Lo
382
MORE ABOUT JUDICIAL
TORTURE.
Daily Press, 17th June.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
(June 26, 1905.
discovering the well of tender sentiment | the Society would doubtless be satisfied to which only indulgent and hopeful observers see Sweden and Norway showing a united like Mr. CECIL CLEMENTI have 80 farfront in all foreign relations, while reserving independent Juternal administration. Is it loaf to preferred half *
no bread, or out of the question to define the fiscal policy rather, after the recent Edict, we had as as much an internal as a foreign policy?
half a better say,
loaf to a crumb.
professed to find. Hence, they have
The Hongkong Society for the Abolition of Judicial Torture in China, of which the learned Italian Consul, Chevalier VOLPICELLI, is the founder and a most They have not got even the half-loaf yet, enthusiastic member, is entertaining a lively but, as we have said, the prospects are hope that its labours are about to bear good. The Society has gone the right further fruit. There are indications that way to work. NIETSCHE remarks some- Chinese public opinion is being influenced where that the thoughts that govern the successfully; and that the EMPRESS world advance with dove-like steps, and DOWAGER, if she has not already seen it, is the thoughts of Chevalier VOLPICELLI and likely to have her attention drawn to the his friends, destined to govern China in literature on the subject that is being dis- this connection, are tripping softly down seminated. Prince CH'ING has accepted a the hieroglyphic stairs of all the influential number of copies of Chev. VOLPICELLI's vernacular journals. Latin thoughts in pamphlet; and other copies have been dis- latin letters, translated into radicals, are tributed amongst the members of the Wai- sowing the seed of a radical reform. Soon, wu-pu, the Presidents of the various Boards, it is hoped, China will no longer use judi- and other influential persons at Peking.cial torments, for (as the old Scotch war. All this, while it is now receiving the hearty rants in similar circumstances used to support and co-operation of the diplomatic express it) "the better boultinge forth of corps at Peking, was started without any the truth." They will realise, as the case invocation of their aid, the promoters pro- is properly presented to them, how untrust- bably realising that "what is everybody's worthy is all testimony offered in the business is nobody's," and that if the delirium of physical pain; and that initiative were left to the Ministers, the old custom work might be - indefinitely delayed, while those individuals were endeavouring to arrive at a collective decision. It has been suggested in a high quarter, where, as in our case, the distinction drawn by the local Society between torture like ling-ch'ih and the judicial extortion of evidence has evidently been overlooked, that the recent Imperial Edicts instituting reforms in the Chinese penal code were the results of the Chinese desire to forestall the good advice
as
they had heard of as coming. There is not sufficient ground for such a suggestion, the probability being that His Excellency WO TING-FANG moved in the matter without knowing of the half-loaf application about to be made. It was,
we said, a coincidence. We must explain, perhaps, that by the "half-loaf" phrase we mean nothing depreciatory of the Hongkong Society's movement. It agreed, we believe, to confine its efforts to securing the abolition of the Chinese method of extorting confessions and other evidence by torture, in the belief that this was an immediately practicable pro- position involving only an appeal to the common-sense of the Chinese; and that it might be secured without waiting for a wholesale recognition by the Chinese mind of the principles of humanity. WU TING-FANG, being a reformer of whole-hearted ideals
attacked and convictions,
the broad question of principle, without recking of expediency. The wording of the Edict abolishing ling-ch'ih and reducing the severity of Chinese punishments clearly shows that its motif was of the nature of gentling the Chinese temper and of abating its vindictiveness. The wording just as clearly showed, in its care-free meutions of" sum- mary" decapitation, and the like, that the dictator or drafter bad not experienced the humane and pitiful sentiments of those who presumably inspired its origin. Nor do we believe that an Oriental nature can be refined, its disposition softened, by argu. ment; and although the Edict was a sign of success, it was as evident by the instant chorus of official disapproval that it had failed to touch the springs of that quality which " droppeth as the gentle dew from heaven." The members of the local society, including Chev. VOLPICELLI, know the Chinese intimately. They share the senti- ments of Wu TING-FANG; but they do not share his optimisal. They expect to achieve something by appealing to Chinese reason; they leave to others the tedious task of
cruel.
