(14)
to let engines for it come into China duty-free. Messrs. Jardine and Matheson have made this railway; Sir Thomas Wade was at Shanghai when it was opened, and was staying with that firm. He was invited to the opening ceremony, and he did not go; but Mr Medhurst, Consul at Shanghai, was present, and drank to the prosperity of the railroad. Are Messrs. Jardine and Matheson more powerful than the Chinese Empire, because this railroad of theirs has been made in defiance of treaty? From documents which have been published by the Shanghai papers, I gather the following facts. The prospectus of the company, which stated that the Chinese authorities were favourable to the scheme, stated that which was untrue. In 1872 the British Consular authorities asked the prefect of Shanghai, on behalf of the company, to take steps to re-open the old carriage road. In March 1873, the American Consul, who is, I believe, a shareholder in the company, made a similar application to the prefect. The prefect, in assenting to the road, objected to the levying of tolls upon it, as being contrary to Chinese custom, but made no other difficulty. In May 1873, the road began to be called a tramway by the papers. The prefect wrote to Mr Medhurst to call his attention to this fact, and to repudiate the rumour that the Chinese Government had given its consent to such a scheme.
It is something more than regrettable that a man of Sir Charles Dilke's position and intelligence should have undertaken to present so false a picture of events regarding which his information could not be but scanty and proves to have been inaccurate. There was no pretence whatever that there was any intention of re-making an ordinary road. The railway, to begin with, does not follow an old line of road at all! It was explicitly stated to the Chinese Taotai in office when the scheme was projected that a "steam tramway" was contemplated, and his permission was given for the works to be proceeded with. The first heard of a "railway" (no distinction existing in Chinese between a "steam tramway" and a "railway") was not the request to let the locomotives be admitted duty-free. Months before, the foreign and Chinese papers had contained frequent notices of the projected road, while news of the shipment of the engines was given in both the Hongkong and Shanghai press. The actual fact so ingeniously distorted by the Baronet was that the Chinese officials on the spot approved of the construction of the railway, but preferred to limit their support to a personal absence of hostility. No official report was, I believe, made to the Central Government or if made no orders were received to
For some
(15)
check the construction of the works. But the Chinese, as usual, reserved to themselves the right of objection if popular clamour should prove too strong. When Sir Thomas (then Mr) Wade left Peking, the intentions of the projectors were perfectly well known to the Peking authorities from informal sources, and the Minister himself, though not seeing fit to be present at the opening ceremony, expressed his full concurrence with what had been done, and even communicated his views to that effect to the Secretary of State. Let those who most uphold Sir Thomas Wade's action in China explain the riddle proposed by Sir Charles Dilke—that H.M. Minister in China should have openly approved "unfair dealings" with the Chinese and the construction of a railway "made in defiance of Treaty;" and that H.B.M. Consul should have been present at the opening ceremonies and drunk success to the line. The assertions are too wildly improbable to find belief even amongst the most rabid "advanced radicals." I leave aside here the improbability of a house like that of Messrs Jardine, Matheson & Co. engaging in any enterprise "in defiance of the treaty," while the British Minister, moreover, was accepting the hospitality of their table. That firm stands too high to need justification otherwise than by a flat contradiction to the untruthful assertions of their detractor. But now comes the most disingenuous part of the accusation. In May, says the paper, "the Prefect (Taotai) wrote to Mr Medhurst to call his attention, &c., &c." Would any home reader understand that this official was a new man, the successor of him who had given permission for the road to be constructed? Yet such was actually the fact! The man who granted permission for a steam tramway was named Shên. The writer of the despatch alluded to by Sir Charles Dilke was named Fêng.
