Oct, 11.
As we rather expected, the foreign landowners of Weihaiwei are not pleased with the terms of rendition as now published. A sample of their complaint was given in the lengthy letter which we published on Tuesday. Now it goes without saying that nobody likes to be suddenly handed over from the protection of the flag under which he has hitherto been living to that of another country. Even if Chinese official administration were far less open to criticism than it is, that feeling must be paramount. In this respect the residents of Weihaiwei are most fully entitled to sympathy; and the more so that Lord Balfour's announcement at the Washington Conference was a piece of utterly ill-considered quixotry. The atmosphere of Washington was charged with maudlin sentiment, fatally discordant with the true interests of China; and the British representatives appear to have been infected by it to the obfuscation of common sense. The usual reward of all such hasty action is now seen. Not one spark of gratitude from the Chinese to Great Britain has been shown and the people who have been doing their best, under very discouraging conditions, to keep up the British end at Weihaiwei are sore and full of a sense of injustice.
But remembering that Great Britain did spontaneously make this promise to China, without any mention of specific terms, beyond the rather loose allusion to ''suitable conditions,' we think that the' agreement for rendition might have been considerably worse than it is. To have given to landowners perpetual leases in place of their present title deeds would certainly have been the most equitable arrangement; but we cannot help thinking that considerations of ''face'' intervened.
It is doubtful whether the Chinese delegates would have agreed to perpetual leases, and the compromise of thirty-year leases, renewable on the same terms at the holders' option, was devised to attain the same end by different means. We certainly do not think that Article 14 means that the leases can be renewed only once, for Article 15 distinctly says that redemption of them by the Chinese Government must be with the lessees' agreement. Our correspondent then goes on to contrast the formation and powers of the Sino-Foreign Municipal Committee of Weihaiwei with those of the Harbin Town Council. But the situations are in nowise parallel. There has never been any question of giving back Harbin to China and the position of Chinese in its administration is therefore entirely different to what it becomes at Weihaiwei under a practically blank promise of rendition. We admit, of course, that the Chinese vote will be able to swamp the foreigners' at Weihaiwei. But the actual functioning of the Committee will largely depend on the tactfulness of its foreign members. At Chefoo, if we are not mistaken, the Municipal Committee could at any time be set on one side by the local Chinese officials. +In practice, harmony prevails and the Chinese members of the Committee would appear at all times very willing to be guided by their foreign colleagues.
As regards policing, maintenance of roads etc., the agreement may well be viewed with doubt by those on the spot. But again it must be remembered that the British representatives on the Rendition Commission were hampered by the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.