19th March.
In the " Investors' Review " of the 2nd of February Mr. A. J. Wilson writes under the heading "China"
The most important event of the week publication in the Fortnightly Review" of Sir Robert Hart's third article on the Chinese question. In this he boldly advocates 2 complete abandonment of the fashionable policy of bludgeoning and aggression now applied to that Bmpire. Instead, he would treat the Chinese as a grown-up nation, as we have deen compelled to treat Japan, in short. There can hardly be a doubt that he is right. There never will be peace with or in China if European Powers persist annexing territory there, in claiming extraterritorial rights, in bullying, bleeding, murdering, and robbing its people. 'The progress of the "negotiations," so-called, might prove Sir Robert Hart to be right,' but proof would be wasted on the Powers in their present mood. Ever since Lord Palmerston set the fasfiion and made wanton war on the Chinese because he knew their empire to be in a military sense weak, we and all European Powers have drifted from bad to worse im our treatment of that unhappy country, and nothing will teach any of us sense now but misfortunes. Of these we may soon have plenty and to spare.
We have always been among Sir Robert Hart's most sincere admirers, and have recognised as it deserves the splendid work that he has done as Inspector-General of Customs; but we cannot disguise our conviction of the mischief he is doing by his unusual series of articles in magazines in London and New York. We print the above extract from the "Investors' Review" to show how intelligent people who do not take the trouble to enquire into the matter for themselves are misled by Sir Robert Hart's name and fame into accepting the crude proposals that he has lately made. Hislatestis in the article in the "Fortnightly " for February with the title "China and Non-China," the gist of which is that the only way to secure good relations with China is to abolish extraterritoriality, although in his recent "North American Review" article Sir Robert wrote, just as complacently as he now proposes tO abolish extraterritoriality: "The extraterritoriality and most-favoured-nation clauses will, of course, be retained, whether old treaties be revived, or new ones negotiated after the present disorder ends."
Every article Sir Robert writes begins, of course, with a reference to the siege of the Legations, and perhaps it is fair to quote the following as an antidote to Mr. Wilson's attack on foreigners: "The fiendish cruelty with which the patriotic Boxers and their military colleagues and mandarin patrons plotted and carried out the massacres both of their own people—men, women, and children, who had entered the Christian faith, or who had had personal intercourse with foreigners, or who sold or bought foreign commodities, as well as of many missionaries and their families, is a stain on the national history that can never be atoned for, much less effaced." Yet Sir Kobert, as he says, sees the comic side of this episode: "The Court used every effort to expel the Legations," (it will be noted that Sir Robert distinctly admits that it was the Court which directed the outrage) and the curtis in full flight hundreds "the Legations are still in Peking,
of miles away in search of shelter,—the Princes petted the Boxers and encouraged them to burn down the missionaries' houses—these same Princes are now wandering homeless and the missionaries dwell in their palaces,—the converts formerly went about with fear and circumspection—to-day the pagans kotow to the Christians and implore their protection,—the high officials who sought our lives some few weeks ago are now reported dying off, one after another, by their own hands!" One more sentence we may commend to the notice of those who like Mr. Wilson, think the Chinese have been unfairly treated by foreigners: "Much has already been written on the subject, and it may at once be allowed that whatever has appeared by way of condemnation of Chinese action or recommendation of what the Powers ought now to do in return, was called for and not out of place."
Sir Robert then gives the Chinese—it should rather be a Chinese, for the Peking official view is by no means universal or even general in China—view of the situation. In a few words it is that foreigners came to China uninvited and unwelcome, and then forced treaties down the throats of their hosts which give them privileges which the Chinese would never have conceded except to force. The great obstacle to the maintenance of friendly relations between China and the Powers is the existence of extraterritoriality, says Sir Robert. "On the foreign side offence has been unwittingly and unintentionally given and it has not occurred to most people to suit action to character. After administering the initial blow which claimed equality and dictated terms treaty relations began. Extraterritoriality, the central idea of the treaties, was not a stipula~ tion tending to flatter national pride, gratify officials, or commend itself to the people at large, and some commercial clauses let in a foreign competition which hurt the native traders, or enabled less scrupulous to take advantage of honester men, while a tendency to regard any difference of views as a possible infringement of treaty and make international questions of minor occurrencies accentuated each difficulty; these points apart and for them the treaties themselves are answerable, the foreign mercantile public cannot fairly be accused of having done aught to outrage Chinese feeling or evoke Chinese ill-will." As to the missionaries, Sir Robert shows that practically all that can be said against them is that they have sometimes allowed themselves to be deceived by their soi-distant converts, and if they have interfered in law cases, it is the local officials who are to blame for allowing justice to be perverted. Foreign officials, too, have been on the whole just, reasonable, and considerate in' their efforts to get the treaties executed. In fact, extraterritoriality has not resulted in any real injury being done to China, and yet Sir Robert regards its abolition as the one thing needful, and speaks
that would follow. "Trade would be enthusiastically of the golden age freely permitted everywhere and the investment of capital and development of internal resources meet with no unnecessary obstacle: the Government has already admitted in principle that natives may own steamers on coast and river, may establish telegraphic communication, may build railways, may open mines, may start manulscturiag industries, and the foreigner has only to accept the same position to enjoy to their fullest extent the same privileges,—besides ensuring the removal of what
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.