Rather different this from the "untrue statement" of the Baronet. When he knows more of China—enough at least to enable him to write about it, he will be aware that Chinese officials, like those of many Asiatic nations, do not deem themselves bound by the acts of their predecessors as do those of Western
Page 388
(14)
te let engines for it come into China dutyfree. Messrs. Jardine and Matheson have made this railway; Sir Thomas Wade was at Shanghai when it was opened, and was staying with that firm. He was invited to the opening ceremony, and he did not go; but Mr Madhurst, Consul at Shanghai, was present, and drank to the prosperity of the railroad. Are Messrs. Jardine and Matheson more powerful than the Chiuese Empire, because this railroad of theirs has been made in defiance of treaty ? From documents which have been published by the Shanghai papers, I gather the following facts. The prospectus of the company, which stated that the Chinese authorities were favourable to the scheme," stated that which was untrue. In 1872 the British Consular authorities asked louve of the prefect of Shanghai, on behalf of the company, to take steps to re-open the old carriage road. In March 1873, the American Consul, who is, I believe, a shareholder in the company, made a similar application to the prefect. The prefact, in asscuting to the road, objected to the levying of tolls upon it, as being contrary to Chinese custom, but made no other difficulty. In May 1873, the road began to be called a tramway by the papers. The prefect wrote to Mr Medhurst to call his attention to this fact, and to repudiate the rumour that the Chinese Government had given its consent to such a scheme."
It is something more than regrettable that a man of Sir Charles Dilke's position and intelligence should have undertaken to present so false a picture of events regarding which his information could not be buts canty and proves to have been antrae. There was no pretence whatever, that there was any intention of re-making an ordinary road. The railway, to begin with, does not follow an old line of road at all! It was explicitly stated to the Chinese Tautai in office when the scheme was projected that a "ateam tramway" was contemplated, and his permission was given for the works to be proceeded with. The first heard of a "railway" (no distinction existing in Chinese between a "steam tramway" and a "railway") was not the request to let the locomotives he admitted duty free. months the foreign and Chinese papers had contained frequent notices of the projected road, while news of the shipment of the engines was given in both the Hongkong and Shanghai preas. The actual fact so ingeniously distorted by the Baronet was that the Chinese officials on the spot approved of the construction of the railway, but preferred to limit their support to a personal absence of hostility. No official report was, I believe, made to the Central Government or if made no orders were received to
For some
( 15 )
check the construction of the works. But the Chinose as usual reserved to themselves the right of objection if popular clamour should prove too strong. When Sir Thomas (then Mr) Wade left Peking, the intentions of the projectors were perfectly well known to the Peking authorities from informal sources, and the Minister himself, though not seeing fit to be present at the opening ceremony, expressed his fall concurrence with what had been done, and even communicated his views to that effect to the Secretary of State. Let those who most uphold Sir Thomas Wade's action in China explain the riddle proposed by Sir Charles Dilke-that H. M. Minister in China should have openly approved "unfair dealings" with the Chinese and the construction of a railway "made in defiance of Treaty ;" and that H. B. M. Consul should have been present at the opening ceremonies and drunk success to the line The assertions are too wildly improbable to find belief oven amongst the most rabid "advanced radicals." I leave aside here the improbability of a house like that of Messrs Jardine, Matheson & Co. engaging in any enterprise "in defiance of the treaty," while the British Minister, moreover, was accepting the hospitality of their table. That firm stands too high to need justification otherwise than by a flat contradiction to the untruthful assertions of their detractor. But now comes the most disingenuous part of the accusation. In May, says the paper, "the Prefect (Taotai) wrote to Mr Medhurst to call his attention, &c., &c.' Would any home reader understand that this official was a new man, the successor of him who had given permission for the road to be constructed? Yet such was actually the fact! The wan who granted permission for a steam tramway was named Shên. The writer of the despatch alluded to by Sir Charles Dilke was named Fêng.
Rather different this from the "untrue statement" of the Baronet. When he knows more of China,-enough at least to enable him to write about it, he will be aware that Chinese offi- cials, like those of many Asiatic nations, do not deem themselves bound by the acts of their predecessors as do those of Western
TIMB.
388
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.