ever detected to justify particular remonstrance. As regards the sender of the Shanghai telegrams I am unable to say whether he bad, or had not, graver cause of complaint. But I can recall only a few instances of inaccuracy, and none of "mendacity," in those which appeared in the London journals. So much for the second ground of Sir C. Dilke's "prejudices" regarding matters in China,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.