THE
}
one
|
We fear that GLOBETROTTER, and his brethren in Norway, are indeed "somewhat Chauvinistic." Our statement that Norway in 1898 was “refused a purely Norwegiau flag" was not erroneous and our correspondent immediately after contradicting it, admits that "it is true." We and he merely express the same fact a little differently. These Norwegian claims are purely Chau- vinistic. If it be desirable that Norway and Sweden should unite as Scandinavians when dealing with foreigners, it seems to us that it is reasonable to have a flag to mark the union. Great Britain is not ashamed of the fing which clearly shows the union of Scotland, and Ireland, and those countries (unlike Norway) would object to the removal of their national emblems from the union flag. If Wales has a grievance, it is perhaps that she does not figure as prominently thereon. The
fact seems to be that the Norwegian pat- at least is as foolish as it is riots need
difference to recognise the between patriotism proper and improper,
SEETHING POT” OF
NORWAY.
(Daily Press, 19th June). At a time when the affairs of Norway and Sweden are being forced upon the world's attention, any accurate information about either of those countries is very We are,
welcome.
between
15
"He
sane revolution and mere Chau- vinistic rebelliou. M. TAINE in his "Origins of Contemporary
institutes an France
the illuminating comparison between Jacobins and real reformers. The latter may be constructors: they have positive ideals for which to strive. The latter quarrel with accepted facts, mere iconoclasts. knows only that everything frets him, desires to rent his muddled and blustering ill-humour on all around him, . . . fre- quently turns against imaginary evils, follows puerile aims, or even fights against those laws which are wise and beneficent." Why? Because, TAINE shrewdly suggests, "however perfect institutions, laws, and manners may be, since they have preceded him, he has not assented to them at all; others, his predecessors, have chosen for him, and have enclosed him, in advance, in a political mould which pleased thein.” The Union of 1814 was Ł "wise and 32 measure. Its wisdom aud beneficent' beneficence will be again recognised if ever Russia resumes her old policy. Norway for the Norwegians" may be a positive ideal; it is admittedly a Chauvinistic one; and Scandinavia for the Scandinavians We did not intend thus to take n side, but preferred to confine ourselves to pacifying words. GLOBETROTTER has robbed us of our intended reticence.
therefore, glad to publish GLOBETROTTER's interesting letter, although we are extremely sorry to find that our comments on the 12th instant should have so shocked him by their "ignorance." We tried to treat the subject good-humouredly, not wishing to add to the ill-feeling that obviously exists between the two peoples. Since receiving our esteemed Norwegian correspondent's letter, we have read what we wrote, and looked up the "dry bones of history" to see if our recollection of their was at fault. Á. A spirit and purport result, we feel entitled to gently reprimand GLOBETROTTER for charging us with "some The use of the uncompli- inaccuracies.”
we can forgive, mentary word "ignorance in view of the circumstance that we had referred to Norway as the weaker partner. We might have known that no Norwegian would be preferable.
stand that As 2 matter would
1
of
historical record, then, we will plead guilty to one inaccuracy. For our impression that Sweden ever co-operated with Norway in its very successful raids on England, we have been unable to discover any sufficient cause. To Norway be all the honour aud glory.
F
Į
+
*
In a way,
j
The
But in admiration for Norway and are all that he could Norwegians, we desire. We could catalogue more great men than he names; and, by the way, He is we would not put IBSEN first. admittedly a post of great power, but he is the archtype of that emotional Norwegian whom we regard as an unworthy descendant of our common Vicking ancestry. prevailing wind of his temper is, like the adagial Irishman, "agin the Gov'mint." In art and technique be is great; in
We will not dispute GLOBE- philosophy we think him ignoble. That by THOTTER's right as a Norwegian to suggest that bis countrymen are more democratic than the Swedes. We admit ignorando as to that, but we believe that Sweden also is democratic. It had an elective monarchy early in the fourteenth century, and although that Society," arrangement was upset two centuries later, the leaven of democracy has been working
The claim of Norwegians to be more We could wish, recognised" is a just one. for instance, that GLOBETROTTER Wwould recognise his nationals as others see them. Our sympathy is largely with Norway in this matter, because we are not ignorant of the fact that Norway, although prosecuting agriculture vigorously, is, like England, able o furnish sufficient produce for nut home consumption; and it is therefore hard on her that Sweden should seek to force upon her a protectionist policy. But this, as GLOBETROTTER knows, is not really the bone of contention. We deprecate any between the Scandinavian quarrelling peoples, and believe that if the principles of the "National Scandinavian
founded in 1864, were perfectly understood, the Union would be allowed to continue.
Its purview included three kingdoms, but
the way.
ever since. The mountains that divide the so high that the
two countries are not
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.