26th Nov.
Tae Peking and Tientsin Times of the 19th of November opens with an article which it heads "An Improbable tory."
This "startler," as it|Taty calls it, is the news which we published that our Government has agreed to ise Newchwang as being wit russia's sphere of influence. What is there improbable in that? Outside the authority on which we gave the news, everything points to its being true. The original objection of Russia to the Hongkong Bank's contract with the Railway Administration to finance the Shanhaikuan-Newchwang Railway, was that this railway ran through Russia's sphere of influence, and therefore she could not allow it to be mortgaged to an English institution. On what ground did our Government consent, after swearing that it would never consent? Simply on the ground that Newchwang is. within Russia's sphere. Lord Charles Beresford told us at the China Association dinner what be saw at Newchwang, and various correspondents have told us a good deal more, for Lord Charles was studiously moderate in his statements. He found Newchwang treated as a Russian port, the Russian steamers taking no notice whatever of the Chinese Customs; he found the whole country full of armed 3; and yet our northern contemporary professes to be surprised to hear that Mr. Balfour has agreed to recognise Newchwang as being within Russia's sphere of influence. "That such a transaction could have taken place," it says, " without Peking being aware of it, is in the highest degree improbable; and that such a transaction should have taken place at all exceeds the reasonable limits of omabiity" Unfortunately a good cal goes on that Peking is not aware of until it is too late. As to impossibility, what would have been said of us if we had predicted three-and-a-half years ago that Russia was going to persuade China to buy back the Liaotung Peninsula from Japan. for thirty million taels, and. then present it to Russia? Or what was said at Peking and at home about the Cassini Convention when we first published it? There is philosophy the paradox, Credo quia im; Immediately after this article we come to another headed "Russia's Latest Move." Its text is a statement made recently in the Japanese vernacular papers in the form of a telegram from Peking, that a new secret treaty has been concluded between China and Russia, whereby China in case of emergency is authorised to invoke the services of Russia's army and navy, the commander of the Russian forees in the Liaotung Peninsula being prepared to come whenever summoned to the assistance of the Chinese Government, Our contemporary reads this with the aid of common sense, and understands that it in reality represents merely an excuse for Russia to introduce her forces within the Chinese lines. Our contempoadds: "We do not say it is true, but knowing Russia as well as we do, and taking into consideration several little items of circumstantial evidence, we should very much hesitate to call it false." It is shown that this too is provided for in the Cassini Convention, and it is confirmed by the news from Peking published by us on the 12th as to the Mongol cavalry that were to be moved to Shanhaikuan and there drilled into Cossacks by Russian officers. Our -contemporary concludes by saying: "Is there, or is there not any connection between all the above? Is there, or is there not striking similarity between these statements and the presented testi-many of Russian methods in Russian history? Let the most cursory student of Russia's policy within the past half century deny, if he ¢an, that the analogy is too striking to be passed over."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.