The arrival of Mr. Justice Feetham marks a strange epoch in the history of Shanghai. Certainly it would never. have occurred forthe men who bought {the land on which Shanghai stands, and were given the right to manage their own affairs within its limits; to the men who fought for it at the Battle of Muddy Flat; or to the long line of distinguished Ministers who reduction prohibited without permission. uphold its rights; that the day would come, when we should seriously be faced with the possibility of handing it back to the Chinese. But times have changed.and Shanghai has learnt that it must reconcile itself to new men and new inotions. That is why "Judge Feetham is here.
One thing may be said plainly, As a matter of simple equity and fact, no reason can be found for, surrendering the foreign control of Shanghai which has any material weight against the solid reasons that exist for retaining it, Adroit Chinese propaganda has somehow given rise to a vague idea that foreigners stole Shanghai, much as we see it now, from China when nobody was looking and continue mightioppress the Chinese within its walls. And we are told that China "will resume possession of Shanghai" in due course, But she cannot resume possession of what, except for the bare earthy she never had. Shanghai is not a concession wrung from China. by persuasion, still less by force. Those Chinese who did tot wish to sell their land to the foreigners in the barren space allotted them for residence by the Chinese Government were not compelled to do so; and some of these old families are still living on their property in. the International Settlement, enjoying its amenities without paying a penny in rates. It is due entirely to foreign enter pri and initiative that Shanghai has become what it is. In all the centuries of its existence. the adjoining native city never gave a sign of becoming, and is not to-day, what the foreign settle ments' are, For the modern claim that Chinese who live in. the latter are thereby entitled to share in their administration, there is no precedent in China, "No taxation without repres tation" is a Western prineip! it has never had and has not to-day any counterpart in China, Even in the adjoining districts of Chapei and Nantao, Chinese have to accept the' officials appointed by Government: they have no say in their selection, no control over them, no right over the taxes they pay; they do not even know how much. revenue their officials collect nor is any accotint rendered of its expenditure. Chinese living in the Me ternational Settlement do 30 largely, if not mainly, for the protection it affords them, It is safe to say that the vast majority are well satisfied with their bargain and, privately at least, desire no-change.
Reason and reality, however, have little in common, especially, in that stage of the decline and fall of democracy, as a practicable scheme of government, on which the world has entered, Already democracy begins to show symptoms of the insanity, which again and again has proved fatal to it in the past and some nations have begun to turn from it in disgust. It would appear to be the accepted principle that the mere assertion of a popular right by a clamorous minority must be taken at face value and immediately gratified. No examination as to the substance of the outery seems to be necessary, nor is it pertinent to [inquire whether, satisfying the demands of the few, the welfare of the many may not suffer the greatest injury. Fact stands little chance against propaganda, and in the contest with expediency justice is almost invariably worsted: Nowhere is this process more tragically, shown than in India, and lesser degree it is at-work in China. Here, however, there is: at least the difference that, the Powers are dealing with an independent. and more or less homogeneous state; and if the latter appears to set its mind in a given direction, it can hardly!
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.