(18)
Charles is certainly the first Englishman who has avowed in print, or in any way that can be called public, his conviction that we have a bad case. If he had said a poor prospect of satisfaction, one could have understood him, But how our demand for satisfaction can be called a bad case it is somewhat difficult to comprehend. The "case" is simply that a British official travelling within the Chinese dominions under the safe conduct of the native Government was basely murdered; that enough is known to induce a moral certainty that certain officials know of the intention to murder him; and that the Chinese Government shewed a most decided disinclination to discover and punish his murderers. How these facts go to make a bad case Sir Charles Dilke may perhaps explain in some future publication—another additional chapter to his "Greater Britain," for instance. But plain, everyday men, foreign and Chinese, find it difficult to characterise our "case" against the native officials as anything but good. Sir Charles is however right in saying that all questions relating to trade should have been kept quite distinct from the one great object of obtaining satisfaction for a dastardly murder. But the general public will not endorse his strictures on Sir Thomas Wade for two good reasons. Firstly, because instead of blaming him for doing what he did to convince the Chinese he was in earnest, they consider him to have displayed a reluctance to act with energy incompatible with his position as the British representative at Peking; and, secondly, the whole of the Foreign residents in China of all nationalities, with scarcely a dissentient voice, consider that he gained nothing whatever in the way of due satisfaction.
The general view is that he has gained some trade concessions of doubtful value—concessions which will benefit the Chinese far more than foreigners—at the expense of our national honour; and that he cannot cover the thorough failure of his negotiations to obtain satisfaction for Mr Margary's murder by a partial success in a totally different way.
I am not oblivious—no British resident in China can be—of the services which Sir Thomas Wade has rendered to his countrymen during his lengthened career. As a scholar he is preeminent, and as Chinese Secretary of Legation his duties were performed in a way that justly earned him the gratitude of his chiefs. But I cannot admit that he has correctly interpreted his duty at this vital period of foreign intercourse with China.
Page 19
It is the fashion to represent the British merchant as caring for nothing but trade interests; and in a sense this is correct. But it may safely be asserted that scarcely a British merchant in China does not feel his flag disgraced by the announcement that the refusal of the Chinese to render proper satisfaction for Margary's murder is to be considered as atoned for by the opening of some new ports. If this was all that was to be got, why was it not obtained within two months of the catastrophe? There is no possible excuse for the failure. People at home as well as the Government were disposed to amply back up any just demands made by Sir Thomas Wade; and the first of those demands should have been, not the payment of blood-money or the cession of doubtful privileges to trade at new places, but the punishment of those responsible. “But,” say the Minister's apologists, “the Chinese refused this demand.” So they "refused" to open the gates of Peking, with a result which has amply justified our action at the time. In this case refusal was impossible if the most ordinary decision had been exhibited. In place of this, with a strong fleet close at hand, a home Government which placed unlimited powers in his hands, and an entire nation anxious to see our honour and prestige vindicated, the British representative shewed himself to be most easily cajoled. If not cajoled he foresaw the end of his negotiations; but that is hardly likely; firstly, because he is too honest (however mistaken) to have misled the Home Government and so allowed the Queen to announce that arrangements were being made for obtaining due satisfaction; and secondly, because, with all his experience, his weak point has always been a too facile belief in Chinese good faith.
When Sir Charles Dilke learns that the text of the Chefoo Convention was received with indignant incredulity by a large proportion of the foreigners throughout the length and
(19)
390
( 18 )
Charles is cortainly the first Englishman who has arowed in print, or in any way that can be called public, his conviction that we have a bad case. If he had said a poor prospect of satisfac- tion, one could have understood him, But how our demand for satisfaction can be called a bad case it is somewhat difficult to comprehend. The "caso" is simply that a British official travell- ing within the Chinese dominions under the safe conduct of the native Government was basely murdered; that enough is known to induce a moral eertainty that certain officials know of the intention to murder him; and that the Chinese Government shewed a most decided disinclination to discover and punish his murderers. How these facts go to make a bad case Sir Charles Dilke may perhaps explain in some future publication--another additional chapter to his "Greater Britain," for instance. But plain, everyday men, foreign and Chinese, find it difficult to characterizo our "case" against the native officials as anything but good. Sir Charles is however right in saying that all questions relating to trade should have been kept quite distinct from the one great object of obtaining satisfaction for a dastardly murder. But the general public will not endorse his strictures on Sir Thomas Wade for two good reasons. Firstly, because instead of blaruing him for doing what he did to convince the Chinese he was in earnest, they consider him to have displayed a reluctance to act with energy incompatible with his position as the British representative at Paking; and, secondly, the whole of the Foreign residents in China of ali nationalities, with scarcely a dissentient voico, consider that he gained nothing whatever in the way of due satisfaction. The general view is that he has gained some tradal concessions of doubtful value-concessions which will beneft the Chinese far more than foreigners-at the expense of our national honour; and that he cannot cover the thorough failure of his negociations to obtain satisfaction for Mr Margary's murder by a partial success in a totally different way. I am not oblivious-no British resident in China can be-of the services which Sir Thomas Wade bas rendered to his countrymen during his length-
H
( 19 )
ened career. As a scholar he is preeminent, and as Chinese Secretary of Legation his duties were performed in a way that But I cannot adant justly earned him the gratitude of his chiefs. that he has correctly interpreted his duty at this vital period of foreign intercourse with China. It is the fashion to represent the British merchant as caring for nothing but tradal interests; and in a sense this is correct. But it may safely be asserted that scarcely a British merchant in China does not feel his flag disgraced by the announcement that the refusal of the Chinese to render proper satisfaction for Margary's murder is to be considered as atoned for by the opening of some new ports. If this was all that was to be got, why was it not obtained within two months of the catas- trophe There is no possible excuse for the failure. People at home as well as the Government were disposed to amply back up any just demands made by Sir Thomas Wade; and the first of those demands should have been, not the payment of blood-money or the cession of doubtful privileges to trade at new places, but the punishment of those responsible. “ Bat," say the Minister's apologists, "the Chinese refused this demand." So they "refused" to open the gates of Peking, with a result which has amply justified our action at the time. In this case refusal was im- possible if the most ordinary decision had heen exhibited. place of this, with a strong fleet close at hand, a home Govern- ment which placed unlimited powers in his hands, and an entire nation anxious to see our honour and prestige vindicated, the British representative shewed himself to be most easily cajoled. If not cajoled he foresaw the end of his negociations; but that is hardly likely; firstly, because he is too honest (however mistaken) to have misled the Home Government and so allowed the Queen to announce that arrangements were being made for obtaining due satisfaction; and secondly, because, with all his experience, his weak point has always been a too facile belief in Chinese good faith. When Sir Charles Dilke learns that the text of the Chefoo Convention was received with indignant incredulity by a large proportion of the foreignera throughout the length and
In
(6 rme, 1+
390
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.