387
(12)
subjection to the law of the land in which one resides.
2
At the open ports of China the laws of Great Britain are administered by Consuls who are expressly instructed that it is as much their duty to repress irregularities on the part of British subjects as to advocate their claims vis-a-vis the Chinese when cause arises. Let me suppose a case by way of illustrating Sir Charles Dilke's contention—not a fancy case, but one which has actually occurred within the writer's experience. A, a well-to-do merchant, travelling "like a prince" with a guide, boy, two coolies, four boatmen and sundry cases of bottled beer and preserved meals, starts from a Treaty Port on a shooting excursion. After reaching a point some 35 miles distant from the port, and consequently beyond the direct jurisdiction of the Consul which is circumscribed to a radius of 30 miles from his consulate, A gets into trouble. A villager's dog flies at him and he injudiciously shoots the dog. The villagers attack him and he defends himself fortunately not with his gun but with a stout stick. In the course of the melee one of the villagers receives a crack on the skull which stretches him apparently lifeless on the ground. Now see the practical working of Sir Charles Dilke's "exemption from the law." A has, as is believed, killed a man. In accordance with the exterritorial clause of the treaty, therefore, he is forthwith seized by the murdered man's friends. They are allowed (by treaty) to subject him to such reasonable restraint as will prevent his escape. They then take him to his own or any other conveyance, or, if they so elect, to the local Magistrate's Yamên, or office, whence he is despatched under escort to the nearest British Consul.
"exempted from law" is then tried in the usual way, and so far as offence is proved against him, is duly punished. As to the uprightness of our Consuls in administering the law in such cases, let those who have relied upon national sympathy when so charged testify! The mercantile communities one and all assert that our Consuls are far too ready to inflict undeserved punishment in such cases. Yet this is what Sir Charles Dilke, M.P., an "advanced radical," would persuade home readers is "exemption from the law," just as a Livingstone or a Stanley makes good by his own pluck "exemption" from the bloody rites of Dahomy or the cannibal observances of the Fans! Surely readers at home will begin to recognize the disingenuousness of such a misrepresentation.
(13)
Upon Sir Charles Dilke's remarks respecting the disturbances which must follow the introduction of machinery in place of hand labour, I have nothing adverse to say. No doubt there is much to be said in favour of the Chinese view of the case, and I have yet to meet either the official or merchant who does not freely admit all that can be urged in its support.
But I deny in toto the Baronet's assertion that the British merchant is desirous of forcing such aids to labour upon the Chinese at the point of the sword. The British merchant is not such an idiot. He knows perfectly well that any such improvements must be effected by persuasion, and is willing to go great lengths towards inducing the Chinese to entertain his proposals. But he is not so foolish as to suppose that railways can be laid down or mining machinery worked with an armed guard over engineers and pitmen. Sir Charles Dilke has not overpainted the general anxiety to see mechanical improvements introduced. But he has utterly falsified the motives which animate those who would see steam and electricity introduced into China. Most wrongly has he—whether maliciously or unintentionally I cannot of course say—misrepresented the action of the projectors and constructors of the Wusung railway. I am again obliged to quote him in extenso in order that the refutation may be made clear. Charles Dilke says:
Sir A. I am sorry to be forced to refer to this matter as an example of our unfair dealings with the Chinese. There used formerly to be a road from Shanghai to Woosung. Permission was asked of the prefect of Shanghai to re-make this road, which had fallen out of repair. A company was got up in London, and called "The Woosung Road Company." It is still so called. After a while rails were ordered, and the road was called a "tramway." The first that the Chinese authorities heard of the Wousung railway was when they were asked
387
( 12 )
subjection to the law of the land in which one resides.
2
At the
open ports of China the laws of Great Britain are administere i by Consuls who are expressly instructed that it is as much their duty to repress irregularities on the part of British subjects ss to advocate their claims vis-a-vis the Chinese when cause arises. Let me suppose a case by way of illustrating Sir Charles Dilke's contention-not a fancy oase, but one which has actually occurred within the writer's experience, A-, a well-to-do merchant, travelling "like a prince "is with a guide, boy, two coolies, four boatmen and sundry cases of hottled beer and preserved meals,-starts from a Treaty Port on a shooting excursion After reaching point some 35 miles distant from the port, and consequently beyond the direct jurisdiction of the Consul which is circumscribed to a radius of 30 miles from his consulate, A gets into trouble. A villager's dog flies at him and he injudiciously shoots the dog. The villagers attack him and he defends himself fortunately not with his gun but with a stout stick. In the course of the melao one of the villagers receives a crack ou the skull which stretches him apparently lifeless on the ground. Now see the practical working of Sir Charles Dilke's "exomption from the law." A has, as is believed, killed a man. In accordance with the exterritorial clause of the treaty, therefore, he is forthwith seized by the murdered man's friends. They are allowed (by treaty) to subject him to such reasonable restraint as will prevent his escape. They then take him to his own or any other conveyance, or, if they so elect, to the local Magistrate's Yamên, or office, whence he is despatched The Gentleman under escort to the nearest British Consul
"exempted from law" is then tried in the usual way, and so far as offence is proved against him, is duly punished. As to the uprightness of our Consule in administering the law in such cases, let those who have relied upon national sympathy when so charged testify! The mercantile communities one and all assert that our Consuls are far too ready to inflict undeserved punish- ment in such cases. Yet this is what Sir Charles Dilke, M.P.,
( 13 )
an "advanced radical," would persuade home readers is "exemp- tion from the law," just as a Livingstone or a Stanley makes good by his own pluck "exemption" from the bloody rites of Dahomy or the cannibal observances of the Fans! Surely readers at home will begin to recognize the disingenuousness of such a misre- presentation.
Upon Sir Charles Dilke's remarks respecting the disturbances which must follow the introduction of machinery in place of hand labour, I have nothing adverse to say. No doubt there is much to be said in favour of the Chinese view of the case, and I have yet to meet either the official or merchant who does not freely admit all that can be urged in its support.
But I deny
in toto the Baronet's assertion that the British merchant is desirous of forcing such aids to labour upon the Chinese at the point of the sword. The British merchant is not such an idiot. He knows perfectly well that any such improvements must be effected by persuasion, and is willing to go great lengths towards inducing the Chinese to entertain his proposals. But be is not so foolish as to suppose that railways can be laid down or mining machinery worked with an armed guard over engineers and pitmen. Sir Charlos Dilke has not overpainted the general anxiety to see mechanical improvements introduced. But ho has utterly falsified the motives which animate those who would see steam and electricity introduced into China. Most wrongly bas he--whether maliciously or unintentionally I cannot of course eay-misrepresented the action of the projectors and constructors of the Wusung railway. I am again obliged to quote him in extenso in order that the refutation may be made clear. Charles Dilke says →→→
Sir
A.
I am sorry to be forced to refer to this matter as an example of our unfair dealings with the Chinese. There used formerly to be a road from Shanghai to Woosung. Permission was asked of the prefect of Shanghai to re-make this road, which had fallen out of repair. company was got up in London, and called "The Woosung Road Com- pany." It is still so called. After a while rails were ordered, and The first that the Chinese the road" was called a "tramway.' authorities heard of the Wousung railcay was when they were asked
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.