27th December, 'THERE was evidently a deeper meaning than is apparent at first in Mr. Byron Brenan's remark at the recent China Dinner with reference to the relations between the China
"Even if we cease to keep the Association and the Foreign Office Foreign Office straight with our advice, and if our hand is no lon, to be seen in the policy pursued by M. Government, I think the Association has justified its existence, &c." It was in very tepid terms, too, that he spoke of the guest who represented the wayward institution over which Lord Lansdowne presides "We have also Mr. Langley, of the Foreign Office, who is always willing to lend a thetic ear to the wants of the British Community in China." If Mr. Brenan knew at the time or suspected the unhappy changes contained in the new "China and Corea Order in Council 1904," which supersedesthe order of 1865 and the subsequent amending orders, we can understand the tone of his speech. It will be hardly be believed, but it is nevertheless the case, that the new Order abolishes the post of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of China and Corea, and Sir Hiram Wilkinson's successor is only to be a Judge. The establishment of the Supreme Court here in 1865 was one of the wisest steps the British Government could take. The judicial
become much too heavy for it to work, by the prot of Shanghai, had remain a portion of the Consul-General's duties, and the Court has been a conspicuous success. The advantage of having a trained lawyer, a lawyer who has practised at the Bar before being raised to the Bench, has been so evident, that Germany and the United States are now contemplating following our example. The Court has indeed not escaped the tinkering hand of the Foreign Office in the past. In 1891, the posts of Chief Justice and Consul-General were re-combined in the person of the late Sir Nicholas Hannen; but ably as Sir Nicholas filled both posts, it was i found to be an undesirable combination, and on his lamented death, the separation of the offices was reverted to, and we have been fortunate in having them so thoroughly well filled as they have been by Sir Hiram Wilkinson and Sir Pelham Warren. The Supreme Court here has not only been a conspicuous benefit to British residents in China, but it has been an object of admiration and envy to our fellow-residents of other nationalities and to the Chinese who have come in contact. with foreigners; while the fact that the chief judicial authority had the title and standing' of Chief Justice has added proper dignity and lustre to the appointment. The difficulty that has evidently been found in securing a successor to Sir Hiram is no doubt partly due to the insensate chan; that some one in his little
in Council to adopt. While a brief authority has persuaded the King man might be readily willing to take the post of Chief Justice with the emoluments befitting the position, the same man might well hesitate to throw up his prospects at home in. order to take what seems the subordinate position of Judge. No doubt the Foreign Office has been partly induced to take this retrograde step by the knowledge that no other! nation has a Chief Justice in Shanghai; and Lord Lansdowne is so anxious to consider the susceptibilities of other Foreign Powers, that he is anxious to remove anything that looks as if we claimed a preponderating position in Shanghai and the Yangtze Valley. It is a metro, step of the most objectionable kind, whatever be the reason for its adoption, and we wonder that we have not heard that it has been strenuously combatted by the China Association at home. We trust that Mr. Byron Brenan did not mean by the remark quoted above that the China Association had given up the Foreign Office as a bad job.
The new Order in Council, however, has done a still stranger thing than this, and it would be really interesting to know to what genius the following extraordinary provision is due. Smuggling into China is made a criminal offence, punishable by six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of one hundred pounds sterling. No one denies that smuggling is wrong, distinctly wrong; it is a form of steal: ing; it means defrauding the Imperial Maritime Customs and, through that institution, the Chinese revenue, and it is very demoralising to the smuggler. But it is quite a new idea to make the British Government an active assistant in the tection of the Chinese revenue. obviously enough, to allow the Chi-it has been thought enough, and it is
nese Government to protect its own revenue by giving the power to conficate when smuggling is detected but to further make it a penal offence in a British Court to get into China without paying duty on them, is a little too comlacent to the Chinese Government.
at the Law should convert into crimes any acts which the public conscience does not ise to be crimes, is condemned im toto by all moralists, andrightlycondemned. Itis no offence against our King or against Society to smuggle; it isthe duty of the Chinese Government to repress smuggling, as is distinctly stated in Article XLVI of the Treaty of Tientsin, and the remedy is given them in Articles XLVITI and XLIX ofthe same treaty. Not only is it monstrous in itself to make smuggling into China an offence against our King, but it is a direct violation of the principle of the most favoured-nation treatment, unless all the other Treaty Powers subject their nationals to similar legislation. Nor can we suppose that the Commissioner of Customs will welcome the duty of prosecuting every British smuggler in the Supreme Court. Our readers will probably think that this must be a grisly joke on the part of Lord Lansdowne; but it is as serious as it is silly.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.